Talk:Az-Zakariyya

message: Since a couple of editors seem to have taken issue with listing "Expulsion by Yishuv forces" as the cause of depopulation since that apparently doesn't tell the entire story (even though it appears from the article that many of the inhabitants were indeed forcefully evicted/expelled), then it seems this could be solved by using the "cause2" parameter of the infobox. I was going to list cause2 as "M" for "Military assault by Yishuv forces," but wanted some clarification on the matter. Any help here is appreciated. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes of depopulation 

message: I propose we merge this article with its post-1948 counterpart. Are they the same village or not? Andrevan@ 01:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: With no offense, you stand to be corrected. If you read the following web-page, you'll see where it expressly says: "Zakariyya was partially destroyed, and all the remaining houses and its mosque became the property of the Jewish National Fund and Israeli government. Some Kurdish or Khazari Jews have taken residence in some of its houses," - meaning, the Arab village site is currently the Jewish Moshav known as Zekharia. You can see it here: . Besides, if you look at the photo gallery on the same web-site, you'll see one of the old Arab houses still standing, shown here: . When I was there on Sunday, I photographed the same house, as you can see here:  :File:House_in_Zekharia,_built_before_1948.jpg. There's no reason to hide the fact that Moshav Zekharia is built upon the site of the old Arab Az-Zakariyya.Davidbena (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

text: User:Davidbena: I´m not sure why that would be necessary? A current location is called Zekharia, as is clearly said in the info-box. The info that this village was depopulated in 1948 is also in the lead. We could, however, if you like also put a sentence like "The Israeli moshav of Zekharia today occupies some of Az-Zakariyya´s land" into the lead. Would that do?  Huldra (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So, if I understand you correctly, you are 1) against merging Az-Zakariyya and Zekharia, although they are one and the same village; 2) you are against our adding anything about the current Jewish condition (e.g. population statistics, photographs, etc.) of Az-Zakariyya, preferring to limit its scope to pre-1948; 3) you are against changing the title of your WP article, keeping the name of an active village as its title, although based on its title alone, other Wikipedia editors are free to enhance the article and to write about the village, without feeling inhibited to enlarge about its current Jewish population. Can we get an opinion here, say, from User:Andrevan or from User:Number 57, or from User:HJ Mitchell? ----Davidbena (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is: I don´t know how much of the village land of Az-Zakariyya is today occupied by Zekharia. Is it the whole of 15.3 km², which Az-Zakariyya had at the last count (in 1945)? I very much doubt it.  Huldra (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Huldra, that is simple to answer. The entire Arab village of Az-Zakariyya proper has now been supplanted by the newer Israeli Moshav Zekharia - built, in fact, on the same site, while the extended tracts of farm land, some are owned by the Moshav, while other tracts now belong to the Jewish National Fund.Davidbena (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Your words actually confirms that   Az-Zakariyya  is not similar to  Zekharia, ..... if some land is owned by Jewish National Fund, then there is a possibility that new moshavs or kibbutz would be located on this land. Perhaps has been, already. Khalidi, 1992 is the only one (I know of) which lists the new places, and that book is pretty outdated,  Huldra (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, since the adjacent farm lands, extending in some cases to several kilometers, are not called by the village name, but are rather the property of the villagers.Davidbena (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

text: I support a merger. We can't expect every new named geographic entity to have the same exact dimensions as the previously named geographic entity. It will make all geographic articles impossible. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Where shall we draw the line, then? According to Khalidi, Lakhish, Israel was the only place  founded on the land of Al-Qubayba, Hebron: shall those two articles be merged, too? Or is it only  those with a "similar" sounding names? Ijzim is perhaps a better example, it is well known that many, if not most, of the old houses were taken over by Kerem Maharal: shall  Kerem Maharal and  Ijzim  be merged, also? If so, under which name? Huldra (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Huldra, feel free to raise the subject of which you are in doubt on the respective Talk Pages of the WP articles that you've mentioned. Your question does not apply in this case, as we are talking here about two separate articles on the exact same village, one with a Hebrew name (Zekharia) and the other with an Arabic name (Az-Zakariyya). You have requested that I not add to the article (Az-Zakariyya) which you worked so hard to write, and have expunged all references that I've made in that article, including an assortment of photographs, all pertaining to its modern Israeli history, and which request of yours, nevertheless, I have complied with and will not interfere. However, you came and deleted new sections which I added to the other article (Zekharia), in hopes of stymying my efforts in contributing to either article. This, in my opinion, is wrong. So far, there has been no vote taken one way or the other if we are going for a merger, therefore, respect the edits made in Zekharia and which should not bother you at all.Davidbena (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

text: And it is interesting to see that you now have taken an interest in the  " deserted hovels with no connection to any contributions to greater society", cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

text: But Zekharia is not the same name as Az-Zakariyya. (It is not like, say Al-Qubayba, Hebron and Al-Qubayba, Ramle (where we distinguish between the villages by placing it in the district they belonged to).) Again, I propose we make it clearer, in the lead of  Az-Zakariyya, that presently  Zekharia is located there. Huldra (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

text: (And, sigh: I wish someone would spend as much time expanding the history of these places, as they spend time trying to merge articles.... Huldra (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: To avoid confusion, if the two articles should ever be merged, the title of the article can effectually be "Zekharia (Az-Zakariyya)," that is, giving both spellings - the Hebrew and the Arabic.Davidbena (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

text: There is a vary clear and apparent difference between the two situations, that being Az-Zakariyya existed recently enough for incontrovertible first hand sources of information pertaining to it to exist, while the same can not be said of the historical Kingdom of Israel. TheMurgy (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: For your information, editor User:DGG has voiced his opinion that normal practice is that there will be two articles, since there is no institutional continuity (just as there is a separate article for New Amsterdam, although the city is now called New York). See his comments at the end of the section, here. I know that there are many articles on WP covering the same city, although called by different names, just as there is here with respect to Az-Zakariyya (the Arab rendition) for the name of the Moshav Zekharia. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, this is a different merger. We are not talking about the old merger, which indeed are two different articles. If you browse further down this Talk-Page you'll see that we are referring to a different merger, one that involves two articles about the exact same place.Davidbena (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Az-Zakariyya. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5iPvhN4qP?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.palestineremembered.com%2Fdownload%2FVillageStatistics%2FTable%2520I%2FHebron%2FPage-050.jpg to http://www.palestineremembered.com/download/VillageStatistics/Table%20I/Hebron/Page-050.jpg
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have come across a second copy of this picture in the Palmach archive (Harel 4th Battalion volume 3 album 5/15) with a caption Beit Nabala. I prefer the Az-Zakariyya identification because its caption has more detail: Bayt Jibrin + Elah valley - which are close to the location. Padres Hana (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The caption also states that "the village is now inhabited by Kurdish immigrants". Padres Hana (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Khalidi, 1992, p. 226 writes that in 1950 moshav  Zekharia was established by Kurdish Jewish immigrants on the village site. Huldra (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  1948 photo 

message: User:Davidbena, seriously, you cannot add stuff like: "The hill rises to a maximum elevation of 347 meters above sea level, with a height of 117 meters at its lowest elevation, and a mean elevation of approximately 275 meters above sea level", citing it to Khalidi, 1992,  pp. 224-225, when Khalidi say nothing of the kind!! Khalidi only writes that the average elevation is 275 meters...Huldra (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Huldra, only the mean elevation was taken from Khalidi, but the other elevations were taken from another source.Davidbena (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Davidbena, well, why dont you mention the other source, then? Huldra (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to look for it again. Wait.Davidbena (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for being so...picky ...but this is the IP area, after all! Huldra (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "this is the IP area"? By the way, the source for the higher elevation is taken from here: Tel Azekah, but the lowest elevation I took from the Hebrew Wikipedia.Davidbena (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  IP area = Israel Palestine area. And Hebrew Wikipedia cannot be used as a source  (no more that English Wikipedia can be used as a source), Huldra (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the place is ran by the Israeli government, why can't we use Israeli sources? But if you'd feel any better, just delete the statistics for the lower elevation.Davidbena (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course we can use Israeli sources, ...but we cannot use Hebrew Wikipedia as a source. Surely you see the difference? Huldra (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine with me. Feel free to delete the lower elevation. Perhaps I'll find another source later.Davidbena (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  ?????? 

message: I propose that Beit Zakariah be merged into Az-Zakariyya. I think that the content in the Beit Zakariah article can easily be explained in the context of Az-Zakariyya, and the Az-Zakariyya article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Beit Zakariah will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Davidbena (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This should NOT be done, because these are different villages, despite the similar names. Az-Zakariyya is a past village in modern-day Israel. Beit Zakariah is a current village in the West Bank. Ar2332 (talk) 07:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You are plainly mistaken. Both articles refer to the exact same place. In fact, the lead sentence proves it: "The village is the site of the Battle of Beth Zechariah between the Jewish Maccabeans and Selucid Greek forces during the Maccabean revolt against the Seleucid Empire, in the year 162 BCE," as does the very last line prove that we are talking about the same village: "After the Six-Day War in 1967, the Gush Etzion settlements were reestablished. At some point after January 1948, the Arab residents of Beit Zakariah returned to their homes. They now form a small Arab minority within the Gush Etzion bloc." You seem to be very confused about the issue. There is only one Beit Zakariah in all of this part of our country.Davidbena (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon searching the maps, I see that you are correct in asserting that there was a ruin by the name of Hurbat Zakariyya, near the Kibbutz that now stands in that area, and that it was once an Arab ruin, believed to house the tomb of a saint called Zachariah. What confused me was your insistence of it being identified with the place of battle during the Hasmonaean period. That view has been rejected, as it is now largely identified with another place also called "Beit Zachariah," near the Elah Valley. Today, the site that you mention is where Rosh Tzurim now stands, but it was formerly called Khirbet Beit Skâria, which implies that it was only a khirba (ruin), but not a village. My apologies to you. Still, your article needs to be updated. Your article ought to be renamed "Khirbet Beit Zakariyya" since, to my knowledge, there was no town there, at least not in 1878 when they published the Palestine Exploration Fund Map, and which shows Kh. Beit Skâria at the very bottom of the map..Davidbena (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Battle of Beth Zechariah and its Hebrew version say that the Hasmonean battle happened in the West Bank location (not the Israel location). I am unaware of sources that state otherwise. As far as the question of renaming the West Bank location to Beit Zakariah to "Khirbet Beit Zakariyya": I would like to see evidence that "Khirbet Beit Zakariyya" is the currently used name. It certainly wasn't the name used in the Hasmonean period, and I don't see why the name used in 1878 should be privileged. Ar2332 (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Hebrew version" is purely the opinion of its editor, as Israeli archaeologists and renowned Western historical geographers (such as Victor Guerin) have placed the scene of the battle at the location near Azekah, the old Beit Zechariah.Davidbena (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a source that it is near Azekah. The first few sources I found by Googling (1 2 3) all support the West Bank location, not the Azekah location. This is also the opinion of . Ar2332 (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  - Here are a few sources: Although the hill Azekah is now widely known as the Tel (ruin) of Azekah, in the early 19th-century the hilltop ruin was known locally by the name of Tell Zakariyeh. See Preliminary Evaluation of the Renewed Excavations at the Site and see also Erich Zenger, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, p. 721 In 1838, British-American explorer Edward Robinson passed by the site of Tell Zakariyeh, which stood to the left of the modern village bearing the same name. You can see his report in Biblical Researches in Palestine, vol. II, section XI, London 1856, pp. 16, 21. French explorer Victor Guérin thought Tell Zakariyeh to be the village mentioned in the Book of I Maccabees (6:32), known then as Beit Zakariah. See: Victor Guérin, Description de la Palestine, Judée, Description de la Judée, Paris 1869, pp. 316–319; . You may also wish to see Josephus, Antiquities (Book xii, chapter ix, verse 4). "As for Azekah," Guérin writes, "it has not yet been found with certainty, this name appearing to have disappeared." (Victor Guérin, Description de la Palestine, Judée, Description de la Judée, Paris 1869, p. 333. Original French: "Quant à Azéca, en hébreu A’zekah, elle n’a pas encore été retrouvée d’une manière certaine, ce nom paraissant avoir disparu"). Scholars believe that the town's old namesake was changed at some early time in Jewish history.Davidbena (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, how about we change both articles to reflect that the battle location is disputed? You change your article, I change mine? Ar2332 (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I can agree to that, but I'll need to see your sources.Davidbena (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I gave to you the link for the old 1878 map that shows Kh. Beit Skâria. Click here, at bottom of map. It was a khirba (ruin). It's unfair of you to ask for evidence that currently it is still called by that name, since today there is built over the site a kibbutz.Davidbena (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: After looking a bit, I see some recent sources that use the name "Kh. Beit Skâria" so I'm willing to change to that. BTW, there is no kibbutz there - it's an Arab village, though the Rosh Tzurim kibbutz is nearby. Ar2332 (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Then we are in agreement. Have a good day!Davidbena (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Beit Zakariah is an article I long had plans about writing, and collected sources under  User:Huldra/Beit Sakariya, will expand that. Most of what is in the article will have to go, unless we find better sources than  etzion-bloc.org.il, that is hardly WP:RS. Can we remove the merge template? Huldra (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome back, Huldra. Yes, the "merge template" can be removed.Davidbena (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Az-Zakariyya. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.palestineremembered.com/download/VillageStatistics/Table%20I/Hebron/Page-050.jpg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071230160757/http://www.moifa.org/collections/coll-textile.html to http://www.moifa.org/collections/coll-textile.html
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) 21:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Dan Tsahor, Postwar Nakba: A Microhistory of the Depopulation of Zakariyya, 1950 is open access I think. Lots of interesting stuff there. Zerotalk 09:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that Al-Andalusi added that back in February ;) Huldra (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New study 

message: This tweet assumes  that this place is the place called  Beth Zachar[ia] on the Madaba Map.
That seems likely, based on the position. Alas, how to add it? the
*P. Palmer, Dr. Guthe (1906), Die Mosaikkarte von Madeba, Im Auftrage des Deutschen Vereins zur Erforschung Palätinas
..only shows the mosaic, not the identification.
And:
* 
only deal with area further south. Does anyone know of  a WP:RS for this claim? Huldra (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the [[Madaba Map]] 

message: User:Onceinawhile; do you know where the 1940s map went? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked – it seems it was never uploaded. I am not sure why. I will go and dig back in my files when I am able to. Onceinawhile (talk) 03:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you mean the one in the infobox, it shows to me just fine. Zerotalk 09:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

text: User:Zero0000; do you see the 1940s map without the modern overlay? Huldra (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:   Ahah, now I get it. No, it isn't there. I'll try to fix it. Zerotalk 13:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

text:  Fixed, hopefully. Zerotalk 14:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Huldra (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  1940s map?