" 

  

 Okay, to those insisting on including a source that mainly talks about Islam vs Christianity through the centuries, and makes unsupported arguments and contextually false representations on the situation in Bethlehem: 
 I suppose you all are familiar with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. What this should mean in an article like this is 2 things: 
 # Your arguments portraying a certain bias must themselves be presented neutrally. In other words, you will not present the musings of a partisan source as fact, but properly attribute it to the author or journal. 
 # If you are working here in the spirit of NPOV then you will be responsible for editing neutrally, i.e. providing both sides of a contentious issue. Therefore, if the links used as purported ""sources"" in the ""Demographic change"" section must stand, it should be expected that, in order to show good faith, the editors who add this stuff must also add data from the following (much more reliable) sources (because they are written by people who LIVE there or have actually BEEN there): one, two, three, four (this one has some fodder for Palestine haters, so enjoy) and five. Again and again I must emphasize that this is an encyclopaedia and not a ""fuck Palestinians"" forum. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to paste every single news clip  - or opinion article - that has anything bad to say about Palestinians automatically to its pages. Why must people like Shamir1 always feel the need to make sure any negative story (even if false or unproven and does not meet the criteria for WP:RS) about Palestinians be automatically inserted into an encyclopaedia?  
   "