Jump to content

Talk:Latrun

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


Untitled

[edit]

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)

Shadow of a giant

[edit]

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)[reply]

changes made

[edit]

The date given for the establishment of the Monastery was previously given in this article as 1861, but according to my recollection of a conversation with Abbot Paul Saouma it was established around 1890, which is the date usually seen elsewhere on the internet.

It was stated that Trappists are not supposed to drink alcohol. Whereas this was true centuries ago, a reform has long since permitted them the consumption of alcohol and, indeed, some of the finest Belgian beers are produced in Trappist monasteries.

There had been no reference to the small village of al-Latrun, whose former presence should not be omitted, and which perhaps deserves further description in an article that purports to present the history of Latrun.

It could be possible to include a description of the No Man's Land between Israel and Jordan (1949 - 1967).

The site Palestine Remembered was previously described here as "Palestinian advocacy site, offering disputed claims regarding the battle at Latrun". I think a more neutral description was called for, that allows the readers to judge for themselves. Besides, the site doesn't really have much to say about the battle at Latrun.

Disorganized and Inclomplete

[edit]

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)[reply]

I agreee with the last post: there were three attacks on Latrun. Further I disagree with the conclusion in the article where ir says that the results of the battle were "mixt", because the Arab Legion was contained and allowed the opening of a second roda to Jerusalem: the objective of the attacks was to open the road to Jerusalem (not achieved). Further, it is preposterous to write that the attacks on Latrun "contained" the Arab Legion : was not the goal and of course ded not "contained" or restrained the A. Legion. Further, the second road to Jerusalem was open more or less covertly and was not bombed during the pre-armistice by tyhe A. Legion because the British officer in charge considered impossible to open such road (due to the nature of the terrain), so give instructions for not to shell the area where one could see dust from the roadworks. Apologies for my terrible English.

Peace

Shaping up

[edit]

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)[reply]

Use of Bible as a supposedly historical source

[edit]

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)[reply]

Jews vs. Israelis

[edit]

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)[reply]

Israeli control

[edit]

Latrun was never annexed to Israel. If this idea was based on this article in Haaretz [1], 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)[reply]

Latrun Monastery

[edit]

We could use an article on the Trappist monastery (hint, hint). Zerotalk 15:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Israeli occupation

[edit]

Hertz1888, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hertz1888, 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think it's balanced to call the right name regarding both sides. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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:

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) 06:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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:

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) 00:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

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

  • Domus Boni Latronis, 1587
    Domus Boni Latronis, 1587
  • Domus Boni Latronis, 1619
    Domus Boni Latronis, 1619
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Latrun&oldid=1205727998"