Talk:Banias
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Banias is in Syria? Is this in fantasy geography? Jayjg (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
- Banias is in the Golan Heights. The Golan Heights are considered to be in Syria by the majority of the world. Please do not push your obvious POV.Yuber(talk) 02:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
- Huh? You said Banias is in Syria. It obviously is not, it is in Israel. This is a simple geographical fact. Nor are the Golan Heights, even if the world thinks they should be once again. Can you explain your edits in a more rational way please? How can a place be physically located in two different countries? Jayjg (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed, if I can get there from Tel Aviv without crossing a border, it means it is in Israel. 195.137.203.137
- Huh? You said Banias is in Syria. It obviously is not, it is in Israel. This is a simple geographical fact. Nor are the Golan Heights, even if the world thinks they should be once again. Can you explain your edits in a more rational way please? How can a place be physically located in two different countries? Jayjg (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Palestine
"and when foreign religious influences intruded upon Palestine" - to which period does this refer to? Wouldn't Land of Israel or Canaan be more appropriate?--Doron 06:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know, I just merged the articles but I didn't really do a good job of checking over them. I was intending to improve this article greatly, but the dispute over its location has left me with little enthusiasm to improve it.Yuber(talk) 01:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Before 1948 there was no Israel, there was no dispute over where this city is located, or to whom it belonged to. The dispute came only after the Israeil aggression of 1967 by which the Golan heights were seized by the Israeili army. This is a reminder to whoever conveniently has lapses of memory. It is the accord of the UN through its resolutions that lands illegally occupied by force by by Israel in the 1967 war should be relinquished.
- Actually, you're wrong: between 1948-1967, the small region around Banias was one of the border disputes between Israel and Syria. Located at the foot of the Golan Heights, the area was not strategicaly important, but it's natural fresh-water springs were. Banias spring was held de-facto by Syrian forces until 1967. Please sign your comments next time. And also try to maintain NPOV. altmany 10:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- I am not going to enter a political battle, but I shall say this: Banias is Banias regardless of whether the Golan is presently administered by Israel, Syria, the Ottomans, the Romans, the Seleucids, etc. You get my point. Banias was Banias long before the modern states of Israel or Syria ever existed. I can also tell you that while we were digging there in 1999 and 2000 (while Ehud Barak was in negotiations with Hafez al-Assad to return the Golan), we were told that would have to move because Banias is technically part of the land that would move to Syrian control. My 2 cents. IsraelXKV8R 05:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Map, anyone?
This article would be much more useful if it included a map.
- I added standard infobox, someone will have to upload map and put it there 195.137.203.137
[edit] Merge proposal
Starting the discussion for the merge of Caesarea Phillippi to this article.
- Support. No precedent for two articles on same city. Plenty of cities have changed names, but all the names redirect to one article. In addition, the other article has very little content. --Brewcrewer 03:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support. (conditional) I'd vote for a merge, as long as the title of the title of the merged article reads "Banias (ancient Caesarea Philippi)." The idea being that the modern place is Banias, while Caesarea Philippi is its biblical/Roman period name. IsraelXKV8R 05:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Name change does not constitute a separate article. See Volgograd. The city is still the same settlement it was thousands of years ago. The information on this page includes what happened in the time it was called Caesarea Philippi.66.185.72.79 (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure. I would disagree with the merge unless it is still easily accessible by searching for Caesarea Philippi. This site was a very important location in the Bible (New Testament & Old) and that information should be easily accessible and not get lost under the name 'Banias.' And at the same time, as mentioned on the Banias page, there are strong suggestions that this city is also the same as the Old Testament references of Baal-Gad & Baal-Hermon(1). So it would also make sense to merge any pages associated with those two also. (1 - http://www.bibleplaces.com/banias.htm, http://www.padfield.com/1996/caesphil.html) -- 03:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.106.51 (talk)