Misplaced Pages

Talk:Caesarea (modern town): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:19, 23 September 2015 editHuldra (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers83,894 edits →Merge proposal← Previous edit Revision as of 23:02, 24 September 2015 edit undoHuldra (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers83,894 edits →Stalking: new sectionNext edit →
Line 70: Line 70:


:: It is information from a reliable source and I don't see a reason to delete it just because it would be nice to have more of the story. There is nothing weasely about it. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC) :: It is information from a reliable source and I don't see a reason to delete it just because it would be nice to have more of the story. There is nothing weasely about it. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

== Stalking ==

]: that you stalk me, and turn up at an article you never have edited before, is no problem. But automatic reverts, , is, as now the lead says Caesarea was "abandoned after the Mamluk conquest" ...and the *nothing* until 1884. This contradicts the article text...e.g. where do those 100+ families in 1664 fit in? ] (]) 23:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:02, 24 September 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Caesarea (modern town) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
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:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, 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.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
WikiProject iconCities Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael Start‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconPalestine Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I have remove the mergeto tag. They shouldn't be merged. One is an archaeological site, the other a modern city. Cheers, Tewfik 17:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Images

Does anyone have any pictures of modern-day Caesarea which they could contribute to the article? Flymeoutofhere (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

merge

I think the two articles on ancient & modern Caesarea can be easily merged. At the moment this article has a long (unreferenced) history section on the ancient city. In any case, there is some interesting information here is lacking on the ancient city page, so I would not just delete it. --Gilabrand (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Same way as has been made for other similar cases - different spellings and time periods of the same city should be merged. The only exception is made for archaeological parks - thus, Caesaria Maritima needs to be an article about the modern archeological national park, whereas Caesarea, Qisariya and the historic section of Caesaria Maritima need to be merged.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Qisarya

An editor has come up with a "competing" village, Qisarya, which he just tried to substitute as a link from Caesarea Maratima. Any thoughts? Student7 (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I will issue a merge proposal as per above.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closing admin comments - There is a clear consensus to merge Qisarya and Caesarea. As most did not comment on the merge with Barrat Qisarya and those who did were against it, there is no consensus to merge Barrat Qisarya and Caesaria. Furthermore, no one commented on the Caesarea Maritima proposal, and there is thus no consensus to change the status quo. Keilana| 04:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Following the previous conversations i propose articles named Qisarya and Barrat Qisarya be merged into this article. In addition, the article on Caesarea Maritima would become an article on modern national park with a short history section, with most of its history merged into this article. Please vote Support or Oppose.Greyshark09 (talk) 07:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems there is not enough info on Barrat Qisarya - there are only 3 unreferenced sentences in that stub article and a very general "copy-paste" bibliography. In any case, if indeed relating to the nomad Bedouin compound near Bosniak Qisarya, it is certainly non-notable as a "village" - it is much better to describe it within the scope of "British Mandate" history section here.Greyshark09 (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually I was just reading about a famous mandate-era land-rights case involving Barrat Qisarya, and Morris has a little about it, so I'll be able to expand that article. If it is ever merged with another article, Or Akiva would be more appropriate. Zero 10:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I would be against merger with Or-Akiva, because the naming was changed - Or-Akiva was established as a new village. In my opinion, like in case of Ashdod, Ashdod Sea and Isdud - different nearby locations with same naming belong to one article, even though Isdud and Ashdod Sea remains are just on the borders of modern Ashdod municipality.Greyshark09 (talk) 10:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
By that rationale, merger with Caesarea is inappropriate too. Or Akiva was established on the same site within a year or two of the depopulation. The connection with Caesarea is nothing except the name, it had no other historical connection to ancient or modern Caesaria that I know of. Zero 10:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I think we broadcast on different wavelenghts- that to say, let's see other opinions on that matter.Greyshark09 (talk) 10:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Student do you understand Arabic? I would like to note that "Barrat Qisarya" means "Outer Qisarya".Greyshark09 (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
They must be the same place. Co-incident. We have created separate articles for the same-named cities, ancient and modern, that are a few miles apart. The meaning of the name should not be the deciding factor. Student7 (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge

In the above "merge", from this, the inbox was forgotten. I´m adding it, Huldra (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

History before and during the 1948 war

Follow me through here. The text reads

1. "In December 1947 the local leader, Tawfiq Kadkuda, approached Jewish officials in an effort to establish non-belligerency agreements with local Jewish settlements." Bosnians are trying to say "Look, we're not Arabs. We don't want any trouble." Extreme Zionists don't buy this.

2. "The 31 January 1948 Lehi attack on a bus leaving Qisarya, killed 2 and injuring 6 people, precipitated an evacuation of the population, who fled for fear of further attacks, mainly due to rumors about al-Tantura." Great! Now there is nobody in the area, hardly. Scared of being massacred, and maybe for good reason.

3. "In February 1948 the 'Arab al Sufsafi and Saidun Bedouin, who inhabited the dunes between Qisarya and Pardes left the area. During the 1948 Arab-Israeli War part of the population of Qisariya fled in fear of attacks, before it was conquered by Jewish forces in February." Great. Now everybody is gone. Nobody can get hurt, right?

3.a. "In February 1948 the village was conquered by a Palmach unit commanded by Yitzhak Rabin and its people expelled." What is Rabin doing? Starting a war by himself? I tried to change this to February 1949 which is well within the scope of the war article but was reverted. What is going on?

4. But, "According to Israeli historian Uri Milstein, the 4th Battalion of Palmach conquered Caesarea under the command of Josef Tabenkin. The remaining inhabitants were expelled and the village houses were demolished." Five or six "remaining inhabitants." What's left to "conquer?"

We have a village, which was never terrifically large at its peak population, from which everyone has supposedly fled, being conquered twice by mighty conquerors, once before the war and once during the war. Student7 (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Reason for expulsion

Morris 1984 pp94-5: "During this period Jewish troops expelled the inhabitants of only one village—Qisariya, in the Coastal Plain, in mid-February (for reasons connected to Jewish illegal immigration rather than the ongoing civil war)—though other villages were harassed and a few specifically intimidated by IZL, LHI, and Haganah actions (much as during this period Jewish settlements were being harassed and intimidated by Arab irregulars)." That's the complete and only mention I know of illegal immigration being involved. It's easy to guess the explanation but without more in a published source we can't do more than repeat what is here. Any other reference to the matter would of course be welcome. Meanwhile I'm removing the tag since there is no way to satisfy it. Zero 01:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Presumably the landing of illegals just to the south of Caesarea?
Why not drop "Jewish illegal immigration" comment? Without more info it sounds WP:WEASELy. Smear by innuendo. Without the explanation, it doesn't help the credibility of article.
Pretty much like quoting from a Police Report, "A lot of this dispute has to do with Zero's Domestic Problems." No further explanation. No explanation that charges were dropped or completely unfounded or that a completely different Zero was meant (or Zero was found not guilty, or whatever). Just the lingering doubt. Student7 (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
It is information from a reliable source and I don't see a reason to delete it just because it would be nice to have more of the story. There is nothing weasely about it. Zero 12:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Stalking

User:Debresser: that you stalk me, and turn up at an article you never have edited before, is no problem. But automatic reverts, like this, is, as now the lead says Caesarea was "abandoned after the Mamluk conquest" ...and the *nothing* until 1884. This contradicts the article text...e.g. where do those 100+ families in 1664 fit in? Huldra (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Caesarea (modern town): Difference between revisions Add topic