This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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)
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. Zerotalk 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. Zerotalk 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. Zerotalk 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 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)
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.
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. [From the lead, which is the "summary of the article"] "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)
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. Zerotalk 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. Zerotalk 12:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)