Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
On 7 April 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Efrat to Efrat (Israeli settlement). The result of the discussion was moved. |
This page should be joined with Efrat, as they are both referring to the same place. 129.98.196.159
The conventional reference to this community is "Efrat." Perhaps we can make that the standard internal ereference within the article? Tewfik 16:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Ynhockey, you removed a section in the body and a line in the lead on the illegality of this settlement under international law on the basis that it was "undue". Could you please explain? A consensus was established at WT:Legality of Israeli settlements that said, in part, that articles with multiple sections, if they contain a section on the legality in the body, should also contain a sentence in the lead. You removed the section in the body without any basis at all. Keep in mind that similar editing has brought other users extended topic bans. Please self-revert your edit in a timely fashion as it is made against an established consensus. nableezy - 12:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Two people have now claimed that UNDUE allows for the removal of a section on the legal status of this colony. What in UNDUE supports this position? A simple statement that it just does is not a valid statement. I would rather not take this to AE, but, if you all have not noticed, I am not exactly shy and will do so if there continues to be such disruptive actions that disregards the consensus established on this issue. nableezy - 12:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
This article is a "multi section article" and thus the single sentence belongs in the lead and it should be expanded upon in the body. The linked to discussion very clearly establishes a consensus for the inclusion of this line in the lead of this article and for the expansion of that material in the body. I await an actual reason as to why either UNDUE prohibits the inclusion of the section in the body or why the very clear close of that discussion does not apply here. nableezy - 19:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)I found that there was consensus for the wording per proposal 2, and for it to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body, and to be used without further expansion in stub or very short articles
The following changes should be made for completeness and balance:
for the following reasons:
* The Fourth Geneva Convention was intended to prohibit forcible deportations and mass transfers of peoples, like those perpetrated by Nazi Germany during World War II, not to restrict the voluntary decisions of individuals to move into occupied territories. [1] [2]
* In any event, the West Bank had not been legally held by a sovereign prior to Israel taking control of it, so it should be considered disputed territory rather than occupied territory. [3] [4]
Nhcohen ( talk) 19:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Missing pipe in: |url=
(
help)
The settlements are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this...Israel's housing ministry issued tenders for the construction of 801 housing units in West Bank settlements, including Efrat, Elkana and Emanuel, and 600 in Ramat Shlomo in East Jerusalem.
Both sides of the story should be presented. Add the following at the end of the section:
According to CAMERA, Efrat was built on state land and some private Jewish land, following a thorough review of land registries during Ottoman, British, and Jordanian control of the territory, which determined that there was no private Palestinian land in the area. [1]
Nhcohen ( talk) 19:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
References
Why the removal of the photos: "PikiWiki Israel 6078 Efrat settlement.JPG", "View of Efrat from the highway (Efrat137 3773.JPG)" and "Roman aqueduct from Pools of Solomon to Jerusalem.jpg"? And 3 photos replaced by what? A hazy photo of an empty highway with a road sign, light poles and some snow with "beautiful downtown Efrat" barely visible in the distance. -- @Efrat ( talk) 10:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Efrat. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Efrat. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Efrat has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
TEXT TO CHANGE: The second paragraph of the introduction states, "Considered the capital of Gush Etzion,[6] it had a population of 10,088 in 2018. Although geographically located within Gush Etzion, it is independent from the Gush Etzion Regional Council, and Palestinians in negotiations do not consider it as part of that block, since..."
CHANGE TO: "Efrat it had a population of 11,800 in the start of 2020[1] and is geographically located within the Gush Etzion Block. However, it is independent from the Gush Etzion Regional Council and is defined as a Local Authority with its own independent municipal status and jurisdiction.[2] The Palestinians in negotiations do not consider it as part of that block, since..."
[1] " Statistical Data of Efrat" (Hebrew), National Insurance Institute of Israel. [2] " Table I/2 - Area of Jurisdiction, Municipal Status and Geographic Location in Jerusalem, Cities with Population Greater than 200,000 and Jerusalem's Surrounding Local Authorities, 2008," Jerusalem Institute for Policy Research.
XXXX REASONING XXXX
While the current reference stating that Efrat is "considered the capital of Gush Etzion" is an article in the NYT from March, 2015, there is NO ONE in Efrat or Gush Etzion who considers Efrat part of Gush Etzion in any way! The municipalities, local elections, schools, libraries, sports centers, municipal departments etc. are entirely separate!
Very few people in Israel would even consider Gush Etzion to have a a capital!!
(I say this as a resident of Israel and a resident of Gush Etzion.)
Sholhur (
talk) 13:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( non-admin closure) Material Works (contribs) 15:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
"Efrat" is the name for many things, including many people and at least one organization. The settlement is by no means the obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and this page should be moved to make way for the disambiguation page to move to the base name. Iskandar323 ( talk) 12:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 7 April 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Efrat to Efrat (Israeli settlement). The result of the discussion was moved. |
This page should be joined with Efrat, as they are both referring to the same place. 129.98.196.159
The conventional reference to this community is "Efrat." Perhaps we can make that the standard internal ereference within the article? Tewfik 16:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Ynhockey, you removed a section in the body and a line in the lead on the illegality of this settlement under international law on the basis that it was "undue". Could you please explain? A consensus was established at WT:Legality of Israeli settlements that said, in part, that articles with multiple sections, if they contain a section on the legality in the body, should also contain a sentence in the lead. You removed the section in the body without any basis at all. Keep in mind that similar editing has brought other users extended topic bans. Please self-revert your edit in a timely fashion as it is made against an established consensus. nableezy - 12:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Two people have now claimed that UNDUE allows for the removal of a section on the legal status of this colony. What in UNDUE supports this position? A simple statement that it just does is not a valid statement. I would rather not take this to AE, but, if you all have not noticed, I am not exactly shy and will do so if there continues to be such disruptive actions that disregards the consensus established on this issue. nableezy - 12:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
This article is a "multi section article" and thus the single sentence belongs in the lead and it should be expanded upon in the body. The linked to discussion very clearly establishes a consensus for the inclusion of this line in the lead of this article and for the expansion of that material in the body. I await an actual reason as to why either UNDUE prohibits the inclusion of the section in the body or why the very clear close of that discussion does not apply here. nableezy - 19:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)I found that there was consensus for the wording per proposal 2, and for it to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body, and to be used without further expansion in stub or very short articles
The following changes should be made for completeness and balance:
for the following reasons:
* The Fourth Geneva Convention was intended to prohibit forcible deportations and mass transfers of peoples, like those perpetrated by Nazi Germany during World War II, not to restrict the voluntary decisions of individuals to move into occupied territories. [1] [2]
* In any event, the West Bank had not been legally held by a sovereign prior to Israel taking control of it, so it should be considered disputed territory rather than occupied territory. [3] [4]
Nhcohen ( talk) 19:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Missing pipe in: |url=
(
help)
The settlements are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this...Israel's housing ministry issued tenders for the construction of 801 housing units in West Bank settlements, including Efrat, Elkana and Emanuel, and 600 in Ramat Shlomo in East Jerusalem.
Both sides of the story should be presented. Add the following at the end of the section:
According to CAMERA, Efrat was built on state land and some private Jewish land, following a thorough review of land registries during Ottoman, British, and Jordanian control of the territory, which determined that there was no private Palestinian land in the area. [1]
Nhcohen ( talk) 19:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
References
Why the removal of the photos: "PikiWiki Israel 6078 Efrat settlement.JPG", "View of Efrat from the highway (Efrat137 3773.JPG)" and "Roman aqueduct from Pools of Solomon to Jerusalem.jpg"? And 3 photos replaced by what? A hazy photo of an empty highway with a road sign, light poles and some snow with "beautiful downtown Efrat" barely visible in the distance. -- @Efrat ( talk) 10:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Efrat. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Efrat. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Efrat has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
TEXT TO CHANGE: The second paragraph of the introduction states, "Considered the capital of Gush Etzion,[6] it had a population of 10,088 in 2018. Although geographically located within Gush Etzion, it is independent from the Gush Etzion Regional Council, and Palestinians in negotiations do not consider it as part of that block, since..."
CHANGE TO: "Efrat it had a population of 11,800 in the start of 2020[1] and is geographically located within the Gush Etzion Block. However, it is independent from the Gush Etzion Regional Council and is defined as a Local Authority with its own independent municipal status and jurisdiction.[2] The Palestinians in negotiations do not consider it as part of that block, since..."
[1] " Statistical Data of Efrat" (Hebrew), National Insurance Institute of Israel. [2] " Table I/2 - Area of Jurisdiction, Municipal Status and Geographic Location in Jerusalem, Cities with Population Greater than 200,000 and Jerusalem's Surrounding Local Authorities, 2008," Jerusalem Institute for Policy Research.
XXXX REASONING XXXX
While the current reference stating that Efrat is "considered the capital of Gush Etzion" is an article in the NYT from March, 2015, there is NO ONE in Efrat or Gush Etzion who considers Efrat part of Gush Etzion in any way! The municipalities, local elections, schools, libraries, sports centers, municipal departments etc. are entirely separate!
Very few people in Israel would even consider Gush Etzion to have a a capital!!
(I say this as a resident of Israel and a resident of Gush Etzion.)
Sholhur (
talk) 13:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( non-admin closure) Material Works (contribs) 15:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
"Efrat" is the name for many things, including many people and at least one organization. The settlement is by no means the obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and this page should be moved to make way for the disambiguation page to move to the base name. Iskandar323 ( talk) 12:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)