# Talk:Bethlehem

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Hi, many people wonder if Bethlehem is in Israel or Palestine, that’s why I liked the previous opening sentence - “Bethlehem is a city in the West Bank,  in the State of Palestine…”, but I see that it has recently been changed to “…is a city in the Israeli-occupied West Bank”, which of course is factually correct, but in my opinion saying first thing that it is Israeli-occupied makes it seem like it is Israeli, more so than Palestinian. What about removing the “Israeli” from the first line, only to make it clear it is Palestinian, and leaving the part about Israeli occupation where it is already mentioned, further down? Thank you. 2A00:A041:3B9A:AC00:11E2:7CD6:40A5:1A3C (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we change the introduction to "Bethlehem is a Palestinian city in the Israeli-occupied West Bank". This adds clarity to the legal status of the city. Zoozoor (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
@Remsense
Hello, I see that you reverted the first sentence to include "Israeli-occupied" before West Bank.
-
While this is an accurate description, some of us would prefer it be rephrased, so that the UN legal status of the city (Palestinian) is more obvious to readers who wish to skim the article.
-
I'd like your input on this discussion so we can make an informal consensus about the lead. Zoozoor (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I think the present phrasing is pretty clear and doesn't really create the problem you describe. Remsense ‥ 论 05:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Re: this article post-revert:
This phrasing is surprising. Look at the lede for most any other page describing some city, say, Barcelona or Donetsk Oblast. I expect the first link naming the country/region/etc. a city is in to link to the page on that country/region/etc. Using a phrasing like "...is a city in Palestine, in the West Bank" is obviously factually correct and links directly to the appropriate containing region with two useful levels of granularity. Note, for example, that the third paragraph on Donetsk also describes how that region is currently under military occupation in quite some detail: it is and has been relevant enough to deserve that kind of placement. Maybe the opening or the lede of this article deserves more detail about the impacts of this occupation, but that sounds more like an enhancement someone could make than a flaw in what stood.
I think the version in my edit was better on those fronts, so I'm currently feeling like we should just let that version rock, and let anyone so interested improve it further. If you've got any objections, I'd like to see something more constructive than "I think it was pretty clear before" or "I don't feel like this an improvement." Why? nfd9001 (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Remsense hasn't responded, and it's been a week. I think it would be okay for you to be bold and restore your edit. Zoozoor (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I mean, I still think the present phrasing is perfectly clear, but if others are convinced there's a problem I don't see the need to stonewall. I don't feel there's much to say about it—it's not a big change—I just don't see the problems described above when I read the present wording, sorry. Every article's different, and while the WP:OTHERCONTENT argument here isn't entirely hollow I don't think it's changing my mind. I did try. That is to say, the proposed change is fine; I meant what I said before in that I don't think it's an improvement, but go for it. Remsense ‥ 论 05:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
A reference to the occupation in the first sentence is not needed for the reasons mentioned in this edit summary. In addition, "Israeli-occupied West Bank" is a redundant and tautologous phrase, since all of the West Bank is occupied (that's its deal), and there is no "un-occupied West Bank" to contrast this with. It's like talking about the "wet ocean". Iskandar323 (talk) 06:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The article includes the line, "Christian families that have lived in Bethlehem for hundreds of years are being forced to leave as land in Bethlehem is seized, and homes bulldozed, for construction of thousands of new Israeli homes." The citation, source [11], does not corroborate this. The closest the article (which is not directly hyperlinked for some reason?) comes is in the paragraph: "Down in Beit Sahour, which is mostly Christian, residents of one housing development have been living under the threat of demolition for more than a decade since an Israeli court ruled its building illegal. The order was frozen but never lifted, leaving families in limbo, wondering if or when the bulldozers will arrive and where they will go if they do. “This is the only place left for us,” says William Sahouri, whose family has lived in the area for more than 300 years. “There are no lands to expand.”"
As you can see, this article does not allege that even a single Christian family was actually forced anywhere. The "lived in Bethlehem for hundreds of years" is in reference to a single family, that had lived "in the area", whose presence as far as the article is concerned is still in Bethlehem, and they are not even explicitly identified as Christian. The claim that Christian families are being forced out is not substantiated by the article, for reasons of constructing new Israeli homes or for any other reason. 
I request that the article be edited to reflect what the source actually says. 
Here is the article: https://www.thetimes.com/article/settlements-choke-peace-in-the-little-town-of-bethlehem-mkczz7vgvvz 2600:1700:67A8:230:43:4E0C:6A70:7096 (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that is it almost universally agreed upon that Palestinian Christians have had their homes seized and bulldozed in order for Israel to create and expand settlements. Regardless of somebody's political opinion in this area, removing information about the pressure placed on Palestinian Christians by the Israeli occupation would result in a presentation of the conflict that is not based in reality. If your issue is the source provided, there are several sources you can find that describe the theft of Palestinian Christian land and places of living in order to create or expand Israeli settlements. SirCapybara (talk) 05:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Add those sources you found, then. Assuming OP here is correct (I haven't read deeply) , see WP:BURDEN. nfd9001 (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Change:
While it was historically a city of Arab Christians, Bethlehem now has a majority of Arab Muslims;
To:
While it was historically a Jewish city, and later of Arab Christians, Bethlehem now has a majority of Arab Muslims;
The Hebrew Bible mentions Bethlehem countless times as a Jewish city over the course of centuries, where as mentioned in this very Wikipedia page earlier that David and Jesus were born in as Jews. Factruth123 (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Meaning, sources that specifically describe the historical Bethlehem as a Jewish city. Remsense ‥ 论 21:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Rachel, wife of Jacob, was buried in Bethlehem. Genesis 35:19, 48:7
Ivtzan, leader of Israel, lived in Bethlehem, judged the people from Bethlehem, buried in Bethlehem. Juges 12:8-10
"A youth from Bethlehem of Judea from a Judean family, a Levite, lived there." Judges 17:7
Bethlehem is mentioned as Bethlehem of Judea many times: Judges 17:7-9, 19:1-2, 19:18; Ruth 1 and countless other times.
David is born and raised in Bethlehem of Judea. Samuel 1 17:12
The entire book of Ruth takes place in Bethlehem.
This is merely a short list of Bethlehem being mentioned countless times throughout the Hebrew Bible as a city where Jews lived.
Jeremiah 41:17
Micah 5:1
Ezra 2:21
Nehemiah 7:21 Factruth123 (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Per community consensus (see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE), scriptural texts, such as the Bible, are primary sources. You need to provide reliable, independent, secondary sources supporting the points you want to make. I will note that the reference to Bethlehem "historically" being occupied by Christian Arabs means from an unstated time in the past until no more than a few decades ago. What might be pertinent to the history of the city is when the majority of the population in the city became Christianized. Donald Albury 15:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The lead had the word “Palestine”as a link in the first sentence, as is usually the case in all Wikipedia articles when mentioning a country for the first time in an article, but here somebody removed it, could you please re-add it? Also, second sentence used to say “Bethlehem Governorate of the State of Palestine”, but there too somebody removed “State of Palestine”. 189.40.72.80 (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Die Mauer von Bethlehem.jpg
The separation barrier which runs through Bethlehem.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)