Talk:Beit Hanoun

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

November 8, 2006 Retaliation/shelling

Changed this from the former to the latter. No mention in the article of this being Israeli retaliation, and the point of the article is not the context in which it happened but the event itself. Several shells fell, killing eighteen. "Retaliation" sounds POV. Puddleman 21:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

While describing the November 8th event (massacre, incident, shelling). It should be noticed that we can not confirm if it was a intentional act of the IDF. Thus we must describe the event in a passiv way. "The house was shelled by the IDF." Rather then "The IDF shelled the house". This is just a minor PC expression, which I think will make the description more neutral and not judge, whether or not the event was a misfire (as stated by the IDF). 81.5.2.197 13:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

don't belive to the arabs propoganda machine

they know very well how to pose in front of a camera and making themselves "suffering" but,to host terrorists,who know they are "operating" from "civilian" concentrations,knowing that the Israeli Army is the most humane Army in the world,and other armies (like Russian,French,British,and American) don't care about how the "world will respond". so the terrorists keep firing bombs intentionally towards Israeli towns (like Sderot) but Israel,of course,cannot retaliate even with the smallest force,because if they do,it will be a "massecre" right?

I wonder,if Mexico would have done the same thing to America even once,not in the course of 6 years,what the united states would have done...

lets face it,if other Army "accidently" bombs a mosque,or a wedding,no one cares... but if israel will do a 1% of that,the whole world will awake suddenley (this is said not only for this event but also in general)

hypocracy/Antisemitism?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.16.213 (talk • contribs)

Well aren't you racist toward arabs then? Their "propaganda machine" which probably doesn't really exist.69.143.254.116 15:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Watch it: Palestinian national radio puts out the call, a bunch of women in Burkhas show up at a mosque to smuggle out the terrorists hiding there, get shot at, and the terrorists bitch about the IDF firing on "civilian women" and there's no propaganda machine? [Obscene Text removed]. NotAWeasel 14:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a town

I think we need more information about this city (apart from the recent massacre) such as history, demographics, transportation, objects that can be found here, notable persons that come from this town(if any), etc. . Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 13:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Amoruso 12:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

On that note, I moved the timeline of the events there to Operation Autumn Clouds. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 07:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Egyptian rule

The wiki article clearly calls it occupation but I would agree to change it to era if Israeli part will be changed in the same way.--Shrike (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Its not an occupation if it's your land, or at least if it's disputed land. Egypt never had any sovereign claim over the area, and also forfeited any further ckaims officially, Israel did have and still does have such claims. Partially. 2A0D:6FC2:52A0:9F00:C82C:AA99:3F70:4D1C (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beit Hanoun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130823050026/http://www.mideasttravelling.net/palestine/gaza/gaza_culture.htm to http://www.mideasttravelling.net/palestine/gaza/gaza_culture.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/6b189672cac9e58a85256d9f006554b8%21OpenDocument

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) 06:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beit Hanoun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070119131529/http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_new/english/details.asp?name=17908 to http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_new/english/details.asp?name=17908

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) 09:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2024

Many of Beit hanoun residents have returned the city is not entirely depopulated as of October 2024 196.153.155.240 (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2024

Beit hanoun is not totally depopulated the population is not zero , many families still live in Beit hanoun, the IDF issues evacuation orders of the town again in October 2024 but people still live there 156.193.82.226 (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2025

Beit hanoun is no longer empty , the residents returned after the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas and Israel allowing Gazans to return north of the strip 196.136.11.158 (talk) 06:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The last town's buildings were demolished today

The town no longer exists, and it's official since the last 33 buildings were finally demolished by the Geffen Brigade 7643. At least all the infrastructure above ground level. As widely reported on a few Israeli sources. 2A0D:6FC2:52A0:9F00:C82C:AA99:3F70:4D1C (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I find the finality of the language describing the city deeply problematic. I found the same language at the "Um al-Naser" page - and for the same reason.

There are 60K people who undoubtedly still consider themselves residents of the city. Do you think they would agree with you? It seems absurd to declare a city no longer exists, even as there are residents sifting through the rubble of their homes. Even if it were proved that every last hammam was demolished, would NOW be the time to confine a place to the dustbins of history? This reeks of Israeli propaganda.

Given the contentiousness of this particular place - Gaza - I think it is foolhardy to rely solely on Israeli sources, for no other reason then their hostility to the international press - and murder of nearly 300 local press. Kalamputi0331 (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Please change the tense to present

Why does the article use the past tense?! Gaza is destroyed but it still exists, same is with its neighbourhoods! EsraaEzzeldin (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 March 2026

Change “As a result of the ongoing Gaza war” to “As a result of the ongoing genocide in Gaza”.

Change “Gaza War (2023-Present)” to “Genocide in Gaza (2023-present)”.

Change “All of these were destroyed during the Gaza war.” to “All of these were destroyed during the genocide in Gaza.”

Change “Before the Gaza war, Beit Hanoun was home to an estimated 60,000 people.[58] It has since been entirely depopulated as a result of the Gaza war,” to “Before the genocide in Gaza, Beit Hanoun was home to an established 60,000 people. [58] It has since been entirely depopulated as a result of the genocide in Gaza,”.

Include “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide“ in “See Also” section.

Sources:

~2026-14339-32 (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. Slomo666 (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 6 March 2026

Description of suggested change: Beit Hanun (Arabic: بيت حانون) IS a Palestinian city

Diff: Warning Unnamed parameter |1= set to default value. Please change it. Failure to use {{Text diff}} to specify your requested text changes, if not adequately described above, may lead to your request being denied.
~2026-14594-39 (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 20:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Why is consensus necessary?

I’m not sure based on the wiki descriptions of consensus why needing a consensus is an adequate reason to refuse the war->genocide edit request. It seems like a consensus arises from a back and forth, and happens as a result of a contested edit. It seems like the only contest to this edit is that no consensus has been reached about it and that no actual objection to the edit request has been made. Unless there is a policy for extended extended protected articles that I am not aware of? ~2026-14777-13 (talk) 07:05, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

'Destroyed and depopulated' in the opening sentence

There is a dispute regarding the inclusion of 'destroyed and depopulated' in the opening sentence of this article. I removed this phrase and my edit was reverted with the summary that 'there is nothing weasel worded or opinionated about this; that's why the assertions are cited with RS.'

The accuracy of the underlying facts is not in dispute, and the presence of reliable sources is acknowledged. My position rests on two arguments.

The primary argument is one of WP:LEAD and WP:MOS compliance. The standard format for city articles on Wikipedia is to open with what a city is—its location, status, and defining characteristics. A city's current condition resulting from a recent conflict is not a defining characteristic and does not belong in the opening sentence. It is also worth noting that the information is already present elsewhere in the article, making its inclusion in the opening sentence redundant as well as non-standard. For a concrete comparison, Bakhmut is a city that has been completely destroyed in a similarly recent conflict, yet its opening sentence contains no reference to its destruction or depopulation. This is the established Wikipedia standard for city articles and this article should be no exception.

The secondary argument is that regardless of sourcing, describing a city as 'destroyed and depopulated' in the opening sentence of its article carries an editorial weight that goes beyond neutral encyclopedic description and constitutes a WP:NPOV concern. WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV are independent policies—a statement being cited with reliable sources does not determine whether it belongs in an opening sentence or whether its placement there is editorially neutral.

The information about Beit Hanoun's current condition is not being removed from the article. It belongs in the body, stated precisely and cited properly. The dispute is solely about whether it belongs in the opening sentence. Kålrabbis (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2026 (UTC)