Talk:Caesarea Philippi

message: Caesarea Philippi only has one l....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect name

message: The current map depiction has strong POV overtones and is a digitally altered and skewed map that reflects partisan opinions. The Golan Heights have been under Israeli civilian control for 44.5 years. They have been under Syrian control for only 21. I have compiled a number of maps from reliable sources (including National Geographic and United Press International) showing the Golan as belonging to neither Israel nor Syria. Please note the UPI map. The Golan remains under defacto Israeli control and it’s disputed status should be reflected on corresponding maps. Moreover, Caesarea Philippi is a tourist attraction and as such it's status should at the very least be shown to be within the area of the controlling sovereign so that the reader who wishes to visit the subject area knows where he/she is going. Accordingly, I have replaced the existing non-neutral, digitally altered, partisan map with a more neutral depiction.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Golan remains Syrian territory under Israeli occupation, as the Golan Heights article makes clear. Your collection of news sources do not trump the countless scholarly sources that make this point crystal clear. Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia, not a hasbara production. nableezy - 15:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Map depiction

message: Cyberbot II has detected links on Caesarea Philippi which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global
If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.bible-history.com/biblestudy/caesarea-philippi.html
*:Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on [[Caesarea Philippi]] 

message: Cyberbot II has detected links on Caesarea Philippi which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global
If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.bible-history.com/biblestudy/caesarea-philippi.html
*:Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on [[Caesarea Philippi]] 

message: Cyberbot II has detected links on Caesarea Philippi which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global
If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.bible-history.com/biblestudy/caesarea-philippi.html
*:Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on [[Caesarea Philippi]] 

message: Cyberbot II has detected links on Caesarea Philippi which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global
If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.bible-history.com/biblestudy/caesarea-philippi.html
*:Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on [[Caesarea Philippi]] 

message: Hi Zero. I don't know why this page exists. In my opinion, it should either be much clearer defined, or (far better) merged with Banias. I see no reason why it's been partially, if not very consistently detached from that topic/article. There is some focus by one of the editors on the Christian history of the site, but, as expected, it's been mixed by everyone else with everything else. It has no character of its own, or not sufficiently so as to justify having its own page. I could see why a page entitled "Christian Caesarea Philippi" could have enough readers and thus a justification (mainly the primacy of St Peter, the possibility of being the site of the Transfiguration, then the Church history throughout the ages). But this isn't that, and that fits quite nicely into the main Banias page, too. Good night, Arminden (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with Banias—-or define much sharper

message: I propose that Banias be merged into Caesarea Philippi, the name by which the site is better known in English (see, for example, page view statistics). Although the two articles ostensively cover different periods (an entirely unnecessary distinction), the Caesarea Philippi article claiming, "This article deals with the history of Banias between the Hellenistic and early Islamic periods," this is not true. Both articles cover the same periods, with slightly different focus. If merging these articles can be agreed upon, I volunteer to do it. — the Man in Question (in question) 19:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Banias into this article 

message: "Having heard that at Caesarea Philippi, otherwise called Panease Paneades, a city of Phoenicia..."
Paneas yes, Paneades also, but Panease? Or even "Panease Paneades"?! Source is not online, Google finds no other independent source, so please check. Arminden (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The book says, quoting Sozomen, "Having heard that at Caesarea Philippi, otherwise called Panease [Paneades], a city of Phoenicia". The "[Paneades]" part is actually an addition by the author (John Francis Wilson). This is cited to Chester D. Hartranft's translation of Sozomen's Historia Ecclesiastica, which is [helpfully online https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26025.htm]. The online version and the actual book version (on Google Books) says "Paneas", not "Panease". So Wilson typed it wrong in his book. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Panease Paneades"?! 

message: I can't see a good justification for how this article is defined. Why is "Caesarea Philippi" covering the Hellenistic to Byzantine periods, and stops at the arrival of the Muslims? This name was only in use during Philip the Tetrarch's rule, so I guess it's about a Christian focus (Gospels), see also use of BC/AD instead of BCE/CE. Not very good criterion for an article dealing with history, and can be easily faulted as such: there's no obvious connection between the centuries of pagan history and the short episode of Jesus & Peter visiting the AREA, never the city itself, once. Why is 635 the end, when Hygeburg sees there in 780 a church and a "great many Christians"? There was a sharp decline, but not a trace of occupation gap, and the Umayyad period is sometimes considered as part of "classical antiquity", so no formal hindrance either. The Crusaders, not surprisingly, call it Belinas (from Paneas/Banias) and... Caesarea Philippi. But they don't belong here, because... Because?
Somebody needs to make the case for this split.
The mess I found in the article reflects perfectly well the poorly thought-over split. If one wishes to write an article about Jesus in the region of Caesarea Philippi (Confession of Peter etc.), that is a rich subject. But as it is now, that is hardly addressed, so it cannot be counted as the raison d'être for this weird cut. Arminden (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I see: it's even worse. The lead claims "This article deals with the history of the city between the Hellenistic and early Islamic periods", but then has a nice section on the Early Islamic period. AE and BE have opposite meanings for "to" (including/excluding the last element mentioned). That can be reworded, what remains is that now we have the Fatimids & Seljuks, but the Crusaders are out and all those they fought against. Because...? Arminden (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, probably because it started as one of the articles copied from a Public Domain version of the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Im not really sure if it makes sense to have them separate. (Im glad youve come back btw). nableezy - 20:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this article separated from Banias? 

message: 44 gold coins were found here. Ref:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-63122180
Update to article needed?
82.21.55.166 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 21:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  170 grams of gold