Talk:Latrun

message: About the dates and the attacks. The sources I've found says that the fort was assaulted three times in the spring of 1948, Operation Ben Nun in May 15, Operation Ben Nun B in May 30 and Operation Yoram the night between June 8-9. I'm a little dubious to the statement that it was the 7th and Alexandroni brigade too. BL 23:31, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've put an article on the french version, under the name of "Bataille de Latroun" with David "Mickey" Marcus, this Brooklyn born jewish boy, honored in both the US and Israel. He's been part of the MACHAL volunteers, fighting for the existence of newborn State of Israel.
Takima 21:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shadow of a giant 

message: This article doesn't follow any logical order and leaves out vital information. Depite its length, it's only a stub.Scott Adler 23:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disorganized and Inclomplete

message: This article is now shaping up quite nicely. I'd suggest going for a reclassification at least B class I have not done that myself before have no idea how to request assessment i am just a humble blue pencil guy.
Pax vobis SimonTrew (talk) 09:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Shaping up

message: Hello, I just want to strees that the Bible is not a historically reliable source, as it's a 'melange' or 'mixture' of historical deeds and myths, very often with no real chronological seriousness and proven facts.
User:KeepItToFacts (talk)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.39.218.10 (talk) 13:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of Bible as a supposedly historical source

message: While it is incorrect to talk of "Israelis" prior to the establishment of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948 it is misleading to talk of "Jews" in describing the actions of the Israeli authorities after that date. That's why I corrected those terms.
Jieriomka (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Jews vs. Israelis

message: Latrun was never annexed to Israel. If this idea was based on this article in Haaretz , then you should note that the article talks about de facto annexation, due to the fact that the Separation Fence is built beyond Latrun. But there is no law or order saying that the territory is Israeli. There is a small territory around Latrun, which was a no-man's land until 1967.
Also, the template: former Arab village is irrelevant here. Latrun has never been an Arab village, and the monastery there still exists.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.135.139 (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli control 

message: We could use an article on the Trappist monastery (hint, hint).  Zerotalk 15:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latrun Monastery 

message: , why did you revert? Secondly, it is not a minor edit. Why do you keep the POV view that Jordan occupied the area but Israel did not (when in fact it does it to today)? --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Then say so, but make it grammatical, which was my entire simple point. Occupation is over a period of time, capture is an event. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then you could have fixed it, instead of keeping the POV view, which still remains now. It is not grammatical wrong to say it was occupied in 1967. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree on either point. Seems to me to read even-handedly enough now, and the leftover sentence fragment is gone. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The world views the West Bank as occupied, no matter if you agree with it or not, and this is how it is displayed in Wikipedia. According to your logic, if it's about saying it was captured in 1967, the part "remains under Israeli control" should be changed to "occupied", as it says Jordan occupied it from 1948 to 1967. --IRISZOOM (talk) 03:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

text:  , you seem to have left the discussion as I see you have edited other pages but not responded here. I repeat that this is a POV problem and there is reason to keep having it like that. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already said what I think as to both grammar and balance.  Perhaps someone else will see fit to comment. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I said in response to that on 03:00, 18 February and didn't get any answer, if it's about that the "correct thing" is to write that what happened in 1967 was a "capture", the part "remains under Israeli control" should then be changed to "remains under Israeli occupation", as this fits what you said were "was occupied during a certain period". So as it was occupied from 1948 to 1967 by Jordan, from 1967 until today, it has been occupied by Israel. This is the only balanced thing to do. Saying one thing was occupation while the other thing was just "capture" and "control" is unacceptable. So again, if it's about describing what "was occupied during a certain period", saying it has been occupied since 1967 perfectly match that. What do you think? Don't this describe what happened during this "certain period"? --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

text:  This is how I meant to phrase it. You say that it was about the issue of capture in 1967, which remains after my edit, and saying it remains under Israeli occupation meets the argument you had about "occupied during a certain period". --IRISZOOM (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you've gone ahead and made an edit.  It certainly is grammatical, though hardly "the only balanced thing to do".  Time to move on. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it's balanced to call the right name regarding both sides. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the Israeli occupation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Latrun. 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/20071006021434/http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/ab14d4aafc4e1bb985256204004f55fa!OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/ab14d4aafc4e1bb985256204004f55fa!OpenDocument
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Latrun. 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/20031231015520/http://www.jafi.org.il/education/noar/sites/latrun.htm to http://www.jafi.org.il/education/noar/sites/latrun.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Are these pictures (from 1587 and 1619) from the then ruined Latrun? Any suggestions?  Huldra (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture