Talk:Beit HaShalom

POV template
I have added a POV template to the article, because it is clearly written from the perspective of the settlers. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I added it again. This article needs to be rewritten from an outside perspective. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And I have added it yet again after another removal. The whole article is written from the settlers' point of view and all of the sources used are Israeli, so the article doesn't conform to policy on neutral point of view. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is supported by reputable sources. The main source is anti-settler. If you feel that any perspective is left out, you are welcome to remedy it by adding to the article. --Jonund (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The section title "Windows scandal" for example is not neutral. The template is both for discussion and to warn readers. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a sectional template if the section is the only problem. You've yet to state anything to allow others to work with, which is the main problem with the "reader's beware!" tag.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  17:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting) The problem is not just one section. It is that the point of view of over 99% of the residents of Hebron is not represented in the article. The only points of view represented are those of the settlers and of Israeli officialdom. What was the reaction of the local Palestinian population to this settlement? What have the Hebron council and Palestinian Authority had to say about it? The article is based on 15 Israeli sources and one Australian - what about Palestinian and other Arab sources? Have they really written nothing about this? These are all questions that the article leaves unanswered, and without answering them it can't be considered balanced. And please don't tell me that the answer is to remedy it myself - I don't know the answers to these questions and don't read either Arabic or Hebrew so don't have access to the sources that I would need to find out. I am replacing the POV tag because without any Palestinian perspective the article can't be said to present a neutral point of view. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Beit HaShalom
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Beit HaShalom's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BBC_The_Geneva_Convention": From Ma'ale Adumim:  From Kiryat Arba:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead rewrite
The new lead seems considerably more POV than the previous version. A few examples: It describes a single building as a "settlement", describes the situation as a "takeover" ignoring the fact that multiple court cases have rule d it was purchased legally etc.. Please get consensus for changes before reinserting this version. Brad Dyer (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It meets the definition of Israeli settlement. It is referred to as a settlement.,, , It also was taken over before the "purchase" was acknowled,  and the "purchase" is mentioned as well. The forgery is well documented.


 * All is well sourced, so do not revert wholesale again. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * What forgery is well documented? Is it on video like the sale of the building is? Did that person not own it? Why are they referred to as "straw man?" Is that a technical term? 75.72.165.43 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The buyer was the straw man. You may take a look into the references. --Wickey-nl (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Original reasearch
To say, in Wikipedia's voice, that the sale of this house is illegal under Palestinian law, we need a source that says this, explicitly (and even then, it likely needs to be attributed to the source). We can't simply quote Palestinian land laws that says "real estate sales are illegal under the following conditions", and then say this falls under those case - that is original research. Brad Dyer (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I still cannot figure it out: is this a line of argumentation based on an alleged WP axiom that logic (1+1=2) alone is not admissible if there's no quote to support it, or is it your own advocacy made formally bullet-proof via WP and PC rules & regulations? I guess it ultimately doesn't matter.

An Israeli settler is not a PA ID-holder (any doubts here?). A non-PA-ID-holder is not allowed to buy land in the PA w/o special permit (reference not good enough?). PA residents proven to have sold real estate to foreigners (i.e.: Israeli settlers) are to be punished by death, according to PA laws (reference not good enough?). So what's the issue? One additional reference putting A+B+C together? Why is any old quotable media outlet better than solid logic?

OK, wasted enough time. Don't need to have the last word, so go ahead, I'm out of here. All the best wishes from my planet, Arminden (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Arminden


 * It is WP policy, thats why. Read WP:RS and WP:NOR. - Galatz (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

A lot of loaded language and a lack of clarity in this article
The situation is described prejudicially as a "take-over". The Palestinian parties in the dispute vaguely refered to as "Palestinians". References to awkward terms like "settler families" to imply moral illegitimacy on their part. Lack of clarity over who "the authorities" are, etc. I'll be combing through and removing some of the egregious stuff, and tagging things that need clarifying. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

In additon there is this paragraph from MNN about settlers attacking people while police looks on. The source is known to be not reliable and as such the claim has to be sourced correctly, which it currently isn't. Judging that quite a bit of time passed there has to be a better confirmation now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%27an_News_Agency#Reliability AmbroseVenture (talk) 10:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Fire at settlers "reported" but not found in any reference
Reference #27 points to a Haaretz article from the same day, where video of settlers shooting at Palestinians is posted. There is no mention in the video, article or any other newsmedia i can find from the time mentioning anything about shots fired by Palestinians at settlers. While something like that might not have surprised me if it did happen, the word "reported" alludes to the fact it was in fact mentioned somewhere, and possibly even in the reference it points to. Until someone can verify a source for this "report" i will remove that short phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.182.142.195 (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with your removal of the reference of Palestinians reportedly opening fire against settlers. While the aforementioned reference #27 does contain the line, "Reports of Palestinians firing at settlers also emerged following the evacuation, and one such incident was also documented by B'Tselem," I checked B'Tselem's website and the only related note I found there did not contain any mention of Palestinians firing back. Sincerely, --Rajulbat (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Beit HaShalom. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1227702434796&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140529133616/http://www.tiph.org:80/en/About_Hebron/Hebron_today/Settlements/ to http://www.tiph.org/en/About_Hebron/Hebron_today/Settlements/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)