Talk:Beit El

[untitled section]
Please stop with the POV vandalism. Why is it not POV vandalism to right articles about Arab cities Pro-Arab but not not to make articles about Jewish cities Pro-Jewish? 68.80.133.163 02:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we could try not to be "pro" anyone? Grace Note 04:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

identification of Bethel
I'm not very happy with the identification of Bethel section, but I'm going to cite both sources. One is quite old and may not reflect modern scholarship - but equally it may, and it's clearly the basis for our article on Bethel itself. The other is a far-right Israeli website which may well reflect a political bias. WP policy on reliable sources indicates that extremist organisations should only be taken as a reliable source for information regarding themselves, and gives Hamas as an example of such an organisation. Clearly, Hamas isn't by any means as extremist, in the context of Palestinian politics, as this website appears to be in the context of Israel politics. Nevertheless, I think it might as well be included. Palmiro | Talk 18:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

While you're at it, can you not remove the identification of the West Bank with "Judea/Samaria", because after all it's what they call it, and can you try to accept that "took control of" is factual, even if it is what "they say". These are such minor points but they are the likely focus of yet another edit war. By all means, moderate the text so that it describes who calls the area what. Grace Note 05:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "Took control of" is a ridiculous euphemism used only to avoid using the word "occupied", which is far more precise. Palmiro | Talk 15:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, on your other point, I did not "remove the identification of the West Bank with Judea and Samaria". "Samaria" appears in the first line, and I left it there. I took out the repetition. I don;t see why every time the West Bank is mentioned we have to give an alternative name. We don't, as far as I know, do this for any other place whose name is a source of controversy. In fact, as far as I can see, we generally only give the alternate names in the article on that topic, if you look for example at references to "Persian Gulf", "Londonderry", "Northern Ireland", "Macedonia" I think you will see that that is normal. So the version I had already gave the alternative name more recognition than we normally do in such cases. Given that this represents, in my view, a balanced approach, I think both your immediate revert and your peremptory remarks here were quite uncalled for. Palmiro | Talk 23:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Page Layout
The page layout is confusing. For some reason all the edits are located at the bottom of the page. I would love to fix it, but I don't know how and would really appreciate if someone else did. Leppi 10:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

pro settelment website
I think those words are extraneous when describing the ancient location of bethel. Anyone can open up the link for themselves and see that it is a pro-settlement website. The fact that it is a pro-settlement website does not seem to a piece of information that is relevant to the article, but something that should be put only in the footnote. Leppi 07:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Rav Aviner
How can there be no mention of Rabbi Shlomo Aviner???Eliezerh 21:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You are write, not only that - there was a factual mistake. The editor had written that Rabbi Zalman Baruch Melamed is the "chief rabbi of the settlement. In fact - according to the Chief Rabbinate of Israel - Rabbi Aviner is the rabbi of Bet-El. Rabbi Melamed was never the rabbi fo Bet-el though at one time, he did appoint himself to the rabbi of Bet El B, the settlement that he and his students founded after leaving Bet El. He is also of course the Rosh Yeshiva of the Bet El Yeshiva, and a founder of its many institutions. Stating the fact that he is not the rabbi of Bet-el does not take away from his other achievements. I hope that whoever edits this page, will not write false statements. Therefore I changed the sentence about Rabbi of Bet el to conform with the truth--213.151.32.56 08:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, as you get to know wikipedia, you'll understand that there is n 'editor' and that all pages can be editied and improved by anyone. If there is something wrong, it is commendable to fix it, no questions are needed. One nice thing about wikipedia is this principle WP:AGF. We do not assume alterior motives from the start and at most accept that whoever inserted that sentence might have been ignorant of other information. I've since made the change. On the town website both are presented see here. --Shuki 09:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Shuki, I assume that you did not understand my comment. The editor refers to the person who edited the paragraph, not THE editor. I would assume that he is innocent, if not for the face that there are people who are constantly trying to erase Rabbi Aviner, physically and virtually. In any case the FACTS are that Rabbi Aviner is the only official rabbi of Bet El, although Rabbi Melameds followers have attached this title to his name, there is no legal basis for it at all. --213.151.32.55 16:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. Referring to an 'editor' is a bit vague since multiple people have edited the article. It's hard to disect edits to a specific editor unless you can actually pinpoint the specific edit of that line. Gicen that, it's not really possible to erase anyone notable from wp, and I suggest you read WP:NPOV. You will discover that even opponents' claims are legitimate info in WP. And FWIW, the facts are whatever you can find a reliable source (WP:RS) for. For now, the main website is a pretty strong testimonial. The Hebrew WP does not even mention a 'chief rabbi' but rather two neighbourhood rabbis, an altogether different status. --Shuki 19:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Shuki - that is true, since in hebrew we use the term "the rabbi of" when referring to a rabbi of a small town. The editors of Israel National News however like to refer to their rabbi (Rabbi Melamed) as the chief rabbi of Bet-el. When we started this discussion the original text was that Rabbi M. is the chief rabbi of Beit-el which not only is wrong, it completely erases the legally elected rabbi who happens to be Rabbi Aviner. Even if you want to leave both names it would probably be closer to the truth to erase the term chief rabbis and leave it at the rabbis of Beit el are ...--213.151.32.55 21:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Alas, a good compromise. See here: Chief_Rabbi. I admit that 'chief rabbi' is a simple term that says a lot. In Hebrew, the term 'city rabbi', or 'village rabbi' is used, do you suggest to instead use these titles on other articles? --Shuki 22:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Identifying the country as Israel
This settlement is not part of Israel, so in the interests of being factually correct I've removed that reference. I've also changed the words 'civilians' to 'Israeli settlers' because that best reflects who arrived there and doesn't give the impression that no-one lived in that area before Israeli settlers arrived. --Whirlygirly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whirlygirly (talk • contribs) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"Peace Now" report not reliable.
My family owned land in that area during the 19th century but I noticed that the "peace now" report is discriminating between Jewish ownership of land and Muslim ownership of land. This report has to be removed from the reference / quote list, but because I didn't want to vandlise the page I just added a note on that with a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.223.46 (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Bias
The edit made by Whirlygirly is bias, based on her/his own ideological stands, and unsupported by reliable sources. It needs to be changed. Yogi Bearstein (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The whole article, but especially the Template at the beginning seems to distort the status of Beit El as an entity. I removed the template in Beit El, as it distorts the actual status of the entity. For a user reading the page it seems like Beit El is an uncontroversial city in Israel. The article make it seem like the Israeli point of view, and not the international point of view, concerning the status of Beit El is favoured. Karimmtl 11:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karimmtl (talk • contribs) 11:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

"Peace Now" citation missing or incorrect.
I tried to click the link regarding a citation to verification that the "land was owned by a 7 year old Palestinian" and the link is incorrect. It only points to an article in Haaretz that is non-authoritative. Rather than alter someone elses submission I put a note behind the citation that there is a problem with it. I didn't say the information was wrong or right, I just asked for an accurate verification of the claim the citation supposedly verifies. I've searched pretty exhaustively and cannot find any verification of that claim so if someone has something concrete please correct the citation and feel free to delete my note. If I could find verification I would have done all that myself. CloaknDagr (talk) 02:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

House demolition section
The whole section is sourced to here: http://writingtw.blogspot.com/2009/11/court-to-govt-why-destroy-beit-el.html. this doesn't seem like a reliable source for anything. Furthermore, the paragraph: ==House demolition== In November 2009, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the state to explain within 30 days why it had ordered the demolition of ten buildings in Beit El. The attorney for Kiryat HaYeshiva Beit El company presented documentation showing that the land on which the buildings stand was legally purchased from the previous Arab owner. The buildings are located on the lower heights of Pisgat Yaakov, also known as Jabal Artis, overlooking Beit El to the south and west.<:ref>Supreme Court to Government: Why Destroy Beit El Buildings is plagiarized from the blog. I'm moving it here for comments and until a reliable source can be found, for which I'm looking now. I wouldn't have removed the paragraph if it weren't plagiarized, but just noted that the source is not reliable.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Collecting potential sources here:
 * 1) seems like a letter to the editor maybe
 * 2) seems to be talking about another issue
 * 3) seems relevant but is clearly about a different case
 * 4) In the right time frame, but has little details about houses themselves

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beit El. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930024606/http://peacenow.org/images/112106PNReport.pdf to http://peacenow.org/images/112106PNReport.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beit El. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.fmep.org/analysis/reference/SpiegelDatabaseEng.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.fmep.org/analysis/reference/israeli-defense-ministry-database-on-illegal-construcion-in-the-territories.
 * Added tag to http://www.fmep.org/analysis/reference/israeli-defense-ministry-database-on-illegal-construcion-in-the-territories
 * Added tag to http://www.fmep.org/analysis/reference/SpiegelDatabaseEng.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706021237/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Beit El. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029195425/http://www.torahmitzion.org/pub/parsha/5765/lechlecha_gen.pdf to http://www.torahmitzion.org/pub/parsha/5765/lechlecha_gen.pdf
 * Added tag to http://lawcourses.haifa.ac.il/baltimore/index/main/about/files/2007/3.doc
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130412223512/http://lawcourses.haifa.ac.il/baltimore/ to http://lawcourses.haifa.ac.il/baltimore/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130611190742/http://www.yesh-din.org/userfiles/file/Petitions/Jabel%20Artis/Jabel%20Artis%20-%20Petition%20Summary%20ENG.pdf to http://www.yesh-din.org/userfiles/file/Petitions/Jabel%20Artis/Jabel%20Artis%20-%20Petition%20Summary%20ENG.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029195403/http://yesh-din.org/userfiles/file/Petitions/Jabel%20Artis/HCJ%209060-08%20ruling%20070512.pdf to http://yesh-din.org/userfiles/file/Petitions/Jabel%20Artis/HCJ%209060-08%20ruling%20070512.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131015154412/http://peacenow.org.il/eng/content/beit-el-east to http://peacenow.org.il/eng/content/beit-el-east
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120519064135/http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/05/01/3094341/battle-lines-drawn-in-west-bank-neighborhood to http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/05/01/3094341/battle-lines-drawn-in-west-bank-neighborhood
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130611190742/http://www.yesh-din.org/userfiles/file/Petitions/Jabel%20Artis/Jabel%20Artis%20-%20Petition%20Summary%20ENG.pdf to http://www.yesh-din.org/userfiles/file/Petitions/Jabel%20Artis/Jabel%20Artis%20-%20Petition%20Summary%20ENG.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130306212803/http://www.yesh-din.org/hottopview.asp?postid=18 to http://www.yesh-din.org/hottopview.asp?postid=18
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130611190742/http://www.yesh-din.org/userfiles/file/Petitions/Jabel%20Artis/Jabel%20Artis%20-%20Petition%20Summary%20ENG.pdf to http://www.yesh-din.org/userfiles/file/Petitions/Jabel%20Artis/Jabel%20Artis%20-%20Petition%20Summary%20ENG.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140830090631/http://peacenow.org.il/eng/BeitEl296units to http://peacenow.org.il/eng/BeitEl296units
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050830153425/http://www.bet-el.muni.il/ to http://www.bet-el.muni.il/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2017
The external website for the community has changed from bet-el.muni.il to bet-el.info Evan Pokroy - Nullius In Verba 13:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &thinsp;&mdash; Ammarpad (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2019
change "The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this." to "The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this. The U.S. government also does not consider Israeli settlements in the West Bank to be illegal under international law." Source: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/19/united-states-reverses-stance-on-israeli-settlements/ Judy Somerville (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done in the "Legal status" section per source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The statement from Pompeo is being given too much credence here, with the phrasing and placement making it appear like it has more weight or permanence than it does. The very WP article the source ultimately points to is rife with information contradicting not just the decisiveness with which the statement was made (citing Pompeo himself from the same speech) but also cites previous US actions that seem —at the very least— more 'formal' and relevant than a remark within a speech from Pompeo. For example [from the article]:
 * 1. Since Israel first occupied the territories,  only  the Carter administration, based on a 1978 State Department legal opinion, has  outright declared settlements illegal
 * 2. Then-Secretary of State John F. Kerry, in a speech explaining the abstention, referred to “the proliferation of settlement outposts that are illegal under Israel’s own laws.”
 * 3. Pompeo: “The United States government is expressing no view on the legal status of any individual settlement,”
 * 4. Pompeo: “we are not addressing or prejudging the ultimate status of the West Bank.”
 * 5. Softening the U.S. stance on settlements comes as a late-breaking boost...
 * While it greenlit and gave tacit or soft approval to continue settlement expansions (as noted by the WP article), Pompeo's statement neither has legal weight nor does it represent some permanent or formalized stance. At most it has relevance from the fact that the US is a powerful force in the conflict but it is otherwise just something a foreign secretary from a nation from hundreds of other nations said.
 * Finally, statement number 1 above from the article is perhaps the only one that carries some sort of official weight as a "legal opinion" enshrined in writing from the State Department as compared to various softening and strengthening statements from various officials as administrations have come and gone over the years.
 * - Nandofan (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Answered edit requests should not be re-opened. The correct course if you disagree with an implemented edit is to, as you have done, start a discussion here to argue against it. Courtesy pings to and . — Sirdog (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sirdog oh ok. sorry, I'm still learning. It's impressive to see all the work that goes into building and maintaining these articles. Thanks. I had thought opening it would reactivate the discussion. Nandofan (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)