Talk:Bayt Jibrin

List of other depopulated cities

Can this show/hide template below be used in the "see also" section?

{{Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestine War}}

This template also has a couple images. The template title links to List of villages depopulated during the Arab–Israeli conflict.

The list page, though, does not have images.

Also, the template is more specific. It covers around the time of the 1948 war. The list covers more time periods, and so it takes more time to navigate. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, its supposed to have been here. However, the images must go or be replaced with pics of village ruins not refugees. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Thanks for adding the template to the article. Others seem to think the images of refugees are OK. Please see Template talk:Villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. I do too for now. Maybe another template just for 1948 refugee links and pics can be created?

Modeled possibly on this template with images:

Template:Holy sites in Judaism

It is in many articles, sometimes in the open state. See its "what links here" link. Here is one example; Rachel's Tomb. The template is open there. I think it is because there is only one show/hide template on that article page.

On this talk page there are now 2 show/hide templates. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely forgot about that discussion; sorry I didn't reply back. I meant Template:Palestinian refugee camps. Still, I don't see why we can't replace them with say perhaps: Image:Az-Zeeb remains.JPG, Image:Lifta ST 04.jpg, Image:SubaRuins.jpg, Image:Birwa Church.jpg and Image:BaytJibrin.jpg. I thin this discussion, if it continues, should be moved to the project talk page. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see: commons:Category:Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. I categorized some of the relevant images there. Some of the other images need to be uploaded to the Commons.

I usually think people are more important than ruins. :) Template:Palestinian refugee camps does not seem like a template one would put in this Bayt Jibrin article. I think we need another template labeled Template:Palestinian refugees that focuses on people photos and links, rather than camps and ruins. This way we have 3 templates from start to finish of (1) where refugees came from (this template), (2) the refugees themselves, then (3) where they ended up (the camps template). The first 2 templates could be used here.

Feel free to copy any parts of the various discussions to the project page. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Map location

The map coordinates at the top of the article show the current location to be inside of Israel. Is this correct? I am categorizing the images in the article. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Bayt Jibrin is currently within Israel's borders. Is what you want to know? -- Al Ameer son (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I was confused by the article and some of the image descriptions. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

1168 Hospitaller charter

It may be a little too off-topic for this page, but I've put the 1168 Hospitaller charter for Bethgibelin on Latin Wikisource, here, if anyone is interested. I couldn't find it anywhere online so I just copied it out myself. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Zero^talk 06:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the merge request was no consensus. Jafeluv (talk) 08:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

---

I'd would like to merge the Bayt Jibrin page to the Beit Guvrin, Israel page, since both pages refer to the same place, Beit Guvrin being what exists today.--Sreifa (talk) 05:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fine this way. There are numerous other articles for ancient/medieval sites in the Middle East, distinct from the articles on the modern sites. These two articles are pretty large on their own so merging them would make one unnecessarily giant article. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The merge would only add a paragraph--Sreifa (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)--Sreifa (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I am opposed to a merge. This article is about its own topic, a Palestinian town that was depopulated by the IDF in 1948 and the history of that town. Another town was founded on the land of this town in 1949, but they are not the same town and treating them as such is illogical. The topic of Bayt Jibrin, its history, and its fate merits its own article. nableezy - 04:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying Bayt Jibrin doesn't merit an article. But the way it's being done right now results in confusion and repetition. And you removed the National Parks cat, even though Bayt Jibrin was/is located in what is today a national park. Maybe all we need is a bunch of "see alsos" but something here doesn't mesh.--Sreifa (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed those cats because they are inaccurate. Bayt Jibrin does not exist as a park or an archeology site in Israel, the town no longer exists. Beit Guvrin does. nableezy - 12:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Bayt Jibrin as a place exists within the park, even if not as a living town. And since this article gives the history and archaeology, it is in the cat of a site in Israel.--Sreifa (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. A new town, founded in 1949, exists on the land of a town that no longer exists. This is not analogous to St. Petersburg and Leningrad, a city that remained the same except for the name. These are two separate topics, a city that existed pretty much uninterrupted from some time BCE through 1948 when it was forcefully depopulated of its residents and a new town that was established several months later in 1949. nableezy - 13:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

..and today a park exists in the same place (because of that same history). I'm not here to tell you that you're wrong about Bayt Jibrin, just that something here misses the bigger picture.--Sreifa (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, but that park is not a part of Bayt Jibrin. It may be on the same site of Bayt Jibrin, but it is not a part of Bayt Jibrin. nableezy - 03:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The merging of Bayt Jubrin and Beit Guvrin pages is partial and has a lot of political implications. If you want to maintain the historic nature of this page one should start with Ancient Beit Guvrin / Eleuthropolis and include all the info. in one page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.10.166 (talk) 06:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it all historic?--Sreifa (talk) 07:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unify the 5 (!?!) articles dealing with the same site

Enough with this overpoliticised BS! One site is one site. Bayt Jibrin is history, no reason to make it the "main article". This "my lobby is stronger than yours" BS is on kindergarten level.
These 5 articles should be ONE:
-Bayt Jibrin
-Beit Guvrin National Park, actually Beit Guvrin-Maresha National Park
-Eleutheropolis
-Kibbutz Beit Guvrin, Israel
-Maresha
Arminden (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Arminden

See the discussion at Talk:Eleutheropolis. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

"Talk:Eleutheropolis" page still under that name

So pls. look it up at Talk:Eleutheropolis. Discussions are ongoing. Thanks. Arminden (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Bayt Jibrin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Article has several citation needed tags dating back to October 2015 and March 2016, and September 2019. A section that is totally unsourced. Clarification tag dating back to September 2019 and August 2024. Broken reference name issue. Needs someone familiar with the subject and sources to address these issues for a continued GA status. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.