Talk:Gush Etzion

message: it's not accurate to include karmay tzur, har giloh, and bietar. maybe neve daniel. the original core region would include k etion, a shvut and rosh tzurim. bat ayin could be included due to its proximity to kfar etion. similaraly elazar, ephrat and migdal oz. n daniel is "sretching it". anything else should be mentioned under the " Gush Etzion Regional Council". Shilonite 22:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: what's included?

message: I know these settlements were/had been legal settlements, but the only two legal ways forward for them was to live under Arab sovereignty (/at peace with their neighbours) or evacuate. They chose to stand and fight - to oppose the sovereignty that Zionists (over and over) insist they'd accepted. It's nonsense to treat the settlements as anything other than heavily armed and most unwanted intruders.
And the article even fails to admit (attempts to conceal) what other Zionist supporting material boast of, this was an armed camp eg Kfar Etzion Remembered: A history of Gush Etzion and the Massacre of Kfar Etzion - 'The total fighting force in Gush Etzion consisted, by the spring of 1948, of 535 men and women, including 215 men and 100 women of the kibbutzim and 220 fighters sent by the Haganah'.
PalestineRemembered 10:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome to contribute, not only criticize. --Shuki 21:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PalestineRemembered, You say that living under Arab sovereignty was an option. It was not. If they had remained they would have been killed. They had no option but to protect themselves. Are you really trying to say that all the Arab armies that attacked Israel were for the sole purpose of helping enforce UN sanctions? They were there to rid the land of the Jews now that the British had left. Leppi 14:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the first line of this article. Gus Etzion was comprised of 3 agricultural settlements. It was no more a "Palmach stronghold" than Deir Yassin was an Arab army stronghold.  The nature of the 1947-1948 war was such that civilian settlements were targeted, and defended themselves - on both sides . NoCal100 (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article is a POV disgrace

message: From B. Morris, The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews, page 135: "During the months before 15 May, Arab civilian and British and Legion military traffic was periodically fired upon along the Hebron-Jerusalem road. The fire came from Haganah militiamen stationed in the Etzion Bloc kibbutzim"--Doron 12:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haganah attacks 

message: Are the communities in any specific order? It seems to me that they are randomly placed. Leppi 14:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of communities

message: Surely, more accurately, it's "literally Etzion bloc"? --Dweller (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (Brought here from WP:RD/L#Hebrew grammar/translation help please) Surely it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. In Hebrew, when you have two nouns next to each other like "X Y", the first is in the construct state and the phrase is translated "X of Y" (e.g. "Beth El" = "house of God"). But in English, we like to make compound nouns like "garage door" (which I assume is literally "door(CONSTRUCT) garage" in Hebrew). So whether we translate this "bloc of Etzion" or "Etzion bloc" is a question of what sounds better in English, not a question of what it is "literally" in Hebrew. —Angr 11:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's maybe falling between two stools then. It's either "literally Etzion bloc" or "bloc of Etzion" without the "literally", as it's missing a possessive. --Dweller (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, literally it's not Etzion bloc either; it's "bloc Etzion" but that's bad grammar in English. Anyway, the possessive meaning is intrinsic in the construct state. —Angr 12:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, good enough for me, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "literally bloc of Etzion" 

message: In addition to the previous section, I believe that the article should be moved to Etzion Bloc per WP:ENGLISH. Both terms are used, and I believe that the English term is known enough and more descriptive for an English-speaking audience. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Etzion Settlement Block appears to be more well known than Etzion Block. nableezy - 23:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move proposal 

message: The country of Israel is not building in Gush Eztion, Palestinians are. Almost 100% of the Jewish houses, synagogues, stores, schools, etc in the Gush are built by Palestinians. Palestinian contractors, Palestinian stone, Palestinian trucks delivering, Palestinian labor. The Palestinians are expanding the Jewish presence in the Gush by building it.  By your reasoning, they are involved with a large scale illegal enterprise for 100's of millions of dollars for decades. Should they not be prosecuted?
:Do you mean that the people who are being occupied should be prosecuted before the occupying power, the controlling power is prosecuted? I am talking from a neutral point of view as agreed by International community (ICJ, UN and thirdparties like US, UK, EU), so should you.  User:Waqas.usman (Talk) 20:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  If it is illegal, should Palestinians by prosecuted for expanding the Jewish presence in the Gush by building it? 

message: What is the official wikipedia policy? Should the opening sentence about a town or a state or a country explain what the status of that entity was 100 or 200 years ago or should it describe the current status? For the majority of Wikipedia articles, the opening sentence is what it is today, not what it was 90 years ago, why should Gush Etzion be an exception to describe it from a specific POV and not from the NPOV as recognized by the whole world (except one country)? For example, an article about Hawaii does not start with a sentence that says that Hawaii was an independent kingdom in 1778, or that it was independent until 1893, it starts with a sentence that says that it's a US state. Should we change Gush Etzion's opening sentence to describe current status or should we modify Hawaii (and other articles about places)? User:Waqas.usman (Talk) 20:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentence should reflect current status 

message: Reminding editors of WP:WESTBANK and the specific prohibition on using Judea or Samaria as a name of a current place (number 6: The terms "Samaria" or "Judea" cannot be used without qualification in the NPOV neutral voice; for example, it cannot be asserted without qualification that a place is "in Samaria"). Debresser, kindly familiarize yourself with that guideline so that you dont make edits like this again. Also, your edit, like the original IP's vandalism, changed the name of references in the article making titles that actually say "West Bank settlers shrug ..." read as "Judea settlers shrug". Please be more careful in the future. Thanks, nableezy - 18:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I am familiar with WP:WESTBANK. I recommend you familiarize yourself with the geography of the area. Since the article mentions "Judaean Mountains", the rest is just politics, as far as I am concerned. Debresser (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judea/West Bank 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gush Etzion. 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/20090730091850/http://www.gush-etzion.org.il/history.asp to http://www.gush-etzion.org.il/history.asp
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) 22:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Below is a list found in the respective article about different population amounts of each town. They are updated to 2008, and not 2015, the most recent census, and their are considerable changes between them. The new census can be found here-http://www.cbs.gov.il/ishuvim/reshimalefishem.pdf
I strongly wish some one would change and update this info, because since it is out of date, it is incorrect and factually wrong.
Here is the old list
Name	Founded	Population
(EOY 2008)[30]	Type
Alon Shvut	1970	3,400	Community settlement
Bat Ayin	1989	900	Community settlement
Beitar Illit	1985	38,800	Independent municipality[31]
Efrat	1983	8,300	Independent municipality[31]
Elazar	1975	1,706	Community settlement
Karmei Tzur	1984	700	Community settlement
Kedar	1984	960	Community settlement
Kfar Eldad	1994	120	Community settlement
Kfar Etzion	1967	820	Kibbutz
Gevaot	1984	75	Community settlement
Har Gilo	1968	570	Community settlement
Ibei HaNahal	1999	50	Outpost
Ma'ale Amos	1982	270	Community settlement
Ma'ale Rehav'am	2001	40	Outpost
Metzad	1984	380	Community settlement
Migdal Oz	1977	440	Kibbutz
Neve Daniel	1982	1,883	Community settlement
Nokdim	1982	1,300	Community settlement
Pnei Kedem	2000	100	Outpost
Rosh Tzurim	1969	560	Kibbutz
Sde Boaz	2002	90	Outpost
Tekoa	1975	1,600	Community settlement Jaketheforestdude (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: I couldn't find all the localities in the current list we have with a simple Ctrl+F on the link you gave me. Are you sure we can use this as a reliable source to update the current list? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  @Jd02022092 Huh. It seems to me that the editor brought a source. No less than the Israeli Bureau of Statistics. Debresser (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2017 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Gush Etzion. 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/20130708095236/http://www.gush-etzion.org.il/tourism/winery.htm to http://www.gush-etzion.org.il/tourism%5Cwinery.htm
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68sQIbMap?url=http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=117 to http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=117
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090721202020/http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=62&docid=1549 to http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=62&docid=1549
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) 09:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Could you make the table sortable by adding the sortable class to it, please? Thanks in advance, --Marsupium (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done DannyS712 (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request: Make table sortable 

message: Is there any post-67 settlement at the site of old Revivim? Arminden (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the western part of Rosh Tzurim. See Katz, Yossi, and John C. Lehr. “Symbolism and Landscape: The Etzion Bloc in the Judean Mountains.” Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 31, no. 4, 1995, pp. 730–743. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4283758 for the exact locations. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is old Revivim site resettled?