Talk:Caesarea, Israel

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  merge 

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

message: 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|Parlez ici 04:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Student do you understand Arabic? I would like to note that "Barrat Qisarya" means "Outer Qisarya".Greyshark09 (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Merge proposal

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

message: 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.[3]" 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.[4]" 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.[5] 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.[6]" 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.[7][8]" 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)
thread_title: History before and during the 1948 war

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Caesarea. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708111423/http://www.caesarea.com/pages_e/688.aspx to http://www.caesarea.com/pages_e/688.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708111348/http://www.caesarea.com/pages_e/640.aspx to http://www.caesarea.com/pages_e/640.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Caesarea (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 23:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress