Talk:Banias

DMZs, diversion projects

let's not turn this article into yet another chapter in the Israeli-Arab conflict. True, the Banias water resources are important to that conflict, but we don't need to replay every detail of the DMZs' history or the different water diversion projects here - only those that are directly relevant to, and mention, Banias. I thus removed, for example, the details of the Israeli water diversion project, which took place in a different area. the only reason to mention the Israeli project at all is to provide context for the Syrian project (which originally did take place near Banias) so it does not appear as a one-sided action, but that is not a license to write a lengthy paragraph about the unrelated Israeli project, its impact on American-Israeli relations, etc... - that belongs in the article about the water conflict in the middle east. NoCal100 (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Banias is the basic conflict point...Sorry but you NoCal100 have double standards...You add irrelevances in quite a few articles not just irrelevant but factually incorrect...And as you have shown that you know nothing on the subject of Banias it is quite obvious that you are editing in bad faith...As previously stated the incidents mentioned were in a book by an academic where the central theme of the book was Banias. This means I have a choice go by an academic or NoCal100 version of history....I thus replace what is pertinent to Banias.... Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder where the main Syrian garrison was that would have felt the effects of raised tensions from 10km....I bet it was at Banias (not much of a bet as it's in the history books)....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If there is a source that says "The main the main Syrian garrison was that would have felt the effects of raised tensions was at Banias", feel free to add it to the article. Otherwise, what you "bet" is the truth is interesting original research which is not allowed. The material you are adding here might belong in Water politics in the Middle East, but it is not directly related to Banias - it discusses event that tool place miles away from it. NoCal100 (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Where the choice is between a sockpuppets revision and an academic I chose academic every time.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

False accusations of sock puppetry will get you blocked, yet again. Don't do it. NoCal100 (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur and believe most active editors have found consensus in the currently included topics. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There are 3 active editors here, 2 of you think this belongs - that does not make consensus. Please make an actual argument as to why lengthy paragraphs which do not mention Banias at all, and discuss events taking place miles away, belong here. NoCal100 (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe these two editors' comments, [1] and [2], tend toward our view of what consensus should be. They are comments made a few days ago. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

the first comment was made by a sockpuppet (confirmed by 2 separate checkusers) of Ashley kennedy3 , and he was subsequently blocked for a month for that sockpupptery. The second comment (made more than a month ago) does not relate to any of the material we are discussing. NoCal100 (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

2 against 1 that makes consensus and the one is a suspected sockpuppet. As NoCal100 is a suspected sockpuppet he gets no points...There is already an ANI in against NoCal100...which he has already been informed of..ACADEMICS SAY THE EVENTS ARE IMPORTANT TO BANIAS.. NoCal100 the sock and uninformed POV merchant says differently..me I go with the academics over a sock every time...NoCal100 doing deletions with no accurate argument is vandalism...especially as you have no actual knowledge of Banias other than that I have placed in the Banias article...NoCal100 You have demonstrated that you have no knowledge on the subject as you were unable to correct the obvious errors in five weeks this shows you are not to be considered as an editor but merely a disruptive deletionist....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Could folks please provide links to these sockpuppet investigations? Thanks, --Elonka 18:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

In case you haven't found them already, they are here, and here. NoCal100 (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I neither know how to, nor care to; someone else should. I object to the deletion of sourced material relevant to the facts of Banais. It is the water; it has been the availability of that water throughout history, as I noted before. Future availability makes it important today; it is a continuum. Deletion by stilted, POV'd view shouldn't fly, particularly where hiding this association seems Wiki-endemic and is politically advantageous to keep it that way. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No one his hiding anything - water, its availability and its importance in the middle east can and should be discussed- and we have an article for that , called Water politics in the Middle East. Specific incidents of these water politics which are directly related to Banias can be mentioned here - but a discussion of the history of the DMZs, or various American plans to regulate the water resources are outside the scope of this article. NoCal100 (talk) 06:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not edited this article but saw it on ANI & so I took a look. I agree with NoCal that there is nothing wrong with mentioning the water situation in the context of the contemporary history; but that it is not necessary to turn this article into yet another I/P argument. This is particularly true since there is already an article entitled Water politics in the Middle East. In fact, one could briefly touch upon the issue and note somewhere within the article the existence of the water politics article. The "deep" history of the water situation would be better described there than here. Also, in consideration of the long history of Banias in the region, the emphasis on Mandate to contemporary times seems WP:UNDUE weight given to the recent conflict. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The obvious connection between Banias and Hula as noted by academics says otherwise. WP:UNDUE would be to leave out the Hula incidents only leaving Syrian retaliation to Israeli government policy. Something that is directly related to Banias should be kept at Banias rather than hunting around half a dozen articles for snippets of information. As most people visit wiki for information lets give some instead of misleading inaccurate articles.

The incidents surrounding water at Banias were central to the start of a War. It would be churlish and irresponsible of wiki editors to withhold information on those events.

The first Arab summit conference ratified the Arab strategy to thwart Israel’s NWC Plan [drainage of the Hula marshes]. The strategy was designed to divert [2 out of the 3 of] Jordan’s tributaries [Hasbani, Banias] and prepare the Arab armies for the defence of the engineering operations. //Shemesh, Moshe (2008) Arab Politics, Palestinian Nationalism and the Six Day War: The Crystallization of Arab Strategy and Nasir's Descent to War, 1957-1967 Sussex Academic Press, ISBN 1845191889 p 67...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You are edit warring against a pretty clear consensus. I object to this material as not directly relevant to Banias. Tundrabuggy, above, agrees with me. And even your former 'ally' in this edit war, CasualObserver'48, has written "NoCal100 has presented a very valid suggestion and I tended to agree that Banias was not the right place for all of it...Take his suggestion, move material to Water_politics_in_the_Middle_East". (see this). Based on this consensus, I am again removing the material which is not directly relevant to Banias. If you have any sources that make a direct and explicit connection between the events you want mention here and Banias, you may add them, properly sourced. NoCal100 (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly the right place. WP:UNDUE. You are edit warring NoCal100. The initial impetus was Israels aggression as per the RS source the reaction was by Syria etc. You are trying for misleading and inaccurate. Article. Please desist the clear consensus is with 2 active editors not with you....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As with the Samaria article if there is a tie in consensus (which there is no tie as it stands at 3:2 in favour of keep) then the article is left alone and the discussion continues on the talk page...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

who is in favor of keeping this? I am against it, Tundrabuggy is against it an casualobserver says move it to Water politics in the Middle East. who besides you thinks this is relevant here? NoCal100 (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You've misread Casual Observer he/she is for keeping that with Charlie o'Sulivan makes you a minority..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

and the reference is pretty clear:-

• The first Arab summit conference ratified the Arab strategy to thwart Israel’s NWC Plan [drainage of the Hula marshes]. The strategy was designed to divert [2 out of the 3 of] Jordan’s tributaries [Hasbani, Banias] and prepare the Arab armies for the defence of the engineering operations. //Shemesh, Moshe (2008) Arab Politics, Palestinian Nationalism and the Six Day War: The Crystallization of Arab Strategy and Nasir's Descent to War, 1957-1967 Sussex Academic Press, ISBN 1845191889 p 67....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

may I humbly suggest that you re-read casual observer's remarks:-

I neither know how to, nor care to; someone else should. I object to the deletion of sourced material relevant to the facts of Banais. It is the water; it has been the availability of that water throughout history, as I noted before. Future availability makes it important today; it is a continuum. Deletion by stilted, POV'd view shouldn't fly, particularly where hiding this association seems Wiki-endemic and is politically advantageous to keep it that way. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Since when does I object to the deletion of sourced material relevant to the facts of Banais. translate to move it to Water politics in the Middle East?....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is what CasualObserver wrote, with a reference: "NoCal100 has presented a very valid suggestion and I tended to agree that Banias was not the right place for all of it...Take his suggestion, move material to Water_politics_in_the_Middle_East". (see this). Your quote is from the 13th, mine is from a few days afterwards- apparently CO48 had changed his opinion,and you are trying to use an older position of his. It is very clear. Charlie o'Sulivan is, according to 2 checkusers, your sockpuppet. Alternatively, according to you, he is a meat puppet you recruited - in either case, it is treated the same. So the consensus is 3:1 that this material does not belong. If you persist, the next step will be to take your behaviour here to AN/I. NoCal100 (talk)

Charlie is not a meatpuppet; this is why Elonka blocked half the UK out with her block;....You on the other hand display all the behaviour of an abusive sockpuppet as noted by many editors...Seeing as you're being WP:UNCIVIL....Read what CO48 actually says grow and then split....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC) `

NoCal100 you have been using WP:UNCIVIL in an attempt to POV push. You've tried it on Ma'ale Akrabim, Johnson Plan, in fact every article you touch. You cherry pick, you got to this article by stalking, your behaviour is disruptive. Deletionists such as yourself always whine about how this or that shouldn't be here or there but never ever make the effort to create an article with the sourced material they with to delete through their political POV....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

By your own admission, Charlie O'sullivan is someone you recruited off-wiki to aid you in promoting a pro-Palestinian POV: "During my week off for bad behaviour I went looking for like minded activists to aid a pro-Palestinian fight back" [3]. This is the very definition of a meat puppet, and WP:MEAT says "Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate." You could have been indef blocked for that alone. Consider yourself lucky that was not the result, and don't try to use that meatpuppet as support for your position. I also note that despite numerous warnings from administrators, you are again repeating your unfounded allegations that I am a sockpuppet. I guess we will have to resolve this disruptive behavior at AN/I. NoCal100 (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI is not needed, as that noticeboard is only for obtaining the attention of administrators. In this case, you already have the attention of administrators. As regards the above comments, Ashley kennedy3 (talk · contribs) has now been banned from this article and talkpage for 30 days (see below). As for Charlie O'Sulivan (talk · contribs), this account's edits may be treated as though they were posted by Ashley kennedy3, since a Checkuser case identified that they are likely the same individual. --Elonka 18:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent heading changes and their reverts

It looks like 79.180.17.185 completely reverted the article back to his or her original revision at 299714042. However, some of the intervening edits (most notably 299744493) contain some interesting edits to the section heading. I understand that this revision also changes 'claimed by/administered by' to 'occupied by Isreal' which, as someone with very few political views on the situation, seems like an obvious as NPOV violation. However, I think that the article headings are useful. Most of the article is a history of who controlled the area and what they did with it, and for me 'Islamic Era' is more immediately descriptive and useful than simply 'Caliphate'.

Could someone with more knowledge on the subject please review revision 299744493 and try to incorporate the section heading edits? Thanks! audiodude (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with the references of the edits you are referring to. I look on the history page for the strings "299744493" and "299744493", and I am not finding them. Which edits, exactly, are you referring to? Rwflammang (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to the id's you see in the history pages. I've linkified my original paragraph. audiodude (talk) 05:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Maps

As I have explained numerous times, the digitally manipulated and altered map that you designed and uploaded bears no relation to reality and is contradicted by the numerous map depictions that I’ve provided. The area is under Israeli control and has been under Israeli control for nearly 45 years. That is more than double the time it was under Syrian control. To present a map that shows it under Syrian control is not only misleading but dishonest. Moreover, the subject area is a tourist attraction and a reader who takes a cursory look at the map may be led (falsely) to believe that the area is under Syrian control. As I’ve demonstrated, most maps show the area as shaded, belonging to neither thus underlying its disputed status. Please also have a look at these additional interactive maps.[4] [5] Other editors who have commented here have voiced support for my WP:NPOV edits. However, if you wish I will note the {{POV}} template to placate your concerns until the issues can be vetted and hopefully some form of compromise can be reached in a collegial manner. I also caution you from engaging in personal attacks against me. Calling me "expansionist" and part of the “Hasbara” team as you did here[6] is offensive, gratuitous and I ask that you strike it. We are all volunteers here who spend time editing articles so that others may benefit. Engaging in personal attacks against me or others who don’t share your opinions is not helpful to the project.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Digitally manipulated and altered? What the hell does that even mean? The map you uploaded places no border between Israel and Syria and includes one within Syrian territory, that is it presents an extreme minority claim as though it were fact. You know very well that this is not acceptable. The area is indeed under Israeli control, that control having the name military occupation and the territory is recognized by nearly the entire world as being Syrian territory. You know all of this, yet you persist in pushing fringe claims as though there were fact in encyclopedia articles. nableezy - 17:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Maps_of_the_Golan_Heights nableezy - 17:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with JGG's map. It is less misleading to the reader. Your preferred map will likely mislead the reader into assuming that Syria has administrative control over the Golan Heights.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course you agree with JJG. It seems as soon as there is any kind of dispute involving A-I issues, you show up there to revert back to the version supported by users who edit Wikipedia according to the views of one country, and support them at the talkpage. This is not the first time you have done this, I have seen you do this several times. There is a word for your behavior. Furthermore this map: [7] shows striped lines to the area Israel occupies so it is not misleading to the reader. You removed this map and inserted another one without getting consensus. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Please note that over 50% of your comment was dedicated to attacking me. Nevertheless I am not and will not accuse you of being Nableezy's meatpuppet even though you seem to be doing for him exactly what you are accusing me of doing for JGG.

The lines are somewhat of an improvement, but the average reader will most likely find them vague and uninformed. I am open to a map where the striped lines are placed on the other side of the Golan. Whats most important to me is that the reader not be misled into believing that Syria has control over and administers the Golan Heights. This would be a miscarriage of encyclopedia writing.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge Caesarea Philippi with this page

What is the justification for that page existing independently?Arminden (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

There still is no logic to it. Arminden (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it was merged a long time ago (maybe even twice). Idk how it became separated again, POV wars maybe. If it is the same place, I would ordinarily say that they should be merged. Why not put up a formal merge proposal? Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I hate formal stuff. If you do it, I'll support it. Arminden (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Have opened a formal discussion below, discuss. Also identify if anything actually needs to be merged over, or if a redirect will suffice. nableezy - 21:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Arminden: The merge discussion is closed in favor below, the merge/redirect can be performed as you desire.Selfstudier (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Thanks, I wasn't following. To bad I'm leaving for a holiday tomorrow, maybe others will take it from here. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Some time has passed so redirected it here, people can refer to the history if needs be. Selfstudier (talk) 10:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Merge Caesarea Philippi here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to merge Caesarea Philippi and Banias. Numerically, the pro-merge side have it: in this discussion only two explicitly supported the merge, but there's also support for the merger from two further editors in the discussion about whether to open a formal proposal. The objections to merging are that: 1. one article currently focuses more on the ancient history of the site and the other focuses more on the medieval and modern history and this makes sense as a division, and 2. merging might cause edit warring over how these two aspects should be weighted. Neither argument attracted any support, and I don't see either as compelling reasons to overturn the numerical consensus. Regarding point 1, the fact that this split would be a logical one if some split were necessary is irrelevant when the pro-merge side are arguing that the split is in fact not necessary. The argument that a split is necessary because otherwise there would be edit wars over the content of the article was not supported by any evidence and didn't recieve any agreement. If edit-warring over due weight does become a problem, it should be dealt with using normal editorial processes; splitting an article so that different sides in an edit was each get one is not recommended. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Has been discussed multiple times, and it does not make any sense to have two articles on the same place with one on a specific period of time, which is still covered here. If anybody is opposed, please explain why here. nableezy - 21:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I only see where it was "discussed" once, and that was quite a while back. It's worth discussing again, but there is a serious objection to merging the articles, which applies generally to merging articles about Greek and Roman sites with articles about medieval or modern towns and villages located on the same site. The Caesarea Philippi article focuses primarily on the history and archaeology of the place from its founding to the early medieval period, and then briefly summarizes its later history. This article summarizes the Greek and Roman period, then devotes nearly all of its length to the period from the seventh to the thirteenth century, and its fate in twentieth century conflicts—which apparently have been the source of considerable edit warring. I foresee more edit warring if people are insistent on having a single article under either title, since that will tend to make one period or the other dominant, while the current articles seem to show that each can be discussed at length.

The two articles, while having an overlapping scope and some overlapping material, focus on different periods of time and different perspectives, which is fairly common in cases such as this. That being the case, it actually makes a lot of sense for the article to be split between ancient and medieval or modern periods. I suggest separating the two more clearly by merging material from this article's coverage of Greek and Roman times into Caesarea Philippi, to the extent that it isn't already covered; then making those subsections in this article shorter and more compact, similar to the way that Caesarea Philippi summarizes "Early Muslim period"—the current length of that section seems appropriate, if we treat this one as the main article for the place from that period to the present, so there probably isn't a lot of material that needs to be merged here from that article. P Aculeius (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

That may be so but we don't normally go around splitting up articles into different time periods and even if we did, where we drew the line timewise would be arbitrary. Should it end up staying split then it should be renamed something like Banias (Caesarea Philippi) or possibly Banias (historic).Selfstudier (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, you'll find that a great many discussions of cities, towns, or regions with long histories are in fact divided amongst multiple articles—perhaps nowhere as much as in the field of classics, where extensive articles discuss the Greek and/or Roman period of a place, together with its archaeology, and only briefly discuss its post-classical history, while other articles, sometimes equally extensive, cover the place in medieval and/or modern times. Obviously this varies on a case-by-case basis: sometimes very little is known about the settlement in ancient times, while in other instances the modern location is of very minor importance. I note that this article is fairly long to begin with, while Caesaria Philippi is about 3/4 as long; meaning that it might become more difficult for readers to navigate and absorb the contents if the two articles were fully and carefully merged (rather than one or two factoids being imported, and the remainder of the source article dynamited). Keeping the two articles separate, while defining their scope more clearly, is often the best solution. P Aculeius (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support merge these are both about the same historical place, with overlapping time periods and no clear distinction. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

This has been sitting around for a while now, there is a rough consensus to merge but I would be reluctant to do it only to have it undone, do we need to request a proper close? Selfstudier (talk) 09:09, 14 August 2022 (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.

"Barias" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Barias and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 16#Barias until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)