Talk:Achziv

What about Achzivland?
... two people and a bed and breakfast, at least. +sj +
 * See Akhzivland. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Date under Archaeology
There appears to be a typo in the date given for the Chalcolithic Period. Can someone identify what the dates here are meant to say? Downstrike (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge
Propose to merge Az-Zeeb -> Achziv, due to the fact it is the same place and essentially same place name with different transliteration. The article Az-Zeeb refers only to historic time window of small Arab-populated village on the Achziv site during Mamluk, Ottoman and British eras, while multiple other cultures had also occupied Achziv (Canaanites/Phoenicians, Seleucids, Romans/Byzantines, Crusaders and lately Israelis), which altogether has a long and rich history. Both articles are too small by themselves (26kb and 9kb) and will have more information if merged together.GreyShark (dibra) 09:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Here I would agree to the merge.Davidbena (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My reading of the articles is that Az-Zeeb is a current (not just historic) town and that Achziv isn't identical. I therefore oppose the merge. Klbrain (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree this is two names for the same place, so it's obvious they should be merged, or do we also want articles on Ecdeppa, Ecdippon, Achzib, az-Zib, az-Zeeb, and Ak-zi-bi? All are valid iterations of the settlement through history. (Note:.I began the difficult merging of these articles and they were reverted unilaterally reverted.)  GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 23:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree Az-Zeeb's land was also divided into Gesher HaZiv and Sa'ar; how can we accommodate that, if we merge the two articles? I don't see how we can. (And yes, I unilaterally reverted your unilateral merge) Huldra (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ignoring farmland (whose ownership was generally amorphous with wide reaching claims in the Ottoman/Mandate period) - the entirety of the formerly built up area of the village proper is in the national park. Icewhiz (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Ignoring farmland"; heh, nice one....if it was one thing the Yishuv did not ignore in 1948 it was farmland. Huldra (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree If anything, a merge should be in the other direction. Articles on modern locations include sections on the history, not the other way around. Zerotalk 00:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if we do not merge these two articles (usually, I'm against merging of sites where there is a common English or Hebrew name, and another one with an Arabic name), the English/Hebrew title (Achziv) is, in my view, the more commonly used name. The history of these two articles overlap; having the exact same history, excepting only after Israel became a State when the site ceased to be recognised by its Arabic name.Davidbena (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Israel resurrected an ancient name, in line with the usual practice of erasing Arabic names. If there was something significant there now, it would be reasonable to debate where the older history belongs. However the fact is that the Arab village was the most recent significant habitation and that it existed for many centuries. Zerotalk 09:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's more or less that same name (ignoring British transliteration travesties - al-zib is more correct than az-zeeb) the difference between الزيب and אכזיב is a single letter (the "כ" (ch) became a "ل" (L) in the second letter). Icewhiz (talk) 12:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Zero0000, you're forgetting one important historical truth, viz., a change of name throughout a site's 3 or 4 millennia of existence does NOT equate to a change of place. It remains the same place. Therefore, we use the name that it is most commonly known by, with its alternate spellings/names given in the lede paragraph. Often, whenever historians refer to historical sites of importance, its older name is the more common or recognizable name. Just as Al Quds (the Arabic name for Jerusalem) redirects to Jerusalem, the more common English name, so, too, Az-Zeeb should be a redirect to Achziv, after the article is merged with this one.Davidbena (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. Currently the two pages serves as WP:POVFORKs. Both dedicate much of the article to the same ancient site with the same history. There are actually three aspects of the location:
 * 1. Ancient historical site (biblical mentions, Roman empire, Crusaders, etc)
 * 2. Arab village that developed by the time of British Mandate
 * 3. Current national park and disputed micronation.
 * There should either be 3 separate articles for each of the aspects (each linking to the two others), or a single article describing all three aspects. Currently there are articles for 2 and 3, and each contains repetition of 1. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I prefer merge and not 3 separate articles, because it's hard to draw lines - where does the ancient history end and the Arab village begins ? Name-wise it should be Achziv, since it's both the ancient and the current name, with Az-Zeeb mentioned in the section discussing the site's history as Arab village. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. Az-Zeeb was a small village, and the Arab period was rather insignificant in relation to prior eras (in the ancient and crusader era). At present, the two articles basically describe the same history twice, and there is little need for this. Icewhiz (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz, you are writing garbage here. Az-Zeeb had  132 households and 27 bachelors, an estimated total of 875 persons in 1596. That was one of the largest villages (also called a small town) in the Galilee during the whole of Ottoman period. Huldra (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. It was probably larger as an Arab village towards the end of its life (almost 2000 inhabitants) than it had ever been before. Moreover, it had not been called Achziv since ancient times. By any measure, the Arab village was the continuation of the ancient settlement. Zerotalk 09:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Larger population? Maybe in the 40s - hard to estimate ancient populations. In terms of relative significance - no. The prior crusader castle and walled city were of greater regional significance. Icewhiz (talk) 09:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This information does not exist in sources, so your assertion should be ignored. Zerotalk 11:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is self-evident in an cursory search or literature review of the subject here. Icewhiz (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support We have far too many cases in this topic area where we have separate articles on the same place covering different eras. Best to keep it in a single article IMO. Regarding the question above about how do we deal with the fact that the land of Az-Zeeb's land was divided between Gesher HaZiv and Sa'ar: Simple – we state it in the text of the article. Klbrain's comment above about Az-Zeeb being a current locality is incorrect (it's been abandoned for over 60 years) and therefore presumably should be discounted. Number   5  7  11:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support It's the same place with different names and should, regardless of which name is used, be contained in the same article.  12:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC regarding the above pending merge
Should the two articles, Az-Zeeb and Achziv, be merged? Please discuss here and make your decisions known above in the "Merge" section. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 22:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Nahariya vs Mateh Asher Regional Council
The lead paragraph presently includes the text: ...within the municipal area of Nahariya. Evidently the lands of Achziv are within the jurisdiction of the Mateh Asher Regional Council. I record this here until I can find a citable source, at which time I'll perform the edit. This also affects the categorization of files in Wikimedia Commons. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)