Talk:Beit Sahour

Tax resistance issues

I don't see how the Jordanian administration bit fits in to this section. The Jordanian administration had a tax system that it imposed on Beit Sahour; the Israeli military seems to have held on to some of the same income tax policies as the Jordanians had used. But this history of tax administration doesn't really say much about the Beit Sahour tax resistance, since it was directed at all of the taxes (the value-added-tax / sales tax, the various collective punishment intifada taxes, etc.) and was in particular a protest against the occupation's use of the tax money against the residents of Beit Sahour rather than for them (as they saw it, anyway), not against taxation in general.

It seems to be worded in a misleading way right now, to infer that taxation remained more-or-less unchanged during the occupation/intifada from how it had been during Jordan's rule, which isn't the case (indeed the Journal of Palestine Studies paper you cite shows many changes the occupation authorities made to the income tax law alone).

Perhaps information about the evolution of tax law and administration in Beit Sahour could be moved to a new section about the history of civil government in Beit Sahour. -Moorlock 01:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It isn't my intent to make it sound like the Intifada actions were based on Jordanian tax law, but as it reads now it sounds like the whole institution of the Israelis' taxes were an innovation. Perhaps you can think of a clearer phrasing, though it seems obvious to me that the glass/stone etc. taxes are not referred to in the previous sentence. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 03:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The two sentences in that paragraph were meant to be representative of a single topic: that the Israeli military had the authority to invent and institute its own taxes, with the "stones tax" etc. being examples of these. -Moorlock 03:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The tax resistance that took place during the Intifada doesn't really have much to do with the history of tax administration preceding the Israeli occupation. What does the fact that Jordan taxed Beit Sahour residents in pre-1967 days and that Israel borrowed some aspects of the Jordanian tax law when designing their own system have to do with the Intifada tax resistance campaign? It isn't as though the tax resisters were claiming that they were resisting because they'd never had to pay taxes before Israel came along.

The evolution of tax law and other law in Beit Sahour during various invasions, occupations, administrations, and so forth may be interesting in its own right, but belongs in its own section. -Moorlock 03:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The concern is that the current phrasing makes the entirety of the taxing look like some aspect of the occupation, when it was indeed unchanged from 1963 to the present decade, not borrowed in part. The only addition obvious from the sources presented are the "intifada taxes" which spurred the tax resistance. I'll try to find clearer wording. Tewfik^Talk 04:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

very pov section not based on reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.178.95.33 (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that one anonymous person saying they think the section is POV and think its sources are unreliable, in the absence of any specific examples or complaints, justifies using the "totallydisputed" tag. -Moorlock 14:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits by Viriditas Gilabrand

I think most of your edits were fine, but some of your "POV"-related edits seemed mostly designed to whitewash or to assert a POV, not to make the article more objective, e.g.

• removing the quote “The military authorities do not represent us, and we did not invite them to come to our land. Must we pay for the bullets that kill our children or for the expenses of the occupying army?” that one of the tax resisters used to explain the campaign. If this were not a direct quote, it would be POV; but as-is, it is a factual expression of how the campaigners on one side of a campaign justified their tactics.
• Putting "allegedly" before the Rabin quote, which is sourced, is taking an editorial POV on the veracity of that quote without any justification.
• Similarly, tagging the (also sourced) "millions of dollars in money and property were seized" with a "dubious" tag is also adding an editorial POV without justification.
• Changing "the military... cut telephone lines" to a passive-voiced "telephone lines were not repaired" is a POV whitewash of the original (sourced) info.

-— (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, now that you say what it is that bothers you, it can be fixed. I will look at it later, unless you want to fiddle with it. Best--Gilabrand (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, the Journal of Palestine Studies is published by the University of California Press and is peer-reviewed. What they say does not need to be attributed, they are a reliable source, not just a quotable source. nableezy - 17:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

OK guys, I see I am wasting my time. If you want all the Palestine related articles to sound like gibberish and be full of melodramatic sob stories with layouts that are appalling to look at, as long as you get your hostile propaganda across, be my guests. You will not gain anything from it. Since all my work has been blanket reverted, I will leave this article in its idiotic beknighted bullshit state for all the world to see. You are all a bunch of fools. I was dumb to think otherwise.--Gilabrand (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If you expect people to think of you as anything other than a complete douchebag, try not calling them fools. nableezy - 19:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think you are doing your cause any good with these pitiful excuses for an article, you should think again.--Gilabrand (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Gila, the only thing I said was that the Journal of Palestine Studies is published by the University of California Press and is peer-reviewed. What they say does not need to be attributed. If my saying that makes you think I am a fool, fine, but, again, if you want people to show you any respect and not think of you as a douchebag, you might want to not call them fools. nableezy - 19:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't responding to that.--Gilabrand (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should rephrase you are all a bunch of fools. nableezy - 20:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Beit Sahour

Beit Sahour

"lit. Place of the Night Watch"

Beit means 'house', a better translation would be "house of the night watch".

A better word for 'place' would be 'Mahal'.

While I don't generally recommend relying heavily on Google Translate (or translation software), in this situation it can confirm the correct translation of the word.

1597 data

Hütteroth and Abdulfattah have the following information:

• P. 115: Bayt Sahur an-Nasara (170/123)
• P. 119: Bayt Sahur al-Wadi (171/123)

..both would place them in present Beit Sahour.

However, the Clermont-Ganneau -ref is about the place just south of Jerusalem, called Beit Sahur el Atikah on SWP 17, (SWP III, pp. 85-86) it is presently Maquam as-Sahuri, according to Sharon...and it is on 173/129.

Either: Hütteroth and Abdulfattah have a printing error (not unheard of..) and the grid-numbers on p. 119 are wrong Or: there is a completely different place called Bayt Sahur al-Wadi at 171/123, unrelated to Sahur al-Atiqah. I don´t think this is likely.

I would think the first possibility is most likely, especially seen in view of what Mujir al-Din writes about it at the time.

If the Beit Sahur el Atikah-part is to remain in the article, then we need to make it clearer that it is really quite far from Beit Sahur (it is closer to Silwan), Huldra (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)