Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:29, 28 September 2015

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: 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. 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!

Cities Start‑class

This 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Israel Start‑class High‑importance

This 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Palestine Unassessed

This 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)

• Ok for merging Caesarea and Qisarya, but I'm not sure about Barrat Qisarya. I think it was about 3km away, in or on the far side of the built-up area of Or Akiva. Since it was a bedouin encampment rather than a stone village, it is hard to find on maps. Zero 09:11, 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)

• Support merging anything that is clearly the same place, like Caesarea and Qisarya.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Qisaraya merge. Oppose Barrat Qiesaraya merge. The latter looks like a separate place. Student7 (talk) 18:47, 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)

• Merge. Qisaraya and Caesarea are essentially the same.Brian3030 (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. It seems eminently sensible to see the history of the same place in one article. --Allstar86 (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

First of all, I didn't stalk you. I have viewed this article before, even if I haven't edited it. But the truth is you yourself told me you edited certain articles, and I just had to look them up, which is already not stalking any more.

As a matter of fact, I am completely happy with the over 20 edits you made to this page, which I enormously appreciate, with just this one small exception.

The article says "During the Mamluk era, the ruins of Caesarea Maritima by the Crusader fortress near Caesarea on the Mediterranean coast lay uninhabited". 1664 is already the Ottoman period. I think that makes the point that the village "was again abandoned after the Mamluk conquest". What seems wrong is "It was re-populated in 1884 by Bosniak immigrants", because, as you show from the article, it was already populated in 1664. That should be fixed. Debresser (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

In short, you came here, because I said I was editing it. And the difference between that, and stalking, is....? At the moment I don´t *know* how, or if it "was again abandoned after the Mamluk conquest"...I´m still working my way through Sharon and Pringle-books. And neither does anyone else, here, it seems. (Know *if* it was abandoned, that is: ...it is not sourced to anything.) That is why I removed it...and you re-inserted an unsourced statement in the lead. Now, will you please either do some work, and find a source for this...or remove it? And "During the Mamluk era, the ruins of Caesarea Maritima by the Crusader fortress near Caesarea on the Mediterranean coast lay uninhabited" is also unsourced: that is nothing to put in the lead, obviously. Huldra (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay. So we at least agree that the lead summarizes the article. The only problem is that the article has some unsourced statements.

I am not working on this article as you do, nor do I have the books you mention, but I'll see if a short search can provide me with some sources for those statements. Debresser (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

That was ridiculously easy. If not our stained interactions, I should really trout you for removing information that is so easy to source. Debresser (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

....except that isn´t quite correct, is it? What was in the article: "In 1664, a settlement is mentioned consisting of 100 ] families, and 7–8 Jewish ones.<ref>Roger, 1664; cited in Ringel 1975, 174; cited in Petersen, 2001, p.129</ref> In the 18th century it again declined.<ref>Petersen, 2001, p129</ref>" Now, I have been trying to identify that original 1664-source, but haven't managed. However, the Ringel 1975, have snippet view, see here. Search for "Roger" and you get p. 174. To me it looks as if Petersens translation is wrong? ..he writes about "dúne centaine de families de Mores et de sept ou huit de Juifs, ..who lives in fear of pirates.... I thought "Mores" was a general name for Muslim, (and not "Moroccan", as Peterson gives.) In any case; the lead now make it sound as if it was abandoned all the time since the Mamluk conquest until 1884; we know this isn´t true. Btw; I have *never* found either the Jewish Virtual Library, or even Britannica good enough for these Palestinian places: we *have* to have the original academic sources. (Ok: Britannica is superb on ancient history...but I cannot see the whole article here), Huldra (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, the lead is sourced now. I already pointed out that there is a problem with two mutually exclusive statements. Since one of them is now source, it seems the 1664 statement is problematic. Debresser (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Completely wrong: there are lots and lots of cases, where people have written that a place was "abandoned", or "not settled" ...simply because they did not know the sources which said otherwise. Eg, many sources stated that Alma, Safad was first populated with "Algerians" in the 18the century, ...only because they did not know the Hütteroth and Abdulfattah-survey, which showed that it was *huge* back in 1596. Even Walid Khalidi wrote in his "standard" book about the 48-villages, that Samakh, Tiberias was established in the early 19th century....he obviously didn´t know that Pierre Jacotin had it marked as a village already in 1799. Should we state that Samakh was established "in the early 19th century"...just because Khalidi says so...even though we have another source which contradict him? No, no, and no again. (Khalidi lists lots of books/articles in the Bibliography, in his 1992-book. However, the Karmon, 1960-article is not there). Again, don´t you think I haven´t seen this loads of times, writing about these villages??... which is why I stated earlier, "I have *never* found either the Jewish Virtual Library, or even Britannica good enough for these Palestinian places."

Again, take that Ringel 1975-book, see here, and search for "Roger" and you get p. 174. I am actually considering buying Rigel (...even if I don´t read French!) ...just to find out *which* "Roger" he refers to. (That book is not in any library in my country, so I cannot borrow it easily). Now I don´t mind people stalking me, and checking my edits..... but I *do* mind them if they don´t do their "home-work". Additionally, Ulrich Jasper Seetzen noted some fisher families there in 1806; he did not land, though; only observed them from the seas (if I, with my rusty German have understood him correctly.) Huldra (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

"Mores" is an old-French word referring to "Maures" ie Moors. According to the context, Maure can be translated different ways but it was common in France at the time to refer to any Muslim as a Moor due to the conquest of Spain and the trial to conquer France. I learnt this word that way myself at primary school. I would not translate this by Marrocan in the current context.
Eugène Roger has his entry at BNF (Bibliothèque Nationale de France) ; the book of 1664 is the 2nd version of one of his book and is mentioned.
Here is the text in French:

Au XVIIe siècle, on retrouve de nouveau à Césarée une population de quelque importance, composée, aux dires de F. Eugène Roger, d'une centaine de familles de Mores et de sept ou huit familles de Juifs, tous vivant dans un état misérable et dans la peur constante des corsaires maltais

which can be tranlsated as follows:

At the 17th century, a population of some significance can be found again at Cesarea that is, according to Eugene Roger, composed of a hundred families of Moors and of seven or eight families of Jews, all living in a miserable state and in the constant fear of Malta corsars

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Pluto2012 Excellent! Thank you very much. And gallica has a copy of the book here. Unfortunately, the Ringel -snippet view does not give us the page-number..we just have to flip through it (unless we get hold of the Ringel-book; but I guess that would be more hassle than flipping through it.....) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 09:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Found it, it is on p. 76, User:Pluto2012, could I ask you for a translation? ...don´t worry about translation on the history-stuff; we have that from plenty of other sources. Also, I see he mention 1638 in the extended book-heading...was that the year the journey was made? Huldra (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Here it is. @Pluto2012:, please report. Zero 11:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is the google-version of the 1664 copy; easier to read. Btw, Eugene Roger was apparently personal physician to Fakhr-al-Din II, who died in 1635. According to that Misplaced Pages-article (hah!!): "Rumors have it that Fakhr-al-Din had secretly adopted the Christian faith. Those rumors, first reported in the Memoirs of Fakhr ad-Din's personal physician, the Franciscan Etienne Roger, are not corroborated by any other independent source"....sourced to that 1664 book. Roger was also a missionary, apparently. Huldra (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

Take care that Eugène Roger is not wp:rs and cannot be trusted. Ringel uses the word: "aux dires de F. Eugène Roger" which is more carefull than the "according to" that I have used. It is closer to "according to what he says" (dire = to say : les dires de = the allegations of). Reading the title of his books, I have the feeling that Roger was a kind of "mystic" but I don't have enough know-how of the emphases people used in 17th century in the titles of books to be sure of this.

The books is indeed not in French but in old French, but that's quite understandable:

of Palestine since the collapose of Jerusaelm but that it was devastated by Mahometans and then by Christians] (...).

But nowadays, the last devastations it suffered makes it appear in a pity state, such that it cannot be , having no more church, no more Christians , and only around a hundred families of Mores & seven or eight of Jews, living in poor houses in the Eastern side of the city because they would not dare to establish themselves close to the sea, fearing that the "Knights of Malta" would take them by surprise and make slaves of them or stole the goods that those of the mountains bring to them; such as coton, olive and sesame oil, wheat, that the Greeks come to pick and bring in their vessels that they lead to Constantinople.

Comments: in French it is considered as a poor style to use the same word in several sentences following each other. It is recommanded to use synonyms. I think there is no doubt that he refers to Maures as Mahometans ie Muslims.

Pluto2012 (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Debresser (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit)

I could not find when he was there but in the preface, Eugène Roger writes that he was 5 years in Orient in the company of Emir Fechrredin who died in Paris in 1638. He was allowed to publish his book in October 1645. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

So what do we have now? Two contradictory sources? Debresser (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, Debresser: do your home-work, Huldra (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for translating that, Pluto, very, very interesting. And I think Roger is about as WP:RS as everyone from the period; that is: “handle with care”. (Eg, Al-Baladhuri reports that there were 700 000 soldiers in Caesarea when the Muslims over-ran it; an absurdly high number. Everyone still quotes him on other issues. Two things, historically: soldiers/army people (or their hagiographys) *always* exaggerated the number of their enemy conquered, ..just like missionaries always exaggerated the number of their converts.)

• What I found extremely interesting, is that Rogers obviously saw the people of Caesarea as merchants, traders, not fisher-folks (As Seetzen did, in 1806). And especially, that they exported cotton, to Istanbul….but on Greek ships (Greece still being a part of the Ottoman empire at this stage.) Firstly; being traders explain the presence of Jews (I have very rarely come a across Jews working in the “primary industries” (=farming, fishing) during the Ottoman era; in fact, never as fishermen, and only one place (Peki'in) farming)
• Secondly, it was this cotton trade that was the very basis of the rise of a person like Zahir al-Umar the next century; he started exporting directly to Europe ...(hmm, did those Greek ships have anything to do with it???) , thereby increasing his, and the districts wealth. (Needless to say, to the extreme displeasure of Constantinople.) How very interesting, that after Constantinople crushed Zahir al-Umar (1775), we find no reports of merchants at Caesarea, and that this was when Petersen said it went into decline. I think we can possibly see this a rather interesting case, of a smaller place mirroring the larger political power-struggles of the time.

• Ringel, 1975, in WP:RS, no? So we could quote what Ringel quotes of Rogers, using the word "Muslim" for "Mores". In addition, I would like to quote, something along the line, “they exported cotton, olive and sesame, oil, wheat, from the inland, via Greek boats to Constantinople,” And is it the Knights Hospitaller they refer to? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Caesarea Maritima

There is a question about how much should go into this article, and how much should go into Caesarea Maritima. Much of the Crusader remains seem to be between present new town of Caesarea, and the old Caesarea Maritima. Huldra (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Start-Class WikiProject Cities articles
• All WikiProject Cities pages
• Start-Class Israel-related articles
• High-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• Unassessed Palestine-related articles
• Unknown-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles