Talk:Beit Hanina

Almost all of the history section seems general. Try to produce sources for whatever specific statements you can, and the rest we'll get rid of. In terms of criticism and blame for things like poverty etc., those will need exceptional sourcing due to their controversial nature. Tewfik^Talk 06:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

- I read over the history section and it does seem general, I removed one or two useless sentences but it's still pretty much the same. I can't really find what exactly to remove and what to keep, but if you can manage to do that I have no objections. As for the poverty etc. I will look for a source but if I dont its not important to include that part in the article anyway. I realize that the source was good for information about the city but it tended to be from a Palestinian perspective. For the name of the town I used the source in the references section dedicated to the town of Beit Hanina.

On another note I was wondering whether we should make a section called recent history if you think it has enough info. - Al Ameer son

I can't say I would object, but there isn't very much information, and we'll probably end up pruning even more per above, so it might not be a good stylistic choice. Tewfik^Talk 03:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, Regarding the citation requests, I inserted them because the current source, while it might be the best we have now, is not an objectively good source since it seems to just be a personal essay based on oral history etc. I don't expect you to ransack the library looking for information since none of the information is particularly controversial, but perhaps someone else might :-) Tewfik^Talk 23:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for late response. Thats fine, I thought you made a mistake. I'll try to find some more info online although I doubt I'll find anything. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Population

The article states the population of Beit Hanina to be 2,800. According to statistics published by the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, the Israeli-administrated portion alone had a population of 24,745 in 2005 (see [1]).--128.139.104.49 (talk) 11:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Pisgat Ze'ev, Gibeah (tel al-Ful) and Neve ya'akov are not Bayt Hanina. Sub quarter 71 is including Israeli settlements around Bayt Hanina. This article is about Bayt Hanina alone and not the Israeli settlements surrounding it....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Pisgat Ze'ev is sub-quarter 76 and Neve Ya'aqov is sub-quarter 75. And as far as I can tell from [2], Gibeah is an unpopulated archaeological site. Am I missing anything here?--128.139.104.49 (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You are indeed missing lots. Again you are not talking of the village of Beit Hania, you are talking about the Israeli settlements. This article is not about the Israeli administrative areas, it is only about the Palestinian village.....The Israeli census uses the topiarchy method of counting people, that is including areas not called Beit Hania under the one heading....In Britain we have a similar system however no person would call Willaston or Wistaton by the name Crewe or Nantwich; yet that is where they appear for administrative purposes....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 02:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Which Israeli settlements? Which parts of sub-quarter 71 do you exclude from the village? On what grounds? Where does the 1,450 figure come from? Do you have any reliable sources to back the figure in the article?--128.139.104.49 (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Israeli sub-quarters have nothing to do with it. The village knows where the original village is and who lives there....you did notice that the figures were for al Balad and al-Jadid....the divided village communities did you?....Beit Hanina is the town of Mosques...As I pointed out it is a different method of accounting and not the Israeli way....So your sub quarters are irrelevant. As said previously the villages don't consider themselves part of the town, the Israeli authorities count them as part of a town.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the article states: "The older western village ... is subject to the Palestinian National Authority's Jerusalem Governorate ... while eastern daughter village called al-Jadid ... is a neighborhood in the Israeli-annexed municipality of Jerusalem". Thus, Beit Hanina al-Jadid is part of the territory administrated by the Jerusalem municipality. Specifically, it corresponds to sub-quarter 71 thereof (as can be seen in this map). If you have published material that reflects a different view of the location and population of Beit Hanina al-Jadid, please present it so that we can examine it. The figure appearing in the article is still unreferenced.--128.139.104.49 (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You are correct the article is unreferenced but it is not dubious. The figures are a sub set of a sub set and not to Israeli boundaries. Your sub quarters refer to the Israeli method of counting Palestinians. The figures presented are not my figures. As an wiki editor why don't you find a source.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, both Beit Hanina al-Balad and al-Jadid are within the State of Israel. Until there is an official "State of Palestine," these areas are within Israel's jurisdiction and should be recognized as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.32.192 (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Undue section

The history section talk about big events like six day war,crusades and etc. how this controvesy should be part of the article?It should be removed per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE--Shrike (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. It was condemned by the EU.

The EU isn't in the middle east and is a poor judge of Jewish issues. Historically they are on very weak ground and would best worry about their own problems. They have no valid input. Unless you want to say that the EU is the historical cultural offshoot of Rome, which in case they should definetely just but out since they created this mess in the first place when they burned the temple and murdered all the Jews in Israel in the first place.

In the context of the neighborhood it's a significant event reflected in RS. How can a condemnation by the EU, an organization that represents 27 nation states, be undue ? Sean.hoyland - talk 07:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Because compared to crusades its a small event not worthy to mention if we had a detailed history section that should probably be worthy of inclusion right now it takes 4 lines while intifada is two lines.You don't feel there are some problem with that?--Shrike (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it as a problem because we're here to build articles rather than constrain their growth based on current lack of content. We are required by policy to include significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. If other aspects of the topic are lacking content, content should be added so that a proper balance emerges over time that properly reflects RS coverage. The article isn't anywhere near the 32 KB recommended max yet so there's plenty of room for growth. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that article could be larger but in current state its WP:UNDUE"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."

Yes, but "overall significance to the article topic" means in proportion to the total amount of information about the topic in reliable sources, not in proportion to the total amount of information in the Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article isn't a reliable source so it's not a reliable way to gauge the weight that should be given to each aspect of the topic. Your premise seems to be that the current state of an article represents, for each aspect of the topic, the coverage of the topic in reliable sources, but that isn't a valid premise. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I would say the story actually is worthy of mention since it was the first eviction of a Palestinian family in Beit Hanina. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

First of all reliable sources in the article don't say that.Second my concern per WP:RECENTISM WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS its still stands.--Shrike (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Haaretz, which is used in the article, headlined with it: First Palestinian family evicted from Beit Hanina. In addition to Sean's reasoning, I'm sure you know how notable and newsworthy these incidents where Palestinians are evicted and replaced by Israeli settlers in Palestinian towns/neighborhoods in East Jerusalem are. See the articles on Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan for example where whole sections are dedicated to the subject. These stories are not undue weight and are just another episode in these places' histories. Most of the history in this particular article is quite general anyway and much of the specific facts are backed by an arguably unreliable source, Beit Hanina Community Center (which I actually used back when I was a rookie), which also happens to be a dead link. Regardless of the rest of Beit Hanina's history, I just have to disagree that this event isn't notable enough to warrant mention here. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beit Hanina. 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://www.beithanina.org/en/bh/about_bh.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090223194021/http://www.beithanina.org/en/bh/about_bh.html to http://www.beithanina.org/en/bh/about_bh.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beit Hanina. 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/20101210081942/http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/Portals/_PCBS/Downloads/book1487.pdf to http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/Portals/_PCBS/Downloads/book1487.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Beit Hanina. 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/20110224172542/http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=874 to http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=874
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.france24.com/en/20120427-clashes-jerusalem-over-occupied-palestinian-homes
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120902212409/http://cdf.edu.ps/en/about-2/brother-schools-in-palestine to http://cdf.edu.ps/en/about-2/brother-schools-in-palestine
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613141427/http://www.citypass.co.il/english/FirstLine3bigmappE.htm to http://www.citypass.co.il/english/FirstLine3bigmappE.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070113183332/http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=899 to http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=899
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090714033932/http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=1900 to http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=1900
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927020217/http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=2969 to http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=2969

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)