Jump to content

Talk:Beersheba

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jim Michael (talk | contribs) at 00:48, 23 March 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


Materials

Changes of Hebrew definitions

See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#New "twist and turn" as "Hebrew alphabet" is switched to "Hebrew languages" concerning appropriate uses of the word "Hebrew" here. IZAK 05:33, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Name (2006)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Transliteration into the 'Latin' alphabet (it's not really the Latin alphabet that English uses, since that didn't include W, etc) may now be standardized on "Beer-Sheva" in Israel, but in the vast majority of the English-speaking world, it is not yet the case. E.g., doing a web search, for pages in English, we get:

  • about 480,000 for Beer-Sheva
  • about 1,260,000 for Beersheba

And of course in books, which have a longer lifetime, it will be skewed even further toward "Beersheba". When it is the most common form in the English-speaking world, that will be the time to change. Noel (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see different: 1,140,000 for "Beer Sheva," 247,000 for "Be'er Sheva", and 847,000 for Beersheba. But the google test is not a supreme guide for titles. Thus, I've opted to rename into Be'er Sheva since it makes it (immediately) most clear to the English speaker this isn't Beer vowelizationining (and also corrects the b to a v), and I think the clarity of the reader is what we should keep foremost in mind. El_C 14:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If your main concern was for the English-speaker to understand that it's not pronounced like the word Beer, I don't think the move was deserved. There is a sound file attached to the name anyhow, in the infobox. I think we should discuss what this article should be named before unilaterally moving it to whatever we like. I'll start a vote now. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 11:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the vote and its irrational, anglocentric nature. Wikipedia is not a democracy, one should not be so hasty to vote, esp. so early-on. The city has no "B" in the Sheva (see Tel Sheva), phonetically. The Be'er makes the vowelization immediately clear, including when it's linked in other articles. Google hits are not a supreme authority when we're it comes to hundreds of thousands of hits being the minimum figure, and when this minimum figure is used by the govt. of the country the city is in. I am not interested in the spelling ecountered by individual editors so much and find it anectodal, and devoid of any of the rational considerations mentioned. El_C 07:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be named...

Beersheba

The most common English spelling by non-Israelis, gets over 800,000 hits on Google. It's also more neutral toward the Arab name. Not used by any official Israeli sources.

  1. Support (fairly known city worldwide, IMO it warrants using the world spelling as opposed to the Israeli one). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 11:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support The only spelling I had ever encountered before first seeing a National Geographic map. - Gilgamesh 14:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, this is the international spelling of the name, as far as I know. --Panairjdde 13:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support: clearly most common name in English. Jonathunder 18:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Especially since there is a substantial archaeological section for which Be'er Sheva would be contrary to usage. Septentrionalis 20:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Sheva

The most common English spelling by Israelis, gets nearly 900,000 hits on Google.

  • Support Only this one makes sense. The apostroph in Be'er is unnecessary. The fact that it's Sheva and not sheba should be obvious to anyone with a minimal knowledge of Hebrew or Israel. --Daniel575 21:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with this. It meets between the official name and the 'b' name. Of course links should link to the correct spelling page, whatever the vote decides, because 50% of people will definetly spell it incorrectly. Flymeoutofhere 12:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the title should be written the way it's written on maps in english.82.81.15.97 15:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the two parts of the name should definitely be written seperately as they are two seperate words. This is the original name, the official spelling, and the most common form. as far as being "neutral toward the Arab name", why not also be neutral towards the French or Italian names? AshcroftIleum 00:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I too support the use of Beer-Sheva (the dash is not important). This is the most obvious spelling and it is the official spelling of the local Israel authorities. No one would dream of writing Bombay today, it is Mumbai. The local people of government has the right to decide on the name. BTW the name in Arabic is Bir Seba. Benqish (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be'er Sheva

Not a common spelling, gets only 190,000 hits on Google. It is the official Israel Central Bureau of Statistics spelling.

  1. given the fact that this spelling reflects the official israeli pronunciation of the city (after all, Be'er Sheva` is located in israel currently) and the official israeli government spelling (who has a right to tell a country how to spell something -- next thing you should tell the americans that they are misspelling Detroit, that they need to write Détroit), i think that be'er sheva (or be'er sheva`) would be the best choice. Dgl 13:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In English Wikipedia we use to write the names with English spelling. This is a policy, WP:NAME. If you want to contribute to this Wikipedia, you sould accept its rules, the same way people contributing to Hebrew Wikipedia do with Hebrew Wikipedia rules. Thanks.--Panairjdde 13:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
everyone has a right to express his view. there is an option here to support the official and proper spelling of be'er sheva` and i am merely indicating that.
You're right. And I am merely commenting on your opinion, that is "expressing my view".What's the point?--Panairjdde 14:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. This is Israel's official spelling. The city is now called be'er Sheva. We should not use the anchronistic english translation, the same way we use Zimbabwe, and not Rhodesia.--194.90.37.135 (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support if this is the official spelling than that's what should go in an Encyclopedia! Dor the Great —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.227.102 (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wiki's policy of using the "standard", but incorrect, spellings and names for foreign places only perpetuates ignorance. For example, would Wikipedia insist that Peking be the default correct spelling for the capital of the People's Republic of China? Peking was the only English spelling I knew 30 years ago... and we Americans "knew" (I was a kid at the time) that the correct pronunciation was the phonetic rending of "Peking". Spelling Koeln "Cologne" and spelling Wien "Vienna" just makes English speakers look too dumb to bother understanding the foreign place he or she is speaking about. Whatever. I live in Be'er Sheva, and see official signs every day in Hebrew, Arabic, and English with the town's name, and these signs indicate the English version is "Be'er Sheva". It would see that an encyclopedia that perpetuates, or at least mirrors, ignorance is not a tool for knowledge building 212.143.76.4 (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Questionable & intimidating

This "discussion" was very unwikipedia-like; the name remains grossly inaccurate as is' the rational. El_C 08:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is as important as ours. If you want, propose a change in the name, but do not say it is non-NPOV. Furthemore, you did not explain why it is "Questionable & intimidating". Would you mind to explain better why you are opposing? Notice also that your point is wrong.--Panairjdde 13:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My protest is above; as is the npov issue. Your link appears suspect, whereas mine, which examine each name its own (not just .uk), appears sound. Finally, even if it wasn't, it is not policy the go by the most common name when other important considerations exist. El_C 17:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is English Wikipedia. If there are two formats, one the commonest in Anglo-Saxon world, and one commonest in non-Anglo-Saxon world, the first is to be used. And this does not constitute non-NPOV issue. Furthermore, you failed explaining why it is "intimidating".--Panairjdde 09:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not fail; see above re:instant polls. The .uk domain does not constitute the Anglo-Saxon world, and regardless, your interpertation is not grounded in policy and neglects the considerations noted above. El_C 12:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I now realize that Britannica uses Beersheba, so I presume there is a rationale behind its usage, even if the reason for it is not made clear anywhere in the article. So I withdraw my objection toward changing the name, but not my objection regarding Panairjdde's aggressive style. I'll be keeping an eye on his/her contributions to see if it's extended elsewhere. El_C 12:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have cautioned Nightstallion against what appears to be using RfM boilerplate to effectively suppress active discussions. Finally, there was no need for the RfM (that is for when an admin isn't present to assist in deleting the redirects). No one has requested for me to change to name back while the discussion was taking place, I'd have done so. El_C 18:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panairjdde finds it ironic that I retracted, but I only found WB good enough and I don't really care that strongly on how accurate the English title is. It is not as if EB has more professional shcolarly resources, English language-wise, than the Government of Israel. I stand by everything I said: there is no b in Sheva and no ee in Be'er. The discussion was unresponsively & aggressively circumvented via the voting. And failing to assume goodfaith, maintaining I chose the npov tag randomally, clearly contradicts the facts recorded here. El_C 14:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are commenting here about things we discussed on my talk page, with people reading and not knowing what I actually said. Nice.
About Encyclopedia Britannica, it is much more authoritative about the way names are spelled in English culture that the government of Israel. I think the Oxford Dictionary of English would be more more authoritative of the Rome/Jerusalem/Seoul/Bangkok Dictionary of English — don't you agree? Instead, according to you, the Israeli Government should be more authoritative on the way English speakers should call a city which was part of English history well before the State of Israel was born. Am I wrong?--Panairjdde 16:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice? Again, I'm sure the govt. of Israel has the resources and that it consults dictionaries and experts in determining English names. El_C 17:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, let's drop the "nice" thing and personal comments, ok? My point is that Beersheba had an important role in World War I Anglo-Saxon effort. They even made a movie about a war episode based around Beersheba (at the time in Ottoman Empire). That means that in English (and Australian) newspapers, the city was recorded as Beersheba. And it still is. Now, the Israeli Government decided its spelling in English (or better, the Romanization of the Hebrew name of the city) is Beer Sheva. Fine. The problem is that for the time being, the city is still known as Beersheba. With the uncorrect "b" instead of "v". Since we are here to adopt the commonest spelling, Beersheba will do. When Beersheba will fade out of common usage and be replaced with Beer Sheva, we shall replace it. Furthermore, once we write that the official Israeli Government Romanization is Be'er Sheva and keep the redirect from Beer Sheva, no-one will miss the city, right?--Panairjdde 17:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both Be'er and Sheva have been used since the biblical days. The Israeli govt. position is sound, more so than the regime in Myanmar, which changed the name for political reasons. As google.com demonstrates, Beer Sheva is more common today. El_C 17:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see our positions are not compatible. If you think the article should be changed, go for a request to move the article, or whatever else you see fit. --Panairjdde 17:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to request moves, I am an admin. Again, it's unlikely that I will edit this article, or revisit the issue further. El_C 17:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the role it played in WWI is more important than it's current 160,000 habitants? And what about the way it was pronounced since biblical days? In Hebrew, Arabic and Ottoman Turkish they call the city Be'er Sheva. It should stay that way. --194.90.37.135 (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article some time back. This of course does not give my proprietary rights over it (this is a wiki). I titled the article Beer-Sheva and was surprised when it was changed. I feel strongly about the correct use of the English spelling of foreign words. Where the foreign word is the original the English must be no more than a transliteration. There are numerous examples of this. We now say Mumbai, the British Imperial Bombay is out. I drive a Renault - not a Renouh! And I live in Beer-Sheva and not anywhere else. Benqish 20:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice User:Panairjdde was banned from Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive9#Community_ban_of_User:Panairjdde What has to be done to correct this article title to Be'er Sheva ? --Jarondl (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff should be added

Since i don't know english well enugth i hope some one could add this in a good english : in Sports : 

 Be'er sheva hold the second biggest Free style Wretling center (around 2000 people ) it is led by Leonid Shulman.
   The wresling scene is popular since many russian imegrants brought that from USSR.
   Most of the Russian kids  hi-school and school age 
     wore tought there this place took people from the poor areas of the city
   (D'alet nagal beka (at the creation area) ) and tought them for free.

be'er sheva sports centers : 

  Hapoel be'er sheva (soccer)
  Macabi be'er sheva (soccer)
  Beitar Be'er sheva (soccer)
  Vasermil Stadium 
  Hapoel Be'er shva (greek - Romi wrestling ) 
  Macabi Be'er sheva (free style wrestling ) 
  AMI wrestling school (Alie'at megini israel ) - עליית מגיני ישראל -(The isreal imegrated defenders )

Acdemic : 

 Goverment college (מגללה למנהל)
 The technical college.
 The Isreally  airforce college (aka Techni ) 
 The art and performence college .

In Moncipal or explenation  : 

  Beersheva has 17 neighborhoods (?) (shcunot) that are:
    The Old city , schuna alef , schuna beit , schuna gimel , schuna dalet , schuna hei , schuna vav , schuna tet , schuna tet , shuna  yud alef , Neot lon , Neve zeav , Nahal beka , Nahal ashan , ramot ,darom , Minal azrahi .


Historical places : 

 Govrer house , Beit Eshel , Turkish bridge , Abrham weal , Turkish train station , british policy station british grave yard .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.11.177 (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...pig praising?

A paragraph about palestinian terrorism contains the following sentence: "In 1972 Beersheba was proclaimed by Checkaredo Vistella as the place of pig praising but is no longer used for such purposes."

Can anyone make sense of that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robost (talk • contribs) 11:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Shechunot

I'm not sure I would categorize the recent "explanation" for not having a Shechunat Zayin or a Shechunat Het as vandalism. When you think about it, this might well be true, but probably falls into the category of folklore. If the English were fixed up a bit, I think it could stay. The question is whether it is based on any source known to man--Gilabrand 14:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Adding this kind of sentence in the middle of a history section is not the proper link procedure. --Gilabrand 15:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)84.109.56.209 11:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an excellent,illustrated,60-page English,pro-Beersheba website located at: www.mynegev.co.il and just click on the red "MyBeerSheva" button and "English". It would make an excellent link for the Wikipedia, because the information is based on published sources that are cited or first-hand knowledge. Enjoy! Ethelea Katzenell, Beersheba 84.109.56.209 11:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map request

"Last successful cavalry charge"... pff

Isbuschenskij, none? Savoia Cavalleria against a Soviet infantry regiment, winning and taking prisoner, in August 1942? Ah, ok, they weren't Anglo-Saxons, so they do not count... And still later: Soviet cavalry massacring the surrounded Germans at Korsun (1944) doesn't count?

Basil II 15:09, 5 November 2007 (CEST)

Quite right in fact. There is a common misconception, particularly by Australians, that the charge of the lighthorse was the last great cavalry charge in history. I think the lighthorse article itself says it was the last great cavalry charge in british history. In fact, the lighthorse are described by its own article as "cavalry and mounted infantry". The LAST cavalry charge was by Ukrainians,yes? Paul Roberton (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that that depends on which Australians you speak to Paul! ... Also, the section reading "the Australian Light-horse Brigade" should be amended to read simply "the Australian Light-horse" as the 'Light Brigade' was a completely different British unit ~ a cavalry unit, as made famous by Tennyson in his Charge of the Light Brigade. The Australian Light-Horse was mounted infantry, not cavalry, and they were known simply as the Australian Light-Horse.

Beersheba GA

Hi - I think this article is really getting close to GA status. If there are editors who are knowledgable on the city who are willing then I am happy to help, although really dont know much about the city.--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone mind

Refactored from page top, please put new threads at the bottom. Franamax (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Hello, I think that this picture compliment the city more than the existed. /media/wikipedia/he/thumb/1/1a/Citybeersheva.jpg/250px-Citybeersheva.jpg If someone mind to fix my error,and upload this image and replace I'll thank him very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talss56 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at this. If you managed to upload an image, there should be an Image:(name) that you can put in. Franamax (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you've uploaded it onto the he:wiki. You would need to upload it to Commons in order to be able to use it here at English Wikipedia. However, the existing image in our article looks to me to be of better quality, and I'm not sure what your proposed image would add. Is there something notable in your image? Otherwise, I would recommend we keep the image that's already there. Franamax (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

= Changed "terror attacks" to "suicide bombings and rocket attacks"

more encyclopedic and descriptive than the 'word to avoid' "terror." this seems obvious. untwirl(talk) 05:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what about shootings and stabbings? Shall we add that to the caption?--Gilabrand (talk) 05:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the attacks that are described in the section are widely described as "terrorist attacks" by reliable sources they can be described as such here. nableezy - 06:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lapsed pacifist - please stop adding the meaningless adjective 'later' to the section heading. This is a history section, and the events are laid out in chronological order. Every such event is 'later' and its pointless to say so. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then we ought to use the description at the top of the section, otherwise we're giving the impression that these attacks were the first to inspire terror in Beersheba. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i don't think the assertion that rocket attacks were widely called terrorist attacks is supported by the reports; the majority that i have read don't. every other wp article dealing with rockets into israel calls them rocket attacks. why the exception here? i'm sure there are some sources that call it both, but all of them will call it a rocket attack. by this point, my impression of the mainstream media's reporting was that they considered hamas a combatant in the gaza war and used terminology like, "hamas launched missiles" and not, "hamas terror attacks."
also, i don't see any shootings or stabbings in the section i'm discussing, so i'm not sure to what gilabrand's comment refers. untwirl(talk) 19:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LoverOfTheRussianQueen has been blocked as a sock. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Events without source

I took out from the article accusations without source. These events do not sourced by Benny Morris. However, an anonymous insist putting it back without reading the source. Chagai (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morris does in fact say this in 2 separate books: 1948: A history of the first Arab-Israeli war does on p 328:

A number of POWs were murdered by Ninth Battalion troops bent on avenging fallen comrades

and on p 467 of The Birth of the Palestinian refugee problem revisited:

The conquest was accompanied by the execution of a handful of Egyptian POWs, and wholesale looting by individuals and military units.

nableezy - 21:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pay attention. Morris does specify the looting for this event, which I left in the article. However, a sentence like "as they had done elsewhere", does not appear there, and need a verified source. It seems like in every place there was looting, which of course is incorrect. The execution of POW's is highly debated, and Morris is not authorised historian to decide if it is true or not. The discussion should continue here. I am recovering the anonymous, he should say what he have to say here. Chagai (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am paying attention, perhaps you should try a bit more to follow your own advice. Morris documents a huge number of cases where looting had occurred, but that is not really all that important for the article. But Morris is qualified to say whether or not the POWs were executed and both books are solid reliable sources published by academic presses. You cannot say that the events are not sourced to Morris and then say that even though it is in Morris it does not count. The portion that you removed dealing with executed POWs should remain. nableezy - 22:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you just violated the 3 revert rule. nableezy - 22:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the IP continue reverting after warning. I suggest you block him immediatly.
As to your points. The fact "Morris documents a huge number of cases where looting had occurred" can not justify a sentence like "as they had done elsewhere". First, what happened in other places is not related to the article on the city. Secondly, from it you can figure out it happened in any other place, which Morris NEVER said.
As for the execution, you can word it "According to Benny Morris..." so it will not sound as the absolute truth. There are other historians, not less respectful, that have different findings. Chagai (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said above, I do not have a problem removing "done elsewhere" as it is "not really all that important for the article". And if there are other reliable sources that dispute that Egyptian POWs were executed add them. nableezy - 23:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ref error

Resolved

In the back and forth between the ip and Chagai, a reference was screwed up. The last reference in the Biblical era section was messed up. The tag currently reads <ref name="autogenerated1" /> where it should read <ref name="autogenerated1" /> (look at the code and replace the quot; with the ampersand before it with ") Could somebody please fix this? nableezy - 22:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1948

This is what Morris writes:

The conquest was accompanied by the execution of a handful of Egyptian POWs, and wholesale looting by individuals and military units.
In Beersheba, the IDF had captured about 120 Egyptian soldiers. The remaining population, some 200 adult males and 150 women and children, were temporarily housed in the town's police fort. A few days later, apparently on 25 October, the women and children, 'together with several dozen old men and cripples', were trucked to the border with Gaza and shoved across. The Egyptian PoWs were sent to prisoner of war camps in the north and the remaining able-bodied adult males, about 120 in number, were put to work in cleaning and other menial chores. They were treated like POWs and housed in the mosque. Complaints reached IDF\GS that they were supplying the Egyptian Army with intelligence. Yadin ordered that they be removed from Beersheba. Some were apparently transferred to POW camps and others to Egyptian-held Majdal or Gaza. Ben Gurian and Shafrir, the Custodian of Absentees Property, were greatly annoyed by the looting.

Gilabrand changed "wholesale looting" to "instances of looting" where the text clearly supports "wholesale looting". She also changed "the women, children, disabled, and elderly were expelled by truck and placed over the Gaza border" to "they were transported over the Gaza border by truck", where "they" also refers to the Palestinian adult males, when the text clearly supports the original wording and contradicts her favored phrasing. The one part of what she removed that is not supported by this source is "one woman was shot and killed". I will keep that out, but the rest of this is simply whitewashing what happened. The source clearly supports the original text and I have restored it. nableezy - 20:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the source is not saying either of what your edits said. Please refrain from personal interpretations, especially on controversial topics (this goes to both editors). In addition, I am sure there are better sources dealing with the situation in Beersheba in 1948 than Morris's Revisited. In fact, Morris's own 1948 is probably a better source to use (since it discusses the war in general, not specifically the refugee aspect), but there are others. —Ynhockey (Talk) 04:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the woman being shot, which I did not notice the first time I reverted, what in the last edit is not in the source? nableezy - 05:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request and addition of information

could someone rephrase and add (I tried but it was removed due to grammer )

Pollution

After years of pollution from 2000 a desicon[1] had been made to start to clean the water of the area (if a lamb would drink from the stream it's meat will not be used for food as it is poisnes for men)[2]. in 2011 the streams are still under under cleanup [3][4][5]. in 2010 few West Nile virus incidents was reported in the neighborhoods near the stream [6][7][8]

Geography

In the center of Be'er Sheva (in shehuna dalet) there is a natural canyon (the Be'er sheva-Gaza canion). the canyon had been used as a mineral quarry during the Ottoman and British governments [9][10] but today is used just as a park.

Smoking in Be'er sheva

Be'er sheva was found to one the most fining cities to smokers in public areas (643 fines in 2011[11] (the second only after Tel-Aviv[12]) ,1049 in 2006 (only 256 in Tel Aviv in 2006[13]) and this in a city with 30 % of the population being smokers[14]

Revnue of ~200,000 USD (799,000 NIS ) from fines only in 2011 [15]

references

References

  1. ^ http://lib.cet.ac.il/pages/item.asp?item=3706 official decision to clean the streams
  2. ^ pollution by the Palestinian authorities of Nahal Be'er sheva
  3. ^ http://www.kkl.org.il/?id=26154
  4. ^ cancer victims in areas around Ramat Hovav and Nahal Be'er Sheva
  5. ^ the most polluted area in the country
  6. ^ http://www.beershevacity.com/bscmagazine/-nov-5-2010-1-33-16-pm-16 women died from the nile fever]
  7. ^ [http://www.local.co.il/beer-sheva/57119/article.htm west nile virus was found in nahal Be'er shev and nahal bsor
  8. ^ boot camps near haB'sor and nahal Be'er Sheva will are closed due to Nile fever
  9. ^ http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9F_%D7%91%D7%90%D7%A8_%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%A2-%D7%A2%D7%96%D7%94
  10. ^ http://www.negev.org.il/index.php?m=s.sa&ud=285
  11. ^ http://israeli-muni-news.com/?p=13907
  12. ^ http://www.nrg.co.il/online/54/ART2/335/689.html?hp=54&cat=873&loc=61
  13. ^ http://www.nrg.co.il/online/29/ART1/588/505.html
  14. ^ A third of Be'er sheva citizens are addicted to nikotin , nrg , 2011
  15. ^ http://www.nrg.co.il/online/54/ART2/335/689.html?hp=54&cat=873&loc=61

Why Beersheba and not Beer Sheba  ?

i want to know please. פארוק (talk) 05:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per past consensus on this page. —Ynhockey (Talk) 08:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The name, again. Please give due consideration

The article should be titled Be'er Sheva. All other spellings to redirect to Be'er Sheva, including the anglicized and incorrect Beersheba.

Reasons:

1) This may be Wikipedia English but all of Wikipedia revolves around the idea that one Must Not Be A Dick. In this case, the dick in question is anglicization. 2) If Wikipedia's purpose is education, calling the place Beersheba is just plain factually incorrect. If other spellings of the name redirect to Be'er Sheva, that IS education.

And yes, I know it's still called Beersheba in printed encyclopedias, atlases, etc. But this is not a printed book. That's the grandest and best thing about Wikipedia: it can be almost instantly edited to reflect any significant change, or event.

The locals have called the place Be'er Sheva since the 10th century BCE, and who are we as English speakers to call it by any other name? After all, it's not very hard to say.

Before anyone objects, ask yourself first if you're just being stubborn. Time for all of us English-first-language speakers to quit mangling place names just to suit ourselves.41.174.20.147 (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above by me. Hi. (exits stage left)NM 75 (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree. I honestly can't understand why it hasn't been changed yet.--RM (Be my friend) 18:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that many people feel this way. Please open a move request. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A question in general and vis-a-vis article name

I know that this may lie outside of our guidelines for evaluating place names, but this is my foremost concern nonetheless. I have reviewed a map of the Partition Plan for Palestine and surmised that the city appears to lie on the Palestinian side of the border. If the current status of the city is contested, I would support the current page name. If the current status of the city is not contested, I would support a shift towards the official name. I have just expanded a bio by someone who grew up there, and he refers to the city as "Beer Sheva" (no apostrophe, no dash). But is the territory contested or uncontested? ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The territory is not contested and the article title is the result of past consensus. Feel free to start a new discussion on the article title, preferably as a move request. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move request (Feb 2013)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Beersheba → Be'er Sheva – Simply put, Beersheba is the Anglicized name of this city, and is not a legitimate name, regardless of how many hits on Google Beersheba as compared to Be'er Sheva get (and redirect will take anyone who searches "Beersheba" here anyway). Community consensus seems to already overwhelmingly support this, so I request the name be changed to Be'er Sheva (or Beersheva at the very least). RM (Be my friend) 18:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Will need evidence from newspapers of recent use - it isn't an "Anglicized name" so much as a different romanization in use today than before. Beersheba and Be'er Sheva are the same Hebrew name, just as Calcutta and Kolkata are different romanizations of a Bengali name which hasn't changed. However it's a familiar enough spelling to arguably claim English exonym status. As a crude search Beersheba is 5,270x vs Be'er Sheva is 202x (the "..is" is an attempt to reduce archaeological references). So in print sources it was Beersheba. That means next stop current media, but that doesn't look promising either.... [site:www.jpost.com/ beersheba] In ictu oculi (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully suggest you refer to Haaretz, which uses the official spelling of Be'er Sheva. The J.Post---no comment, which is comment enough. And regarding Kolkata, the pronunciation of the anglicized form was sufficiently similar. However, _out of respect for the people who live there_ we now spell the placename as Kolkata. The pronunciation of 'Beersheba' is problematic. A good many residents of the place would say, "I don't have 'Sheba' beer. Do you want Maccabee or Gold Star?"NM 75 (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further, you argue that "Beersheba and Be'er Sheva are the same Hebrew name," and that is incorrect. This: באר שבע = Be'er Sheva; this: בירשיבא = Beersheba. The latter is a phonetically-spelled nonsense word based on the incorrect English pronunciation and spelling. 'Beersheba' has no meaning at all, whereas 'Be'er Sheva' means "Seven Wells/Well of the Oath." NM 75 (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case non-Hebrew readings get confused by this, the above is misleading. The ancient Biblical Hebrew name (familiar in English romanization as Beersheba) and the modern Israeli Hebrew name (romanized Be'er Sheva) are 100% the same in Hebrew. The example given בירשיבא doesn't exist. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]
It's not incorrect, its an idiomatic romanization. It's also not nonsense, since it's widely used, and has a definitive meaning. Just because it doesn't conform to the romanization scheme you want to rename it to use doesn't make it nonsense. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the comment below mine. This is not my personal preference. Be'er Sheva is the official Israeli spelling. Cheers. NM 75 (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's the romanization you advocated for, therefore, your personal preference. Regardless, it does not make Beersheba "nonsense" as you stated before. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, it's the transliteration I opted for, given that "Beersheba" means nothing in Hebrew. Point to you: the Hebrew word for 'nonsense' is in fact not 'Beersheba'; it's 'shtuyot,' which categorizes much of this ridiculous argument. The correct pronunciation is Be'er Sheva; the official spelling is Be'er Sheva. There it ends. Rut-Sof = over'n'out. NM 75 (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NM 75, hi welcome to wikipedia. As a new editor you probably should read up on WP:AT before attempting to support a rename from an established (400 years) English spelling to a modern spelling. Also "phonetically-spelled nonsense" is more likely to wreck User:Reenem's RM proposal rather than help it. And to see why en.wp moved Calcutta see Talk:Kolkata. As for "The Jerusalem Post---no comment," Jerusalem Post 30,000 circulation vs Haaretz English Edition 10,000 circulation means JP is relevant to this discussion. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - thank you Zero, Reenem, for replies but even after review of Skinsmoke's evidence that this is getting near to the Calcutta/Kolkata tipping point - too many western press sources still per BBC News - Two killed in Gaza after rocket hits Israel's Beersheba to support. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics uses "Be'er Sheva" over 44,000 times. The next most used spellings there are "Beer Sheva" and "Beer-Sheva", less than 100 times between them. One-word versions occur there less than 10 times. Google Scholar prefers "Beer Sheva", with "Beersheba" coming in second. Zerotalk 22:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to mention the fact that the road signs pointing to the city say "Be'er Sheva" in English below the Hebrew and Arabic. And let's not forget that aside from a select few places, the name of nearly every city and town in Israel means something. And in Hebrew, Be'er Sheva means "Well of Seven", while Beersheba means Beersheba.--RM (Be my friend) 01:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is the English Wikipedia, not the Hebrew Wikipedia. It is the most common name in English that matters. It's no different from the fact that we have an article titled Moscow, not one titled Moskva or Москва. When places are well-known in English by an anglicized name, that is the name that we use.--Srleffler (talk) 02:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However your case would better if supported by evidence that "Beersheba" is indeed the most common English spelling. Zerotalk 09:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Either "Be'er Sheva" or "Beer Sheva" is indicated purely on popularity grounds.
    Google unrestricted: Beersheba 343,000; Beer Sheva 2,720,000; Be'er Sheva 21,800,000
    Google 15 mins later: Beersheba 2,080,000; Beer Sheva 2,720,000; Be'er Sheva 21,800,000
    Google Scholar: Beersheba 19,400; Beer Sheva 51,900; Be'er Sheva 4,260
    Google Books: Beersheba 485,000; Beer Sheva 122,000; Be'er Sheva 143,000
    Google News: Beersheba 709; Beer Sheva 724; Be'er Sheva 402
    As usual, Google's estimates are nondeterministic and vary substantially as I found. However it is clear that there is no case for Beersheba on usage grounds. The most common spelling in general English is "Be'er Sheva" and in scholarly English "Beer Sheva". Only in Google Books is Beersheba more common. Zerotalk 09:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: An Advanced Google search in English over the last year for Beersheba excluding Be'er Sheva and Wikipedia gives 59,200 hits (page through to the last result and it turns out to be 557 unduplicated hits). Restrict that to sites in Israel in English, and you get 2,520 hits (465 unduplicated hits). A similar search for Be'er Sheva excluding Beersheba and Wikipedia gives 26,100 hits (which turns out to be 533 unduplicated hits) or, when restricted to sites in Israel 9,850 hits (which turns out to be 511 unduplicated hits). This suggests that useage in Israeli English certainly favours Be'er Sheva, but not by as convincing a margin as might be expected (52 per cent to 48 per cent). In the world as a whole, Beersheba still has the edge (but only by 51 per cent to 49 per cent). However, while all the results for Be'er Sheva are for the town, there are a significant number of Beersheba hits that relate to other things, including an Australian army reorganisation plan, an aid project in Senegal, a farm in England, a religious campsite in the United States, a self-catering resort in New Zealand, an arts and crafts fair in the United States, a town in the United States, a woman in India, a printing company in the Philippines, an architectural restoration competition in the United States, a man in the United Arab Emirates, a community development programme in Uganda, a school in India, another school in India, a religious medical ministry in the United States, a man in the Philippines and a gardening company in New Zealand (and that's just the first 20 pages). On balance, it looks like the Hebrew spelling now has the edge. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per this ngram. On Highbeam for the last two years, I get 1,440 hits for "Beersheba", 192 for "Be ' er Sheva", and 1,264 for "Beer Sheva"/"Beer - Sheva". There are numerous examples of the current title on the site for The Jerusalem Post, including "Longest-serving mayor of Beersheba, dies at 92. Britannica, Columbia, Encarta, and The Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa all support the current title. "Consult English-language encyclopedias.... If the articles in these agree on using a single name in discussing the period, it is the widely accepted English name," per WP:WIAN. Update: "Beersheba" is also used by The Independent and the Washington Post. Highbeam has only three hits for "Beersheba Springs" in the last two years, so I don't think that changes anything. Every major Bible translation gives "Beersheba" or "Beer-sheba," as you can see here and here. Kauffner (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per stats provided by Zero, which I also confirmed. I tend to give less weight to web searches than to book and news results. Google pares that 22 million down to 564 when similar results are removed.[1] Beersheba -spring holds up at 800.[2] (There is a Beersheba Springs, Tennessee) Apteva (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The problem with that Highbeam search is evident when you examine the actual results. In the first 2,000 hits, one relates to a fair in Tennessee; nine are from publications other than the Jerusalem Post; and the other 1,990 hits are all from that one newspaper. We do not allow a single newspaper to determine article titles on Wikipedia, as there is no reason why one newspaper's house style should be preferred over any other. In addition, many of those hits are over 10 years old, which does not demonstrate current use. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I note Kauffner's comment about Bible translations, but fail to see what relevance that has to this discussion. We are discussing an article on the current town, not on a settlement 2,000 years ago. We don't have Volgograd at Stalingrad or Gdańsk at Danzig, nor London at Londinium; instead we use the modern names, as is explained at Wikipedia:Article titles. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The anglicised version is still the common name outside Israel. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per nomination that directly opposes WP policies for naming articles (use English). Red Slash 22:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The evidence above, which is of sources in the English language, shows that Be'er Sheva is a perfectly valid name in English. The anglicised version may well still be the common name outside Israel (and is most certainly the common name in Biblical references, not that that should influence how we title an article on the modern city), although worldwide it has only a very slight lead (51 per cent to 49 per cent), and, as detailed above, many of those hits have nothing whatever to do with this subject. The true split is probaby 50–50. To be honest, this is very finely balanced at the present. Whilst we have a policy of supporting "national ties" (Wikipedia:National varieties of English), we most certainly do not have a policy of ignoring the name used in English purely because those sources are in the country concerned, which seems to be the effect of what Necrothesp is advocating. Skinsmoke (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Kauffner seems to have demonstrated a predominant use of the current title. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 06:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just to clarify, as I haven't actually expressed a preference one way or the other on this yet, I think this one is too finely balanced on the evidence so far, to justify a move. Unlike carl bunderson, I don't see any predominant use of the current title, nor do I see any predominant use of the proposed title. On that basis, I have to Oppose a move at this stage, as it is up to the proposer to convince the rest of us that a move is justified. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

May 8, 2013 requested move.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Non-admin WP:SNOW speedy close; proposer seems unaware that this move was proposed just a few months ago. I !voted in that discussion making my closure here a possible conflict of interest, but I mean... look at it. Red Slash 03:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Beersheba → Be'er Sheva – I've read the discussion about the name of this page that occurred five years ago above. My opinion that this page should be located on Be'er Sheva would tie the "votes" above, and I think that makes it fair enough to discuss it. It is the official Israel Central Bureau of Statistics spelling, and as such should be the location of the article for this place. This is how it is done for many other places; Urfa/et al redirect to the official spelling of Şanlıurfa, Suruc/Batnae/et al all redirect to Suruç, and Constantina (Osrhoene)/et al link to Viranşehir. I think that this article should be named in the same way. Searching is not much of an issue, since the others are still redirects, people will still end up on the right page (officially named). Technical 13 (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been down this road before, previously arguing in favor of the CBS naming. Problem is, English already has "Beersheba" as the established name for the place, and "Beersheba" also dominates naming in both English religious reference and in English news articles about the modern city. It's the same reason we use Acre (instead of Akko), Caesarea (instead of Qesarya or Kesarya), Haifa (instead of Hefa), Jaffa (instead of Yafo), Jerusalem (instead of Yerushalayim or Quds), Nazareth (instead of Nazerat, Natsrat or Nasirah) and Tiberias (instead of Teverya or Tverya). Also compare Kiev vs. Kharkiv for their common English names — "Kiev" is Russian and "Kharkiv" is Ukrainian — even though most Kiev residents speak Ukrainian and call it Kyiv, and most Kharkiv residents speak Russian and call it Kharkov. Common English usage can be quite the idiosyncratic creature. - Gilgamesh (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gilgamesh has got it right. Beersheba is the common English name. Jonathunder (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removing Israelite period

A user has been blanking a section about Beersheba in the Israelite period. He states that it's biblical/religious, even though it's actually not sourced to the Bible, and in any case any biblical references are qualified. I therefore completely don't understand the rationale for the blanking. If there's a specific problem with the information, it should be changed but not entirely removed. —Ynhockey (Talk) 07:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Ynhockey. The Bible says a lot about Beersheba, Beersheba has everything to do with the Bible, but this particular user has been known for years to have an issue with any such information being presented or made available to readers researching biblical topics like Beersheba. So I suspect it isn't a "rationale" so much as a "bias". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 11:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that relevant material should be fixed rather than blanked, it is indeed very poor. The JP article given as source for the first paragraph is entirely useless. It is just an unscientific recount of biblical myths written by a tour guide with a conflict of interest. The paragraph sourced to it contradicts the properly sourced science in the previous section (which should be expanded). As a start, I removed that paragraph and reversed the order of the other two. Zerotalk 12:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your description of the Biblical accounts as "myths" will be offensive to many. A couple years ago, it was being argued that the definition of the word "myth" should be extended to any account of the creation of the world. Now a couple years later suddenly we have editors who become so rabid when they see any mention of the Bible that the entire book is to be regarded only as a "myth". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your views. Wikipedia has a strong bias in favor of academic sources for history. That is how it should be. If archaeology says Beersheba was founded 6000 years ago and the bible says it was founded 4000 years ago, archaeology wins. Zerotalk 13:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not how it should be. The overwhelming view of editors is that wikipedia should not have any bias, and should treat all views of history as neutral. Academics lie for bigoted reasons, and then the debate opens on "who is a "true" academic? OUR academics, or YOUR academics?". TGeorgescu's opinion has been widely contested by numerous long term editors who hold NPOV as a cornerstone policy.. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to use the bible as a reliable source of history, present your case at WP:RSN. You won't succeed; it's been tried before. A better use of your time would be to read WP:RS to see how lack of bias is not the same as treating all sources equally. Zerotalk 14:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should know that's not at all what I'm saying. Rather, I'm saying the Bible is a reliable source for what the Bible says, on hundreds of Bible-related articles. We should not endorse anyone's view of history, but we should mention what the various competing views of history are. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


@Zero0000 The section has serious problems about historical reliability and therefore accuracy. The Bible is not a reliable source for obvious reasons (which means any Bible references have no place in a section about actual history), and the source references given in the section seemed rather religion-driven as well. Are there no seriously reliable archaeological sources? Excavation reports published by universities? The underlying problem is that historical Israelites have rather little to do with biblical Israelites, so naming the section "Israelite era" will lead many readers to assume the biblical stories had any merit. Anything the Bible assigns to before circa 850BCE (before the Divided Monarchy) is entirely mythical, and the rest is a religious interpretation of some historical events and some anekdotes taht may or may not have any historical basis at all. ♆ CUSH ♆ 12:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are indeed scientific sources and I just spent the past 30 minutes collecting some of them. However, the fact that Beersheba is mentioned in the bible is noteworthy and should be mentioned. Provided the biblical account is not presented as fact, this is not a problem. One way to make it clearer would be to have a "Beersheba in the Bible" section which is not in sequence with the history sections. Zerotalk 13:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Wells

In the unsourced etymology section: "the seven wells dug by Isaac". Where in the bible does it mention Isaac digging seven wells? Nowhere, I think. Zerotalk 14:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, in the Book of Genesis. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chapter and verse? Zerotalk 15:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I looked it up, and found 26:18 says Isaac dug several wells that had previously been dug by Abraham, that the Philistines had stopped up again. The chapter then names some wells dug by Isaac, then verse 33 says he dug one more well, called "number seven", and that the name later became Beersheba "Well number seven". No doubt some commentaries and interpretations of this verse can be found to see what secondary sources say about this verse. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/
I looked at a large number of translations and the few that translate "Shebah" do so as "oath". A few note it can also mean "seven". None say it can mean the seventh in a series. From this I infer that there is no biblical direct support for "seven wells" even though it is a popular etymology regardless of the bad Hebrew. Zerotalk 20:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weird font sizes

Metrop. rings table: any reason for the different font sizes? Looks messy. Tony (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Beersheba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

Zero and Huldra enforce a change done by an IP that changed Hebrew to Arabic in Etymology section, which I believe to be wrong.

The city name predate Arabic and already shown in biblical references (book of Gensiss), and even during the times of St. Jerome the name Beersheba existed. Britanica mention the etymology to be Hebrew or Canaanite languages [3], several scholars also mention the Hebrew reasons for the name [4] [5]. Firestone adds the Islmaic explantation (when also mentioning that the bible is attributed to Hebrew) [6] even The ottoman resarches mention Hebrew as the source of the name [7]

It is one thing to add Arabic or Canaanite explanations to the existing hebrew name , but removing Hebrew and replacing it with Arabic is pure push of POV 37.19.119.150 (talk) 07:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: @Huldra:

@37.19.119.150: Nobody removed the Hebrew etymology. Now it is there twice, in adjacent paragraphs. You replaced the Arabic meaning by a second description of the Hebrew meaning. Zerotalk 08:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000: The only place that mention the Hebrew language (now) as the source for the name is the Etymology section.37.19.119.52 (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@37.19.119.150: The paragraph before the one you inserted is about the Hebrew etymology. It isn't written very well but you are welcome to rewrite it and provide sources. You are not entitled to remove the Arabic meaning. This place was primarily Arab for a thousand years and the name has meaning in Arabic even if it was derived from the Hebrew name. Zerotalk 12:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000: as I said the previous paragraph does not mention Hebrew at all but talk about voguly about the origin, the city held that name during the Roman eta (at least int the book I'm reading now with a different spelling as BeroSaba)
 There are several etymologies for the origin of the name "Beersheba." The oath of Abraham and Abimelech (well of the oath) is the one stated in Gen. 21:31. Others include the seven wells dug by Isaac (seven wells) though only three or four have been identified; the oath of Isaac and Abimelech (well of the oath in Gen. 26:33); the seven lambs that sealed Abraham and Abimelech's oath (well of the seven).

That does not mention the hebrew language at all , now compare that to what I compared in Britinca : 

 Beersheba is first mentioned as the site where Abraham, founder of the Jewish people, made a covenant with the Philistine king Abimelech of Gerar (Genesis 21). Isaac and Jacob, the other patriarchs, also lived there (Genesis 26, 28, 46). The name seems to be a Hebrew play on words—beʾer “well”; shevaʿ “oath,” or “seven” (referring to the seven lambs of Genesis 21)—though a Canaanite origin has also been suggested.

Britanica is clear about the languages, wikipedia on the other hand is not.

In addition, I believe that this article is in a very poor state, just compare it (as I did using Google translate) to the Hebrew and Russian versions, this article make it look as if for more then a thousand years the city didn't exist (under the Arab rule and before the Iron age and neither khirbat meter or Zfady and batter are not even mentioned)

What I'm missing here are elements such as beersheba region and history, I belive at least some of that info should exist on this page37.19.119.52 (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone knows the Bible was written in Hebrew, but you are welcome to modify that paragraph to mention Hebrew explicitly. You haven't given a reason for deleting the mention of Arabic, please put it back. Zerotalk 22:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000: Perhaps instead of assuming what "Everyone" know wikipedia should provide related hard fact facts instead ?. At least some of the later parts of the hebrew Bible had been written in Aramaic, at least some of the Deuterocanonical books had been preserved based on the Greek translation only - so can you honestly say that the common reader will know in what language a specific book had been written ?. Your comment is striking given that under most of the Arab period the place was deserted and only the location had preserved it's name [8] under the same logic you should have asked to have the Ottoman-Turkish name Birüsseb ,why not demand Greek and Persian etymology. Why don't you demand the Aramaic "Bira" (בִּירָא) (well) and Sheva (Seven) in the etymology as well (I know it wrong because similarly to Arabic the language arrived few hounded years after the name already existed) ?

Bible section instead of Israelite section

Please separate the Israelite section to biblical and archaeological sections37.19.119.150 (talk) 07:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The existing city logo is incorrect , the logo presented here is the old 1972 log. the current logo is https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:Beer_Sheva_New_Logo_2012.svg 37.19.119.52 (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Beersheba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Beersheba. 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:

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) 07:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Beersheba. 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:

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) 19:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If one goes to the Wikipedia homepage and types in "Beersheba", the link that appears with the photo is captioned "Beersheba city in the Negev desert of southern Palestine". I am not familiar with where that entry is logged for purposes of correction, but would request that it be corrected.One-Off Contributor (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problem corrected--erroneous entry in Wikidata listing.One-Off Contributor (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source discrepancy

This article says that the original rectangular grid was laid out in 1900, with citation to the Director of the Beersheba Municipal Museum. This article appears to say that the grid was laid out in 1915, which no citation given. Both are referring to the same event since they both indicate the grid was the work of a Swiss and a German architect. The grid was certainly there by 1917, per WW1 aerial photos. Can anyone find further evidence? Zerotalk 11:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No matter; I found good sources and will edit. Zerotalk 03:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beersheba. 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:

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) 20:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beersheba. 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:

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) 16:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence about Bedouins

A user reinserted this sentence about the Bedouin population of Beersheba, apparently sourced to a book by Ian Lustick. Unfortunately I don't have access to this book, but I believe that the statement is a misinterpretation by the Wikipedian in question of the source. Either that or the source is incorrect. The statement contains two claims which are fundamentally impossible:

  • That 11,000 Bedouins were removed from Beersheba: cannot be true because Beersheba did not have 11,000 residents before the war, not to mention after it when most residents were gone
  • That they were concentrated on 10% of their ancestral lands: considering Beersheba's size was about 1 km2 at the time, that means they were concentrated post-war at an incredible density of 110,000 people per square kilometer.

Naturally both statements are nonsensical where Beersheba is concerned. However, they make a lot more sense when discussing the entire Negev, and the issues are covered in the Negev Bedouin article. While one could argue about whether the Negev Bedouin were forcibly removed or "concentrated" anywhere, it is at least a plausible claim. In addition, Beersheba was a town not exclusively populated by Bedouin.

If someone has access to the source, please post a full quote here. Additional input is welcome. —Ynhockey (Talk) 07:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"In addition, the 11,000 Bedouin remaining in the Beersheba area were forcibly concentrated into reserves representing 10 percent of their ancestral lands." Lustick's statement is true and well documented in other sources, but "in the Beersheba area" should not be translated into "in Beersheba". The extent to which this article should cover the surrounding region can be debated. Zerotalk 08:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if you're talking about the entire Negev, at least the statement isn't complete nonsense (even just the northern Negev). However, it's not relevant to this article, just like you don't talk about the Little Triangle in the Haifa article for example. They are subjects related so indirectly that it would be doing a disservice to the readers to lump them together. Even more so the specific edit I pointed to, which specifically talks about the city of Beersheba. —Ynhockey (Talk) 09:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lustick's work can be accessed here. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. It's exactly as I said—when you talk about the "Beersheba area", meaning the entire Negev desert in Israel, the statement makes some sense; but it's not relevant to the article. It's covered more in-depth in other articles anyway, with sources that elaborate more on the distribution, who was settled where, etc. —Ynhockey (Talk) 08:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical archeology clarification

The Wikipedia page "Biblical archeology" lists time periods studied as part of biblical archeology, which go back as far as 8500 BCE in the Levant. Thus, the excavated tell, which is linked by most archeologists to the town described in the Bible, can be accurately described as being from the biblical period. Note that describing the town as being from the biblical period is not the same as describing it is as an Israelite town for the entire period – in fact, in the first mentions of Beersheba in the biblical narrative, the Israelite people don't even exist yet.

It is likely that a significant fraction of the page views are drawn here by Beersheba's biblical connections. For example, the number of views of Beersheba is greater than the number of views of Holon [9] even though they have similar populations, and I suspect the difference is mainly driven by the biblical connection. If you want a RfC on this, I am willing to put something together. OtterAM (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Title should really be changed.

I know we discussed this before, but there is no reason to keep the old name and one that is more academic or ancient. The most recent and one that is used by most sources is Be'er Sheva, even EB says that Be'er Sheva is an alternate spelling and if you look at the city's website, it uses Be'er Sheva, the external references section mostly has Be'er Sheva sites and when that is the COMMON spelling, it doesn't make sense to use an obsolete spelling and pronunciation that nobody uses. Just today CNN put out an article with Be'er Sheva as a spelling: [10] I don't think we need an RM but let's have a discussion and see if consensus changed because in my mind it really doesn't make sense that our title doesn't reflect reality and what is on the ground. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beersheba continues to be commonly used in reliable sources. Eg, NYTimes, Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel. Think you need more evidence to substantiate that Be'er Sheva is the common name. nableezy - 18:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, [11] the municipality itself calls it Be'er Sheva. When we have multiple RS's and many of them calling it Be'er Sheva, and the city itself calls it Be'er Sheva, we shouldn't continue to use such an old and archaic spelling. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We go by common English name, not what it calls itself. I just posted several reliable sources that refer to it, in English, as Beersheba. Among them two English papers from Israel. That sorta disproves old and archaic. nableezy - 19:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, Note how the Jpost while using Beersheba, has Be'er Sheva in parentheses. [12]. There is no reason to use a spelling that makes no sense. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, note that it primarily uses Beersheba and also shows another alternate name exists. We do the same here, showing Be'er Sheva as the Hebrew pronunciation and transliteration. But the English name is determined by usage in reliable sources, and to me so far it seems like they use Beersheba. I dont quite get what you mean by no reason to use a spelling that makes no sense, the sources that use that spelling is the reason to use that spelling. nableezy - 22:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
English Haaretz regularly uses both, and also "Beer Sheba", even in the same article. By the way, it makes so sense to say that a name makes no sense. Names are just names. The only issue here is what the common English name is. Zerotalk 03:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Get a DEFINITION first; then the LOCATIONS

See the discussion started at Talk:Tel Be'er Sheva#Which periods are documented?, but maybe it should be moved here. This town is an Ottoman creation from 1900. Biblical Bersheba was kilometres east of the modern Turkish town. Where was Beersheba after the Iron Age, in the Persian to Byzantine periods? (Was there one during the Early Muslim period?) We already have two different locations using basically the same name. Were there more? Human settlements do tend to migrate, taking along their name.

Rather than squabbling about the Anglicisation of the name, deal with the DEFINITION and corresponding LOCATION(S) first. English Beersheba refers primarily to the biblical site and WWI events.

Beware: biblical Hebrew apparently pronounced vav as B, Modern Hebrew uses V, see Abib-Aviv. This would mean that Beersheba might be more authentic than Be'er Sheva re. the biblical site. This says nothing yet about the Israeli city. Drop ideology and "common sense" (= how we were conditioned to see things) and look for a scientific, nuanced approach. Arminden (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beersheba&oldid=1078728332"