Talk:Caesarea, Israel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled[edit]

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)[reply]

Images[edit]

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

merge[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Qisarya[edit]

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)[reply]

I will issue a merge proposal as per above.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

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|Parlez ici 04:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Support Qisaraya merge. Oppose Barrat Qiesaraya merge. The latter looks like a separate place. Student7 (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Student do you understand Arabic? I would like to note that "Barrat Qisarya" means "Outer Qisarya".Greyshark09 (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Merge. Qisaraya and Caesarea are essentially the same.Brian3030 (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It seems eminently sensible to see the history of the same place in one article. --Allstar86 (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Merge[edit]

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

History before and during the 1948 war[edit]

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)[reply]

Reason for expulsion[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Stalking[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
....except that isn´t quite correct, is it? What was in the article: "In 1664, a settlement is mentioned consisting of 100 [[Moroccan people|Moroccan]] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 [and] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Here it is. @Pluto2012:, please report. Zerotalk 11:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia-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)[reply]
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:
[Eugère Roger explains that before Cesarea was a properous city, the Cathedral [sic] 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 [imagined as it was during its glory days], having no more church, no more Christians [sic], and only around a hundred families of Mores & [sic] 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" [so not "corsars" but rather these people] 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)[reply]
Agree. Debresser (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
So what do we have now? Two contradictory sources? Debresser (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Debresser: do your home-work, Huldra (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 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)[reply]
Hello Huldra
Ringer is wp:rs, for sure.
Regarding your last sentence, take care that it was "olive and sesame oil" and not "olive, sesame and oil" that was exported. I am 100 % sure for "olive oil". I am not 100 % sure for "sesame" but I could not read what Roger wrote.
Pluto2012 (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pluto, I assume you read the 1646-version, page 76, that is this:

  • Roger, Eugène (1646). La terre saincte, ou Description topographique tres-particulière des saincts lieux, & de la terre de promission (in French). Paris: chez Antoine Bertier. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); External link in |author= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) (gallica-version)

However, there is also a 1664-version available:

...there, the Caesarea -stuff is on p. 87. Can you read it there? Huldra (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pluto2012: do you have difficulties reading so-called "gothic script"? Is says: "huile d´oliue & de sesimen," ... (yes: that "f" is actually a "s", and "u" and "v" were used interchangeably, as were "i" and "j")
And does anyone object to me removing that "Jewish virtual library"-link? ...it is simply not correct. Actually, I feel like removing the "Britannica"-link , too: virally all is behind a pay-wall. Any objections? Huldra (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A source's being behind a paywall is not a valid reason for removing a reference; see WP:PAYWALL. Deor (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quite, but presently it is used to source false statements,...and that I have a *big* problem with. In fact, the two sentences in the lead: "It was abandoned after the Mamluk conquest. It was re-populated in 1884 by Bosniak immigrants, who settled in a small fishing village" seriously needs some rework, Huldra (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Huldra
It is written : "huile d'olive et de sesimen". I can read this. But if "huile d'olive" is "olive oil", I don't know what is "sesimen". It is not a word that I know.
Another point: I think that the Jewish Virtual Library is not a wp:rs source and it should be used with care. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pluto; Ok, I´ll just write "olive oil", then, as we don´t know what the other oil is. I find the quality of those articles a JVL very variable, on some issued relating to Judaism, I believe they are quite good (?)...while I read the article about the Dayr Yassin massacre there, a while back, and it was filled with falsehood. So, yeah; again, "handle with care". I have removed the Jewish Virtual Library- ref, as it stated something which is not correct. Huldra (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caesarea Maritima[edit]

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)[reply]

@Huldra:
I agree the articles need some work to tidy up what goes where. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: per the above I have moved the relevant text to the correct article. Given our discussions elsewhere, please could you let me know if you have any objections to my edit here?
Per Iskandar323’s comment elsewhere I am not sure the naming is correct here either. Searches for “Caesarea” suggest the vast majority of readers are looking for the ancient town rather than the modern resort town. Onceinawhile (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say to per naturally disambiguate this page to Qesarya, which is the official name and already redirects here as its presumed WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (Or Caesarea (town), but WP:NATURAL typically trumps parentheses.) Cebu wiki has already done this. Caesarea can then become the disambiguation page that it definitely should be. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Iskandar323's solution sounds fine to me, but I am not really sure if "Qesarya" is acceptable. Obviously, it needs an RM not just an informal discussion between a few of us. I certainly think the modern town is not the primary topic. Srnec (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Iskandar323 and Srnec. See Talk:Caesarea_(disambiguation)#Requested_move_19_February_2023. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arab villages in Palestine template[edit]

The article uses the template:Infobox former Arab villages in Palestine (which groups depopulated Arab villages from British Mandate period), though the village was notably populated by Bosniak majority. Either we remove the template or rename the template to reflect that the residents of Caesarea were mostly Bosniak Muslims.GreyShark (dibra) 08:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I don't agree. This place is in the Khalidi book, as one of the depopulate Palestinian villages. The term Palestinian village encompassed lots, both Christian, Muslim, and those of Turkish or Bosnian heritage.
What I would suggest, though, is that we move template:Infobox former Arab villages in Palestine to template:Infobox former Palestinian villages in Palestine, or rather, to template:Infobox former Palestinian villages in present Israel. Huldra (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The suggested names sound somewhat awkward, though i agree that template rename could be a good solution.GreyShark (dibra) 05:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

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)[reply]

Location of the ruins[edit]

Caesarea town (top right) vs the ruins (bottom center)

@Epson291: it is incorrect to write "the ancient city of Caesarea Maritima [is] situated in the southern part of the town". The town of Caesarea is a private organization, and its boundaries are defined by the extent of the ownership and jurisdiction of the Caesarea Development Corporation.

On the other hand, the ancient city is located in the Caesarea National Park, under the jurisdiction of the Israel Nature and Parks Authority.

They are different places, and the ruins are more than 1km away from the town, as this picture shows. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is all within the borders of Caesaria. Please provide a reliable source that states otherwise. Drsmoo (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve updated the article with reliable sources indicating it is one area. The land is owned by the state of Israel. It was donated by Rothschild, and is developed and managed by the Caesarea Development Corporation, but not owned. Drsmoo (talk) 06:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your source did not state that, and your claims are incorrect. See more detailed sources here:

* "Birth of a National Park: How a National Park is Born. Caesarea National Marine Park". Israel Nature and Parks Authority. 2020. Establishing a national park, according to the 1998 Law of National Parks, Nature Reserves, National Sites and Memorial Sites, gives the Israel Nature and Parks Authority (INPA) the right to manage the area as a national park, to operate it from a tourist and security standpoint, and to protect it with the help of marine rangers. In 1968 the Caesarea National Park was similarly declared on land, and today it is the INPA's most visited site – with over one million visitors per year. The first step on the long road to establishing the marine area as a national park is creating a legislative plan and getting approval from the planning committees, similar to a city expansion plan or plans to construct a new technology park. Our partners in this challenging marine journey are the Israel Antiquities Authority – who are in charge of archeological artifacts, and the Edmond de Rothschild Caesarea Development Corporation – who manage the beach restaurants and developments in the Caesarea Harbor.

* Russell, C.; Hogan, L.; Junker-Kenny, M. (2012). Ethics for Graduate Researchers: A Cross-disciplinary Approach. Elsevier Science. ISBN 978-0-12-391484-2. A similar picture is painted at the archaeological site at Caesarea. This multi-period monumental site is managed by the Israel Nature and National Parks Protection Authority. Within the Park, the Caesarea Edmond Benjamin de Rothschild Corporation operates Caesarea Harbour, a visitor centre with multi-media displays on the history of the site. The National Park extends from the Roman theatre in the south to the Crusader city to the north. Many, though not all, of the archaeological remains within the park have been prepared for public presentation and these include: the Byzantine square, the Herodian amphitheatre, the promontory palace, a bathhouse and a network of streets. In 1968, the Crusader city and the theatre became a national park. The Israel Antiquities Authority and Haifa University have been conducting extensive excavations since the early 1990s as part of the development of the site for tourist purposes within the framework of the Master Plan for Tourism in Caesarea.

* Fuhrman-Naaman, Y.; Porath, Y.; Vamosh, M.F. (2017). Ancient Caesarea: Conservation and Development of a Heritage Site. Israel Antiquities Authority. p. 9. ISBN 978-965-406-696-9. In 1884, the Ottoman government settled among the ruins a group of refugees from Bosnia, who had fled their homeland after Turkey lost it to Austria. The refugees occupied the ruins of the city from the Crusader period and made their living from farming, fishing and selling ancient stones. The Jewish Colonization Association and its successor, the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association (PICA), founded by Baron Rothschild, purchased a great deal of land around Caesarea and Mount Carmel on the eve of and following World War I. In 1940, the founders of Kibbutz Sedot Yam settled on PICA lands at Caesarea, while Arabs from the surroundings joined the Bosnian community; the latter was abandoned in 1948. In 1952, PICA established the Caesarea Development Corporation to develop the area for homes, industry, commerce and tourism. When PICA ended its activities in 1958, the lands came under the joint management of the State of Israel and the Rothschild family. In 1965, the Caesarea Development Corporation established the luxury neighborhood of modern Caesarea, east of the antiquities. The company continues to develop the site for tourism and commerce, especially within the Crusader city walls. In 1968, the Caesarea antiquities were declared a national park, which is now managed by the Israel Nature and Parks Authority (formerly the National Parks Authority).

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are confused and misunderstanding your own sources. The owner of the land is the state of Israel, the land was donated to the state in 1952 and is merely co-managed by the development corporation.
https://books.google.com/books?id=tNIVBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA189&dq=false
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/business/2018-06-20/ty-article/israel-reaches-pact-with-caesarea-foundation-on-land-and-donations/0000017f-e39c-d568-ad7f-f3ffaed30000
One does not need to be released to develop on land they own. Drsmoo (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The land is owned by the state and leased to the development corporation. Drsmoo (talk) 12:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://m.jpost.com/business/real-estate/foreigners-guide-to-property-market-living-by-the-sea
“This community is unique in all of Israel as it is managed by an entity called the Caesarea Development Corporation (CDC), a private company established by the Edmond Benjamin de Rothschild Foundation in 1952. The Rothschild Family donated 35,000 dunams of land to the state of Israel and then leased it back for 200 years.” That donation included the land of the National park, which is explained in the source I provided originally. Drsmoo (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Drsmoo: confirmation here ("Ancient Roman Amphitheater in Caesarea sold by Greek Orthodox church to mystery foreign buyer". The Times of Israel. 2017-07-16.) the 35,000 dunams did not cover all of the ruins. The southern half of the Caesarea Maritima area was owned by the Greek church. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/12/02/565464499/greek-orthodox-church-sells-land-in-israel-worrying-both-israelis-and-palestinia
“The church sold lands in the upscale beachside cities of Caesarea and Jaffa to companies registered in the Caribbean.” More confirmation that ancient Caesarea is considered part of “Caesarea” Drsmoo (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Caesarea is not a city. Just because an NPR journalist says it is, doesn't make it so. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with a move to “Modern Caesarea”, there seems to be support for something like that in the RM. Otherwise it is confusing IMO. Drsmoo (talk) 18:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is confusing, and would support any move which makes it easier to understand. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The national park is still a separate incorporation. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“Caesarea” is treated as one area/region etc pretty unanimously, including in this article. The removal of sources that fit the scope of the article is very strange. Drsmoo (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Caesarea Maritima is quite clearly a separate page and linked to on the page here, so I really have no idea what you are talking about at all. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is part of “Caesarea”. It’s fine for it to have its own article. What is odd is that there is no confusion anywhere as to whether the ancient city is part of the modern area. Including in this article. What is profoundly strange is that tons of sources were abruptly removed based on a misunderstanding of the word manage. Drsmoo (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources were removed because they did not relate to any of the citations in this article, but did relate to citations in the Caesarea Maritima article. They were exclusively about the history of Caesarea Maritima, so there was no need for them to be here. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A national park is a national park, a town is a town. I don't really see what there is to confuse here and I have restored the article to the version prior to the mid-discussion alterations. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then open a discussion to change the scope of the article. Drsmoo (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The subject here is the town. You are altering the scope. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Not only is this a town, but a corporation-owned one. It cannot be conflated with a public national park.
If Drsmoo wishes to begin a new article on “Greater Caesarea” or similar, they are welcome to. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, when people mention Caesarea in Israel they are describing the whole area. That is the scope in reliable sources, and it is the scope in this article. If you want to make an article on “Modern Caesarea”, feel free to do so. If there is confusion about the scope of articles related to Caesarea, then that can be discussed. Drsmoo (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When most people mention New York, they usually mean New York metropolitan area, not New York City. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you’re saying when people mention Caesarea they mean the Caesarea area with the ancient park/shopping/theater and town? If so, yes I agree, and that is also the scope of this article.
In fact I don’t see much coverage of the tiny town, which is basically just some gated community, at all. Drsmoo (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the disambiguation pages at Caesarea and New York. See Talk:Caesarea#Requested move 19 February 2023. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caesarea,_Israel&oldid=1206505459"