Talk:Bethlehem

I would like to start by thinking about what are we exactly talking about when we refer to Bethlehem? Most of the entries have mentioned, history, religion, biblical figures who contributed somehow to its historical and religious significance, Architecture and buildings, current politics..etc. The whole definition of the city is - in my opinion- so incomprehensive and it gives the reader a stress on some of the facets overlooking the rest – which is numerous - of the spatial aspects of the city. Its like someone describing an orange for you saying its juicy with a bit sweet sour taste, forgetting the shape, the colour, the tree, the seeds, the smell, the season, the nutritious value, the juice, the variations, the living environment, the leaves of the tree, the blossoms, the colour of blossoms, their smell, the way it reproduces, the orange market, the way oranges are preserved, and what other products can be made out of oranges ……etc. What I think is essentially missing: is approaching Bethlehem from a spatial perspective, which means, 1- “Spaces” including architecture styles, traffic, Environment, transportation, regional connectivity, location, geography, history of architecture, built up fabric, green structures (vegetation), paths and streets, public spaces, refugee camps, …etc. 2- “Social Issues”, who’s living there (People), religions, welfare, families, traditions and costumes, social services (housing, medication, schools ..etc), history of migration from and to the city, life style, cultural life, night life, entertainment …. etc. 3- “Economy”, Agriculture, Income, businesses, tourism, production, institutional services, employment, GDP, savings, banks, …etc. 4- “Politics” borders, power and control, local administration, participation, regional and national administration, law, individual freedom, democracy, occupation, PNA, Israel, political parties, flow of people and goods, mobility, …etc. Therefore, I believe personally, that the portions of information about spaces, not only Palestinian but also world wide should be balanced on WIKIPEDIA, so to give the reader and the viewer a more comprehensive view about cities rather than limited and directed to some aspects. This will limit misinformation and perpetual dispute.

I moved this paragraph here:

Prior to the 1948, several Jewish communities were established in the corridor that connects Jerusalem and Bethlehem, known as the Gush Etzion block. The block was overrun by Arab riots of 1929, and ruined completely by Jordanian (then Transjordanian) forces in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

To start with, what corridor? The Ezion bloc is south of Bethlehem, which is, in turn, south of Jerusalem. In 1929, there was one settlement there, so it was not a bloc (and there is no k in bloc either). Also, you don't "ruin" a settlement. You destroy it. You remove it. You evict the people and lay ruin to it. Whatever. Not ruin.

Finally, a general note. Yes, the Intifada is raging, and Bethlehem has been in the news recently. However, Bethlehem has been an important city historically long before Sharon, Arafat, or the Ezion Bloc. It was the birthplace of David and of Jesus. It has a remarkable church with Byzantine and Crusader components. As a matter of fact, to the Crusaders, this was the most important site in the country after Jerusalem. While I do not denigrate the importance of the Palestinian uprising, I think that this article should better reflect the city's history over the past 3,000 years, instead of concentrating on the past three years. Danny

By the same logic, I'm also moving the following paragraph here:

After the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has, as it claims, restored old Jewish communities, and built many new ones as settlements. Settlements are off limits to Palestinians and can only be occupied by Jewish citizens of Israel. Palestinians claim that they prevent the urban development of Bethlehem and severs it from some adjacent Palestinian communities. Palestinians refer to the settlements as colonies. See Israeli settlements for a complete discussion.

Without the previously-removed paragraph, which set the context for this one, it seemed totally inappropreate where it was.

uriber 15:36 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Zero0000, no one said that all the people inside the church were gunmen. where DID YOU get that idea? i have added some links for you that use the word "gunman" from a wide variety of sources, including the New York Time, Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, etc.

The image

I may be in the wrong here, but I have an itch about the image attachd to this article. the Wikipedia is trying to stay out of politics and be as neutral as possible, yet this image is showing a current political affair (though a very painful and enraging subject) with the "security wall" around the west bank, passing near and through Bethlehem. Now we are talking about a city with thousands of years of history, a major religious center, lots of churches and archeology... and the best picture to convey that is a 10 metere concrete wall? Could we consider to take this image to the seperate wikipedia entry it deserve (and it certainly does!), but this is not what this city deserves to have representing it. --SeeFood 19:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. This is the first time I opened this article and this strikes as a pure propaganda. Are we going to slap such images in all articles describing cities along the barrier route? Moreover, are we going to have such images in all articles next to barriers/walls/fences around the world? ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 19:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are much better images in de:Betlehem and pl:Betlejem. I'm not sure how to xfer images from one wp to another, so someone w/ a bit more expertise...have at it. ~~I can translate the captions for you from both articles, if necessary.~~ The German article's image caption says "New buildings in Bethlehem", and the Polish article's image caption says "Entrance to the Church of the Nativity"... Tomer ^TALK 20:16, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

We do need images like the Church of the Nativity and the Mosque of Omar, yes. We also need images that illustrate the current situation. I inserted one that is more specific to Bethlehem than the previous one. I took it myself. The fact that Israel has turned Bethlehem into a large prison by walls and barbed wire is one of the principle components of life there today. --Zero 14:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zero, get off your high horse. This is not a blog or a soapbox. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 17:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind that there's a picture of that stupid wall somewhere in the article, and agree with the image Zero chose, as well as where it's placed (although I think it would look better on the right, but that's not really worth fighting about)... At the same time, I think the image that was there before was just -- wrong...not only was it a lame picture, but giving it prominent placement is a political statement. I don't mind political statements, but they don't belong in articles, unless they're in quotes, and being made by someone other than WP editors. That said, if someone is in Bethlehem (Ramallite maybe?) and could take pics while you're there of a few of the historically significant sites, they'd make a great addition to this article. Tomer ^TALK 21:56, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Zero that life in a cage has become an integral component of our lives, Bethlehemites included. It seems to me that Tomer agrees to the more recent picture and where it sits in the article, and I think given the subheading, it's fine. As for myself, I haven't been to Bethlehem in many months for the same reason I haven't been to Nablus, it's just not worth the hassle (used to be 20 minutes, now it's 3 hours). The time before last that I was in Bethlehem, the soldier at the "containers" checkpoint asked for my backpack, and in front of everybody else in the taxi, just took out all the items one by one and threw them to the ground. Therefore, no way in hell I'd take a camera with me. But I'm sure there are pics on the web and I'd be happy to look them up. The only traveling I do lately is to the Jordan border (which is just as unfortunate - being in Jordan that is - but it's the only way in and out of Palestine). I'll see if I can find some photos later on, I think Tomer's suggestion that the article would benefit from them is a good one. Ramallite ^(talk) 22:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, checkpoints and barriers cause inconveniences. Unfortunately, some soldiers are negligent, pushy or tired. Unfortunately, some users prefer to use WP talk pages as a soapbox. Let's keep perspective: the checkpoints are there in order to save innocent lives. Israeli kids, just as any other kids, should be safe from bombers in their busses, shopping malls, cafes and discos - and if it takes a barrier around Bethlehem and Ramallah, so be it. Your anger is misdirected, but I guess it is more convenient to blame Israel rather than HAMAS & Co. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 23:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL... okay! Ramallite ^(talk) 00:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was in Bethlehem with a camera last July and can provide a couple more photos. It might take me a little while. --Zero 03:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

photos

Here are some photos. Feel free to move them into the article. --Zero 07:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Entrance to the Church of the Nativity, July 2005

Interior of the Church of the Nativity, July 2005

The church image looks to me like it might be the wrong way round? Palmiro | Talk 16:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, all these images are definitely the right way around. I took these photos less than 2 months ago and remember the layout very well. --Zero 02:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. I have no memory of a bench on the left of the entrance. Oh well. 66.198.41.24 15:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of images of this place on the web and they all show that bench in that position. --Zero 21:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I believe you! It just surprises me that I would misremember it like that. Palmiro | Talk 18:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I used one of the pictures in a slight re-organization, I hope that's ok. I also hope somebody can help find a nice panoramic view of Bethlehem, and I will actually look through some personal albums (which I forgot I have in my parents' house) to see if I find something nice (all the pictures I have were taken before the ugly wall ruined the landscape) - but it might take me a few days. Ramallite ^(talk) 02:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice. :-) Tomer ^TALK 23:25, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Zero or Ramallite, or anyone really, do you know enough about this Mosque of Omar (which is currently a redirect to Dome of the Rock for whatever reason) to write something up on it? Possibly even an article of its own? Tomer ^TALK 23:27, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Palestinian city

Guy Montag, please stop pushing your POV. The population of Bethlehem is almost entirely Palestinian, it is in the West Bank which is generally described as part of the occupied Palestinian territories, it is in historic Palestine, it is not claimed by any other state, and it is under the control of the Palestinian Authority. If that doesn't add up to a "Palestinian city", God knows what would. This has nothing to do with Palestinian sovereignty, and nobody ever claimed it did. If you can't justify your edit, which is causing widespread disagreement, then don't make it, and don't resort to misleading claims that this represents consensus reached somewhere else when it's blatantly obvious that that is not the case. Palmiro | Talk 17:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Nativity

According to senior Tanzim commander Abdullah Abu-Hadid, the church was specifically chosen due to its abundant supplies of food, water, and as a focal point for international outcry ^{[citation needed]}.

Does anyone know what this sentence means?

Guy Montag 18:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bethlehem in Galilee as the place of Jesus' birth

There is a segment in the article professing that some researchers consider Bethlehem in Galilee as being the place that the New Testament refers to when describing the birth of Jesus. Since the gospels of Luke and Matthew both specifically place the Bethlehem they refer to in Judea, I question this paragraph, and would appreciate some kind of validation. If there are indeed some serious scholars who back a claim similar to the one made in the article, I am still sure that rephrasing it would be necessary to correctly describe their oppinion. /Dcastor 01:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because the gospels are always right?... Nonetheless, my appologies for adding no source information. Start with this: [1], which is the research of the archaeologist from the Israel Antiquity Authority. This is new data, and can also be found in brief at Bethlehem, Galilee. There was also a pretty good article on this topic in the November/December edition of the magazine Archaeology, which is published by the Archaeological Institute of America [2]. I'll add the paragraph back in. If there is further debate, please add it here, rather than deleting the information. Many thanks! Hiberniantears 02:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I didn't just delete the information. I posted my question above, and after getting no response I deleted in accordance with my doubts. I waited two days, maybe I should've waited a bit longer. Secondly I am not (here and now) arguing that the gospels are always right, but when discussing what the gospels are referring to, they are obviously a primary source for information. It is obvious that the NT does not refer to Bethlehem in Galilee, but to Bethlehem in Judea. This said, one can of course, like this Israeli arcaeologist, claim that the NT is mistaken. Personally I find the argument in the links provided very weak, but they do indeed support that some researchers find Bethlehem in Galilea as a propable place of birth for Jesus. I will try to edit the segment to better correspond to the facts. /Dcastor 15:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dcastor. I concur with your edit, and appreciate the effort you've made. Hiberniantears 19:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:71.10.178.202 - Please do not revert the Bethlehem in Galilee section. If you wish to discuss changes to it, please do so here.

Hiberniantears 16:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I strenuously object to the characterization of this article as being about the "West Bank territory of Israel". If anything it is the "West Bank territory OCCUPIED BY Israel", which is more accurate. The West Bank is not an internationally accepted/acknowledged part of Israel. It is only (erroneously and illegally) claimed by Israel.

The introductory article sentence should be altered to correct this egregious misrepresentation.

The West Bank is not an Israeli territory!