Talk:Beitar Illit

message: Can someone tell me what the sentence "There are 43 immigrant settlers." means?  It does not seem to fit with the rest of the article. OneVoice 02:51, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [unnamed thread] 

message: The story of the election of 2007 is very lacking and inexact.
The story was that Rubinstein and Pindrus were allies in earlier elections. They had a rotation agreement that stated that in 2007 Rubinstein will run ofr major with Pindrus support. It seems that Rubinstein was not very serious in his intentions to actually use this agreement. When election came near, his party leader Meir Porush made it clear to him that he has to use his agreed right and run for major. Pindrus disagreed ignoring the agreement. Then it becomes a fight between the groups etc. 
Pindrus also did not expected Shas to sign a deal with Rubinstein whihc made him losing in the bottom line. YechezkelZilber 23:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election 

message: i checked the link cited for the claim that in 2010 there will be close to 100,000 residents. the source said nothing of the sort. it only listed cities with their populations in 2005 and 2006 and the respective growth rates. there was no mention the population would grow to 100,000 and even if you extrapolate assuming a 8% growth rate it would take one and a half to two decades to reach 100,000. where did this information come from?129.64.143.32 (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The domain that this link was to is now parked.  I can't find any reliable source, or even an unreliable one, that repeats this projection.  Is there any objection to taking the whole sentence out? Anyway, as mentioned below, there's a source from 2010 giving the population as just north of 36K so it seems silly to have this sentence in.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population growth 

message: While it's commendable that an attempt has been made to supply a source for the claim that there is a region called "Judea", a neutral (ie non-Israeli) source is needed if we want English Wikipedia to state that, per WP:NCGN. There is neither a dispute that the area is called "Judea" in Israel, nor a shortage of Israeli quotes that use that terminology. The source and the terminology are fine for Hebrew WP, but not for any other editions. See . MeteorMaker (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not exclude reliable sources based on nationality. This is an English-language source, which is perfectly fine for use in the English WP. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Judea region" 

message: Where is the evidence that whether Beitar Ilit is in Israel is disputed? This portion of Israel was never held by outsiders, it has been part of Israel from the beginning. This language is only inflammatory and serves no other purpose; the residents of Beitar are fervently anti-Zionist and have no interest in political posturing, they only want to live on Jewish land. The Jews in Beitar don't vote in Israeli elections and don't engage in demonstrations for or against building in Israel, etc. The only issue is keeping Torah in Israel.
On the contrary the population of Beitar take part in local council and national elections, they heavily lean to the religious parties, and is well documented in Israeli media
There is no proof of the statement that the original site of Beitar is a kilometer away. Nobody can identify the original site with certainty, until then we must assume Beitar is located in Beitar.
The city of Beitar is overwhelmingly Chassidic, not Charedi. There is even a picture of a Hachnosos Sefer Torah shown outside the Boston beis medrash where the sign on the building clearly says "...of the Boston Chassidus".
The city is very mixed, Chassidish, Charedi, Sefardi and even non-religious today.
 Previously the sign outside the city stated "City of Torah, No films (TV) or internet"
The page should be updated to replace Charedi with Chassidic with appropriate links to Chassidic pages on wikipedia.84.229.117.14 (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Wikipedia:IPA for Hebrew and more relevant WP:HE. Your claims are important, please find sources to them and add to the article.  --Shuki (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is not neutral and is not current. 

message: Status under international law section reads: ...Beitar Illit is considered illegal under international law...Fourth Geneva Convention...(With BBC ref). But then says: This view has been rejected by the International Court of Justice and the International Committee of the Red Cross. With page 44-45 of Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as a ref. It looks like they support Fourth Geneva Convention on page 44 and haven't finished giving an opinion on 45. So I'm wondering if this is malicious interpretation or vandalism or am I missing something? Tagged dubious in interim. CarolMooreDC 17:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It should read "Israel's view has been rejected.." (which is true), but I'm not necessarily supporting this sentence. Zerotalk 00:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was probably just vandalism. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious statement on International Court of Justice 

message: Quoting from WP:LEAD: summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. Is there any serious dispute that the fact that this place was illegally established in occupied territory is a prominent controversy? nableezy - 17:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No there isn't, and that's why the first sentence points out that it's an Israeli settlement. Number 57 17:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Those two words, even with the link, do not explain anything to a reader of the article. This settlement is illegal under international law. That is notable, and probably the most notable thing about this place. For that reason, this article should include that notable, well-soruced fact. nableezy - 17:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We write notable articles.  If that's the most notable thing about the place, then it will probably get deleted once (now I'm making the exaggerated assumption that this can actually happen) a peace plan is finalized and agreed on, no?  Of course not.  Just like most of the towns listed on Wikipedia, for example some towns i linked above to Alaska, are there even if there isn't what you consider to be a "notable controversy."  And of course, you don't actually think this, because you insist on the language in every article about every Israeli settlement, no matter how tiny or large the town is, not just on this article. --Activism1234 17:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Yes, but all Israeli settlements are illegal under international law - there is nothing special about Beitar Illit. This is what I was trying to explain earlier with the football club analogy. Number 57 17:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, and I mean that, I think you are wrong. That a football club means that there is a group of people who play football professionally is not in any way analogous to the illegality of these settlements. That factoid does not cause any controversy. If the majority of scholarly sources on the history of football said that the establishment of football clubs constituted a war crime, then maybe I could see your point. As far as I am aware, no scholar has said that football clubs are war crimes. Scholars have however said that settlements are war crimes. nableezy - 18:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Nableezy's statement that "this place was illegally established in occupied territory" is disputed. But I for one agree that that dispute is notable. The problem is another one, and Nableezy is trying to divert the attention from the main issue. Which is that the rest of the "Status under international law" section is not sourced for Beitar Illit, and must therefore be removed. And I see a large consensus here in that regard. So perhaps somebody undo Nableezy's revert? In addition I think that if we have this in the lead, we don't need that whole section at all. Debresser (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it really is not. It is a super-majority view that this and every other colony that Israel has established in occupied Syrian and Palestinian territory violates the Fourth Geneva Convention. And you see a "large consensus"? Really? Dailycare, Frederico and myself, we dont count for some reason? And asking people to edit-war on your behalf, after already having violated the 1RR, is charming but not wise. nableezy - 17:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Colony? Um no.  Violate Fourth Geneva Convention? Um no, maybe you should look at what the convention was written for during its drafting, and you know that statement is disputed.  Of course, using the word colony must've been a slip of the tongue, as your insistence to put this language in every article is obviously for NPOV purposes and to inform readers, not to push a POV. --Activism1234 17:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought um no was uncivil. I must be confusing you with somebody else (again). Would you like to read any of the 100 sources that can be brought saying that Israeli settlements in the occupied territories violate the Fourth Geneva Convention (among those sources being a statement by the High Contracting Parties of the Convention)? Your um, no does not trump my sources. nableezy - 18:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a 2 way street buddy. --Activism1234 18:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and my side of the street is paved with sources of the highest quality. Yours with um, no. nableezy - 19:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

text: What the convention was written for is irrelevant.  What's relevant is what reliable sources say about the applicability of the convention to the settlements.  That's clear:"It is widely accepted that under international law, the Jewish settlements in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 are illegal. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war states: "The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own population into the territories it occupies."  Within the international community the overwhelming view is that Article 49 is applicable to the occupation of the West Bank including East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights." (from a source in the article). Maybe we should stick to whether the section belongs in the article rather than debating whether the sources can be dismissed.  They can't be dismissed.  The section should stay in because the fact that Beitar Illit is illegal is the most notable thing about it along with the fact that the Israeli government keeps building houses there after they say they're going to stop.  I say this after looking through 20 pages of newsbank results on the place this morning.  Illegality, construction, and routine mentions are why this place gets in the news (and discrimination against Sephardi girls occasionally).— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  But part of the section is not sourced as far as Beitar Illit is concerned. And that part must be removed according to the pertaining Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Debresser (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree its clear WP:UNDUE --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give us more than a WP:VAGUEWAVE?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

text: @Debresser: So your problem here is that there is no source that says that the international community considers Beitar Illit specifically to be illegal?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if you atrociously dig up some source that mentions that, which is really atrocious editing to push a POV, it doesn't mean that we should smatter this all over the page when there is no need on this article about that town, as opposed to just a regular article on settlements. --Activism1234 18:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrary break 

message: ::::::: Re:alf laylah wa laylah (edit conflict) No. That is sourced. And that is why it is in the lead of the article. The problem is with the "Status under international law" section. The first sentence is already in the lead. But the rest of that section is sourced to sources that do not mention Beitar Illit, and is therefore original research or synthesis at best, or simply unsourced at worst. That why it has to be removed, in my understanding of the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Debresser (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It can't be OR, since there are sources for it.  WP:OR specifically says that  The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.  That leaves us with WP:SYNTH.  I don't see how that applies.  Can you explain?  I think the only remotely applicable policy is WP:UNDUE, but I am not convinced that it prohibits the retention of the section.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is OR in that the sources do not specifically mention Beitar Illit regarding all the details which are in the continuation of the section. Only the general statement that Beitar Illit's status is disputed is sourced well. Debresser (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am so confused.  I'm sorry.  It's my understanding of WP:OR that if a sentence is supported by a source, then its inclusion in an article does not violate WP:OR.  It may or may not belong in the article for any number of other reasons, but if there's a reliable source that says it, it can't be removed from the article on the grounds of violation of WP:OR.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are of course a 100% correct about that. The problem in this case is this the sources only mention that the legality of Beitar Illit is a matter of dispute. The source do not mention the Fourth Geneva Convention and the its interpretations by the various organizations. And the sources thta do discuss these do not mention Beitar Illit. Combining these two sources into one paragraph is a misrepresentation of the sources, which is why Wikipedia doesn't allow for it and calls it "original research" or "synthesis" at best. Debresser (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're dropping the claim that it's original research and arguing purely on the basis of WP:SYNTH?  I just want to understand what you mean precisely.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you're right about that, yes. Debresser (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So you consider every sentence in that section to be supported by a reliable source, and the only problem you see is that the juxtaposition of the sentences creates a conclusion that is not supported by any of the sources?  Still just checking on what your position is here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, and more than that. There is a good reason synthesis isn't allowed. In this case, the information about the Forth Geneva Convention and the different interpretations of it is not so much relevant to the article about this town. It doesn't matter in the scope of this article to know all of that. It should be only on the main article. And that is reflected in the fact that there are no sources that mention all these details in connection with Beitar Illit. And that is (one of the reasons) why Wikipedia doesn't allow synthesis. Debresser (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with the prohibition on synthesis.  It's my understanding of that policy that it's not related to the scope of the article, though.  Scope of the article is covered by different policies.  From reading WP:SYNTH it seems to me that for something to be prohibited by that policy, there must be a conclusion which is implied by the juxtaposition of sourced sentences or facts that is not included in the sources themselves.  What, in your opinion, is that conclusion in this case?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  That the whole continuation of the section should be in an article about Beitar Illit. The inclusion of the information here is the conclusion of synthesis. Debresser (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

text: The idea of synthesis is that if "'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." The argument for inclusion of the continuation of that paragraph is: A=Beitar Illit is situated in the so-called "territories", B=there is a notable controversy regarding the legality of Israeli settlements in the territories, which includes all kind of details as to interpretation of certain conventions, therefore c=those details are notable in regard with Beitar Illit as well. While in reality these details are not mentioned in sources regarding Beitar Illit specifically. Debresser (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  You asked above, do I drop the claim of WP:OR for WP:SYNT. Please do not forget that synthesis is a form of original research. This is said clearly in WP:SYNTH as well. Debresser (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, I know that.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

text: WP:SYNTH refers to assertions made in the article, it doesn't refer to notability arguments.  Again, I'm not saying that those disputed sentences should remain, I'm just saying that I don't understand what they have to do with synthesis.  It is certainly permissible to put context into an article.  One does that every time one wikilinks a term.  Is that synthesis too?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Adding the abovementioned details is not "adding context", it is "making a point". The details are superfluous and irrelevant here, and can be found in the linked article International law and Israeli settlements or even simply in the link to Israeli settlement. In addition, it is synthesis to say that these details are part of the context of the article about Beitar Illit, since Beitar is not mentioned in them. Debresser (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrary break 2 

message: This source: <:ref name="haaretz1">http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/990640.html</ref> that the population is cited to doesn't seem to point to anything but the front page of Haaretz, and hence doesn't support the figure.  Does anyone have a working version or an alternative?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. In any case, what is this strange wording "According to the statistics from the Ministry of the Interior, the population figures for January 2007 there are 34,427 members listed on their computers and 29,404 citizens that are listed as active." What is an "active citizen"? :) Debresser (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea either.  I think it'd be best to drop the members thing and just put the population.  Will wait a while to see if others care and till tomorrow anyway.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for population 

message: The lead says 1984 without a source.  This book here says 1990.  Does anyone have a source for 1984?  Should I change it to 1990 since it's sourceable?  — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes sources may refer to the date a settlement was turned into a township, and say that the town was founded in such-and-such, while that doesn't mean that it was founded, but that is was recognized as a township. In any case I think it would be advisable to confer with an additional source before we change something so fundamental. Debresser (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Reasonable, I suppose.  I wonder where the 1984 stuff came from, though. Perhaps it's possible to make an addition without removing the 1984 statement.  I'll think about it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of foundation of settlement 

message: Concerning this sentence:
The Palestinian Authority claims that Beitar Illit authorities release the settlement's sewage on to the Palestinian fields and orchards surrounding the settlement.<:ref name=wafa></ref><:ref></ref>
The first reference supports the statement that the Palestinian Authority claims sewage releases.  The second reference does not.  It just mentions sewage flow, and makes no claims of intentionality on the part of the settlers.  This phenomenon is more widely recognized than claims that the releases are intentional, which I can't so far find elsewhere.  For instance, here are three scientists from Al-Quds University writing a paper saying that runoff and sewage releases (with NO attribution of intentionality) are polluting the aquifer: 
  
I will propose a rewrite shortly, but wanted to put this up here in case someone has a time-out from the dramaboards and wants to write something about it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I see some problem now, with the logical structure of that paragraph. First it states a fact, and then it states that the fact is only a claim of one side. This is confusing. Debresser (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's reasonable.  I think that the problem is that the sentence about the PA is cited to a primary source.  It seems clear to me that the PA is claiming that the sewage is intentionally released.  I haven't seen any reliable sources that state this, so if it's going to stay in, it's got to be attributed to the PA as an opinion.  However, the primary source doesn't explicitly state that the release was intentional, so I don't think we can fill that in.  I'm not sure what to do, but obviously the scientific paper is reliable.  Would you be happier if the two were separate paragraphs?  At this point, neither of us can take anything out for a while, and I don't think I'll ever be inclined to use a revert on the PA claim.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I see not claim of intentionality in the first source as well. So perhaps the statements can be merged and sourced to both sources? Debresser (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the PA isn't claiming intentionality?  I think they are implying it, but it's certainly irrelevant.  I don't think that it's possible to merge the sentences because they're talking about two different things.  The hydrologists are concerned with the effects on the water table and the PA is concerned with sewage going on to orchards.  Two completely different things.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sewage flow in controversies section 

message: This is a clause from the lead:
consisting of over 6000 families.<:ref name="autogeneratedil"></ref> By 2020, the population is expected to reach 100,000.
First of all, the cited source doesn't say anything about how many families there are.  Second of all, it's a wiki, and thus probably not a reliable source.  I propose to replace the whole sentence with one using the population figure I cited above and not mention anything about how many families there are unless someone can find a solid source.  Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be important to have the number of families. The reason being that there live mostly religious people in Beitar, so large families, and the number of families as to the number of people is likely to be notably high. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but there's no source for it.  I've looked everywhere.  I found a good source for the population.  None for the number of families.  The source it's cited to does not support it.  I would have no problem with it if there were a source.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many families 

message: Similarly, this sentence is cited to the same source as discussed in the paragraph above:
A significant percentage of men in the community work, mostly commuting to jobs in Jerusalem or working from home.<:ref name="autogeneratedil"/>
It makes no sense to me, and the source it's cited to doesn't support it or even mention it.  There seems to be zero chance of finding an actual source for it.  I propose that we eliminate the entire sentence.  Thoughts?
: This sentence makes perfect sense to me. What is it you don't understand. Debresser (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What is a significant percentage?  Why is it in here?  Obviously since work is significant, whatever percentage of people that work is significant.  It's significant if 0% work, it's significant if 100% work, and so on.  Anyway, the source doesn't support it or even mention it.  That's the real issue.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  In Israel there is a stereotype, that haredi people don't work. That is why this sentence is important. Debresser (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it's controversial, then, I think it especially needs a source, and it doesn't have one.  It doesn't even say that they work hard.  To people who believe that stereotype I suppose it would be significant if 0% of the men worked.  Without a source, if this sentence is referring to a stereotype, I especially think it ought to be removed.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not controversial, I think, just exceptional. I said there is such a stereotype, not that it doesn't happen. But I agree we would need a source, and I would be happy if one were to be found. Debresser (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't understand what "a significant percentage" means.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many men work? 

message: I would like to remove these two items:
*Nefesh B'Nefesh Community Guide for Beitar Illit, Israel
*Tehilla Community Guide for Beitar Illit, Israel
The first is the same source that I've mentioned in the two sections above this one.  The second one is dead.  I see the need to leave dead links in when they're references, but I see no harm in removing dead external links.  Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the first source does not give information about Beitar Illit. It is more of a "How to" guide. Debresser (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links section 

message: Is there any reason to keep this section?  It's unsourced, seemingly unsourceable, and seems to be nothing more than 5 year old expired recentism.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 municipal elections 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Beitar Illit. 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/20070928020635/http://www.beitarcity.com/archive/en/renewed to http://www.beitarcity.com/archive/en/renewed
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120110134016/http://betar-illit.muni.il:80/ to http://betar-illit.muni.il/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070429234503/http://www.betar-illit.muni.il:80/? to http://www.betar-illit.muni.il/
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) 01:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the last two to the official city website. No idea why it was changed. The first link is no good. Debresser (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Beitar Illit. 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/20110601170953/http://english.wafa.ps/index.php?action=detail&id=16268 to http://english.wafa.ps/index.php?action=detail&id=16268
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070429234503/http://www.betar-illit.muni.il/ to http://www.betar-illit.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) 19:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please somebody revert this edit, since redundant category is already included in "Religious Israeli settlements".--Boots Dawson (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: :Since the TrickyH's edit was in question here. Its best if the editor attends this edit request. regards,  DRAGON BOOSTER  ★ 06:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  , see my edit summary. Debresser (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Before I started adding this cat to pages that already included the subcats of "mixed" or "religious" settlements, I read through the H:CAT page and I didn't see any statement that a page shouldn't belong in both a subcat and the parent cat. To me it makes sense for the pages of the settlement to be listed in both, so that one cat might make a complete list of settlements. I'm happy to be proven otherwise if I'm not looking in the right place. TrickyH (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2017 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Beitar Illit. 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/20131029060614/http://moin.gov.il/Subjects/Bchirot/Documents/election-yosh.pdf to http://www.moin.gov.il/Subjects/Bchirot/Documents/election-yosh.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) 06:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Debresser, your edit restored a factual error to the article. When you use that map the alt text shows "Beitar Illit is in Israel". It is not, it is in the West Bank. Please explain why having a settlement in the West Bank display that it is in Israel is appropriate. nableezy - 18:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. I hadn't noticed that alt text. In that case, although I do believe the Israel map is the more relevant, I have no choice but to agree with you. Debresser (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: what it was would logically precede what it became. nableezy - 08:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Basic, undisputed facts such as when it was founded and by whom should clearly precede claims attributed to an advocacy group about the legal ownership of its lands. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You cant assert a dispute, who is disputing the basic fact about the land this settlement was founded on? Source please. nableezy - 09:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: http://palestinemonitor.org/details.php?id=237gt8a8717y7ng1s0wof the legal battle over ownership has been going on for years. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

text: I agree with Firkin Flying Fox's argument, that since that statement is disputed, the article should first mention what is undisputed. The article must also, in addition, mention the fact that this statement is disputed. Debresser (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

text: Besides the obvious problem of Debresser introducing material that is manifestly not in the source cited, by itself a serious issue, there isnt any actual policy backing up the argument given. Why would a history section be out of order on the history? Besides the obvious reason of wanting to diminish anything that shows Israel in other than the best light, but that isnt a valid reason here. nableezy - 18:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't understand that latest addition at all....it is an interesting article, which could be incorporated here...but nowhere does it "dispute" the previous sentence (that so and so much were confiscated from the Palestinian village before 1985). Huldra (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

text: The article says "Yoav Mordechai, head of ... disputed the illegality of the land claim". I understood this to mean that this Israeli official holds that the land was not confiscated, but rather was no man's land, and therefore the claim as though the land was illegally confiscated is not justified. I did not understand this to mean an acknowledgement of confiscation, just considering that confiscation legally justified. Debresser (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but that is about the land they were  trying to confiscate in 2014! (starting a few years before 2014). Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I simply do not see anything about the land confiscated pre 1985 ....? Huldra (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

text: , he is disputing that the land that Israel declared as state land for the outpost of Gevaot is privately owned by the Nassar family. Not about the land that this settlement was founded on some 30 years prior to the land that the article you added is talking about. nableezy - 22:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  history 

message: Please replace coat of arms to this file:
. Юкатан (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you do this yourself? Debresser (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coat of arms 

message: Debresser, the primary description of this place, both in this article and in reliable sources, is Israeli settlement. Not Israeli city. nableezy - 23:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  short desc 

message: "All incoming residents are screened by an acceptance committee."
This is no longer true. I've been living in Beitar Illit since 2016. I and others I know have rented and bought apartments here. No one had to go through any kind of acceptance committee. Older folks here say there used to be one but that this is no longer the case.
The source quoted is Nefesh B'Nefesh website, which - as of July 29, 2019 - has been last updated in December of 2014. Bumy Goldson (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct: the acceptance committee does no longer officially function in Beitar Illit, unfortunately. Debresser (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That needs a source, rewording to as of date because used to be is unsourced. nableezy - 19:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since 2007. There was also a related Supreme court case (not on Beitar - but with country wide effect for communities that are above a few hundred families).Icewhiz (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a much better source to base this all on. nableezy - 20:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

text: Actually, why exactly is Nefesh B'Nefesh used as a source in this article for anything at all? nableezy - 19:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics - Acceptance Committee 

message: It is relevant information because sources when discussing this place find it relevant. E.g. this. Or this. nableezy - 08:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  status 

message: Editor Debresser appears to think that this Israeli settlement is in Israel. Note the  link City in the infobox does not show Beitar Illit as being in said list. So a self revert would appear to be "realistic".Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Be that as it may, but since I live I should know if it is Israel or not. Debresser (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OR, Huldra (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  But no less true. Debresser (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beitar Illit is not in Israel 

message: --2604:2000:E010:1100:68A0:D758:F52B:2D8B (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add 

message: First off, WP:WESTBANK disallows saying a place is in, present tense, "Judea". Next, no part of Beitar Illit has been annexed by Israel. Next, no part of the territory was ceded to Israel, it was included in Area C, which is according to the accords a temporary administrative designation, not anything near ceding the territory to Israel. Next, international community is the phrase found in a thousand sources and is included in nearly every single article on the settlements. Absent a reason to change that established consensus that should be the language that is retained. nableezy - 05:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent edits 

message: "is an Haredi" should be "is a Haredi" since the "h" is not silent. 73.140.55.208 (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo in first sentence