Talk:Az-Zakariyya

Causes of depopulation
Since a couple of editors seem to have taken issue with listing "Expulsion by Yishuv forces" as the cause of depopulation since that apparently doesn't tell the entire story (even though it appears from the article that many of the inhabitants were indeed forcefully evicted/expelled), then it seems this could be solved by using the "cause2" parameter of the infobox. I was going to list cause2 as "M" for "Military assault by Yishuv forces," but wanted some clarification on the matter. Any help here is appreciated. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Request to Return the Hebrew Name in the Leading Paragraph
User:Huldra, I will cordially request from you to return the Hebrew name of the village (Hebrew: זכריה), which you deleted from the leading paragraph. Since the village is, indeed, still called by its Hebrew name, by the local inhabitants of the village, there is no reason to delete it. Deleting the name is, in my view, tantamount to disruptive editing.Davidbena (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Davidbena: We normally do not have Hebrew on the depopulated 1948 villages, you confuse Az-Zakariyya with what came later: Zekharia. Now, on Zekharia we off course should have the Hebrew spelling, which indeed is in the article. We should also have the Arabic name, as Arabic is an official language in Israel; that is presently missing.
 * It is completely inappropriate to change the historic pre-1926 picture of Az-Zakariyya with a picture of present Zekharia: not representative at all. If we have present pictures, it should be of structures which were built pre-1948, e.g. the mosque.
 * Also: it is completely inappropriate to give the population of present Zekharia in this article: that belongs in the   Zekharia-article, and only there.
 * If you want to merge the two articles, then you can start a "merge" discussion, (like I have just done for Qamun and Qira, Haifa). But please don´t confuse the present situation, by putting stuff into this article which does not belong here, but belong in the Zekharia-article. Huldra (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Huldra, your suggestions about not mentioning the Jewish aspect of this village, which is presently inhabited by Jews, is completely unacceptable. The village still exists, although its inhabitants have changed. If you wish to discuss purely nostalgic issues relating to Az-Zakariyya, the current page is inappropriate. The name itself implies that we are treating about the town so-called, with its past and present history. Remember, the place has NOT changed. If you wish to write another article, then the name would have to be different, with an emphasis only on the "pre-1948 Arab condition" of such-and-such a place. I would invite others, such as User:Andrevan and User:Editor2020 to give their feedback on this important matter. With that said, the current article is good and needs no further revisions.Davidbena (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Davidbena: of course we mention it; under "Current localities". But your suggestion will make a total mess of all the 1948-villages (Which I have worked on now for nearly 10 years.) What shall we do with cases, like, say Najd, Gaza? Are we going to tell the whole history of Sderot and Or HaNer in that article, too? We should, if we were to follow what you try to impose here,
 * Again, *if* you think it should be *one* article, then please propose a "merge" (which I outlined above); Huldra (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Huldra, don't worry, Huldra. It is not my intention to go through all of your WP articles and to make changes in them. This happened to be a pertinent article, with an excellent write-up on its past history. It was only lacking in its modern history. Again, if you wish to write another article, the caption would have to read differently, such as: "The pre-1948 condition of such-and-such a village." The rules and guidelines of Wikipedia are unequivocal, viz., that all editors are free to add relevant material to WP articles.Davidbena (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As for whether or not we should merge the two articles, my suggestion would be to delete the article Zekharia. This current article is far better.Davidbena (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Davidbena Thank you for saying it had an "excellent write-up on its past history" ...I´ve written quite bit, if not most of it. It is now linked in the article on Zekharia, for those interested in the earlier history. There is no reason to make an exception of this place. Say, what about Ijzim, where people of Kerem Maharal use their houses? Shall we add the present population of  Kerem Maharal  to  Ijzim?? This is rubbish, sorry, Huldra (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Huldra, well, I actually know nothing about the places Ijzim and Kerem Maharal, and would need to research the matter before I could give you any satisfactory answer.Davidbena (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Davidbena: please do. And look into the Ein Hod /Ein Hawd situation, too. And  Amka. To repeat: we try to do this in some orderly fashion; not just because this "happened to be a pertinent article",  Again: a formal "merge" discussion is what you will need. Huldra (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Huldra, I have looked at the first two links, Ijzim and Kerem Maharal. I feel detached from these places, since I live in the Elah Valley. I usually go to the places in my vicinity and take photographs of the places to be uploaded on WP. However, these places are far from me, and I doubt if I'll travel there to enhance virally these articles. I think that you may be in a better position than me to make a judgment whether or not to add current population statistics. As for merging the articles you named, are you asking me to make the formal request on Wikipedia to have those two articles, Ein Hod and Ein Hawd, merged? I can do that for you, if you'd like. But whether or not to add current population statistics in the first two links you provided is for you to decide.Davidbena (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Huldra, upon second considerations, after reading the last two links, Ein Hod and Ein Hawd, they should NOT be merged, as they are two distinct villages. Ein Hawd is actually near Ein Hod, and was established after the indigenous population of Ein Hod (Ein Hawd) resettled in a place not far from the original site.Davidbena (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Davidbena Quite, I do not want to have  Ein Hod and Ein Hawd merged (different localities). I just mentioned these places, to show you that this is a very common situation: almost similar name, and/or almost similar place. Kafr Bir'im/Bar'am is another. *Mostly* we have kept them separated. Amka is an exception. What I *am* saying, is that if you want to put Zekharia  material into Az-Zakariyya, (and possibly have Zekharia   deleted) then you *must*  go through a "merge" procedure. Huldra (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Huldra, indeed, the articles that you mentioned (Ein Hod and Ein Hawd) are dissimilar to Az-Zakariyya and Zekharia. The WP articles Az-Zakariyya and Zekharia are two articles dealing with the exact same subject. Both articles have one and the same purpose, namely, to inform our readers about the village Zakariyya, just as its name implies. If you wish to limit its scope to pre-1948 history, it would be best to do it in a separate article and under a different name. To the best of my knowledge, article deletion doesn't require a merger prior to deletion. Davidbena (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Merge
I propose we merge this article with its post-1948 counterpart. Are they the same village or not? Andrevan@ 01:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, User:Andrevan, they are the same village. However, it was not necessary to propose a merger at all. WP guidelines instruct us to boldly do the merger by ourselves, if at all possible (see: Proposed mergers), and which I have tried to do, although with little or no avail, since our co-editor User:Huldra refused to accept my additions and photographs, seeing that they relate to the village's modern Israeli history. She has explicitly stated here that she prefers keeping her article pre-1948 history. So why is she now asking to do what we have already done?Davidbena (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No, to merge Moshav Zekharia was established on the village land, close to the village site, according to Khalidi. There is a clear link on Zekharia to this article, and vice versa: that is enough. IMO, Huldra (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * With no offense, you stand to be corrected. If you read the following web-page, you'll see where it expressly says: "Zakariyya was partially destroyed, and all the remaining houses and its mosque became the property of the Jewish National Fund and Israeli government. Some Kurdish or Khazari Jews have taken residence in some of its houses," - meaning, the Arab village site is currently the Jewish Moshav known as Zekharia. You can see it here: . Besides, if you look at the photo gallery on the same web-site, you'll see one of the old Arab houses still standing, shown here: . When I was there on Sunday, I photographed the same house, as you can see here: File:House_in_Zekharia,_built_before_1948.jpg. There's no reason to hide the fact that Moshav Zekharia is built upon the site of the old Arab Az-Zakariyya.Davidbena (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Huldra, why can't you just avoid the wrangling with this contentious issue by simply changing the title of your WP article to: Az-Zakariyya - pre-1948 ??? In my humble opinion, it will solve everything.Davidbena (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Davidbena: I´m not sure why that would be necessary? A current location is called Zekharia, as is clearly said in the info-box. The info that this village was depopulated in 1948 is also in the lead. We could, however, if you like also put a sentence like "The Israeli moshav of Zekharia today occupies some of Az-Zakariyya´s land" into the lead. Would that do? Huldra (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So, if I understand you correctly, you are 1) against merging Az-Zakariyya and Zekharia, although they are one and the same village; 2) you are against our adding anything about the current Jewish condition (e.g. population statistics, photographs, etc.) of Az-Zakariyya, preferring to limit its scope to pre-1948; 3) you are against changing the title of your WP article, keeping the name of an active village as its title, although based on its title alone, other Wikipedia editors are free to enhance the article and to write about the village, without feeling inhibited to enlarge about its current Jewish population. Can we get an opinion here, say, from User:Andrevan or from User:Number 57, or from User:HJ Mitchell? Davidbena (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The thing is: I don´t know how much of the village land of Az-Zakariyya is today occupied by Zekharia. Is it the whole of 15.3 km², which Az-Zakariyya had at the last count (in 1945)? I very much doubt it. Huldra (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Huldra, that is simple to answer. The entire Arab village of Az-Zakariyya proper has now been supplanted by the newer Israeli Moshav Zekharia - built, in fact, on the same site, while the extended tracts of farm land, some are owned by the Moshav, while other tracts now belong to the Jewish National Fund.Davidbena (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your words actually confirms that  Az-Zakariyya  is not similar to  Zekharia, ..... if some land is owned by Jewish National Fund, then there is a possibility that new moshavs or kibbutz would be located on this land. Perhaps has been, already. Khalidi, 1992 is the only one (I know of) which lists the new places, and that book is pretty outdated,  Huldra (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree, since the adjacent farm lands, extending in some cases to several kilometers, are not called by the village name, but are rather the property of the villagers.Davidbena (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I support a merger. We can't expect every new named geographic entity to have the same exact dimensions as the previously named geographic entity. It will make all geographic articles impossible. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 22:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Where shall we draw the line, then? According to Khalidi, Lakhish, Israel was the only place founded on the land of Al-Qubayba, Hebron: shall those two articles be merged, too? Or is it only  those with a "similar" sounding names? Ijzim is perhaps a better example, it is well known that many, if not most, of the old houses were taken over by Kerem Maharal: shall  Kerem Maharal and  Ijzim  be merged, also? If so, under which name? Huldra (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Huldra, feel free to raise the subject of which you are in doubt on the respective Talk Pages of the WP articles that you've mentioned. Your question does not apply in this case, as we are talking here about two separate articles on the exact same village, one with a Hebrew name (Zekharia) and the other with an Arabic name (Az-Zakariyya). You have requested that I not add to the article (Az-Zakariyya) which you worked so hard to write, and have expunged all references that I've made in that article, including an assortment of photographs, all pertaining to its modern Israeli history, and which request of yours, nevertheless, I have complied with and will not interfere. However, you came and deleted new sections which I added to the other article (Zekharia), in hopes of stymying my efforts in contributing to either article. This, in my opinion, is wrong. So far, there has been no vote taken one way or the other if we are going for a merger, therefore, respect the edits made in Zekharia and which should not bother you at all.Davidbena (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And it is interesting to see that you now have taken an interest in the "deserted hovels with no connection to any contributions to greater society", cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I support retaining two separate articles on the same village, on the condition that the current title of Az-Zakariyya be slightly re-worded, to read either "Az-Zakariyya – pre-1948," or something similar, since our co-editor, the author of that article, is adamant about not incorporating in her article the modern-day Israeli data about the same village. Otherwise, I will agree to a merger.Davidbena (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But Zekharia is not the same name as Az-Zakariyya. (It is not like, say Al-Qubayba, Hebron and Al-Qubayba, Ramle (where we distinguish between the villages by placing it in the district they belonged to).) Again, I propose we make it clearer, in the lead of Az-Zakariyya, that presently  Zekharia is located there. Huldra (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (And, sigh: I wish someone would spend as much time expanding the history of these places, as they spend time trying to merge articles.... Huldra (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC))
 * To avoid confusion, if the two articles should ever be merged, the title of the article can effectually be "Zekharia (Az-Zakariyya)," that is, giving both spellings - the Hebrew and the Arabic.Davidbena (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep both articles. If anything the article about the Arab village should be merged into the new Israeli settlement because, as the article about the Arab village says that it was "depopulated" and "depopulated" means it is gone, it does not exist, it is a relic and memory now, but it can be part of the early history of the latest Israeli settlement. Let's not play tricks with history. Once upon a time, for example if we carry such suggestions to their limits, we can argue that where Jordan is now, that place used to be part of the Kingdom of Israel and no one would be happy to merge "Jordan" into Israel since Israel's history is much older! So this is a poorly thought out move that is not helpful. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a vary clear and apparent difference between the two situations, that being Az-Zakariyya existed recently enough for incontrovertible first hand sources of information pertaining to it to exist, while the same can not be said of the historical Kingdom of Israel. TheMurgy (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For your information, editor User:DGG has voiced his opinion that normal practice is that there will be two articles, since there is no institutional continuity (just as there is a separate article for New Amsterdam, although the city is now called New York). See his comments at the end of the section, here. I know that there are many articles on WP covering the same city, although called by different names, just as there is here with respect to Az-Zakariyya (the Arab rendition) for the name of the Moshav Zekharia. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It was suggested on the Talk:Beit Zakariah page to merge that page with this page. This should NOT be done, because these are different villages, despite the similar names. This page discusses a past village in modern-day Israel. That page discusses a current village in the West Bank. Ar2332 (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is a different merger. We are not talking about the old merger, which indeed are two different articles. If you browse further down this Talk-Page you'll see that we are referring to a different merger, one that involves two articles about the exact same place.Davidbena (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Correction in section: 1948 and aftermath
User:Huldra, I have noticed where there is an erroneous statement in the section which reads: 1948 and aftermath. There, you've written: "In 1950 Moshav Zekharia was established on the village land, close to the village site." This is incorrect, insofar that the new Israeli Moshav is precisely built upon the same spot where the old village once stood, and has even expanded beyond the site as well. In fact, the old Mosque is in the very center of the Moshav, and the newer houses are built all around it. Some of the old Arab houses are still standing and are presently dwelt-in by their new occupants. As you can see by the following Arab-made web-page in the next link, the village can be seen in relation to the Mosque, and where now the Modern Israeli Moshav stands:. Davidbena (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Davidbena: Those are the exact words of Khalidi, p. 226. In fact, they are so exact, I´m worried about copy-right infringement, more than anything else. Your statement is a classic WP:OR, and that is not accepted here, sorry. Find a source, or it is not going into the article. Huldra (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Huldra, actually, you have your source. If you read the web-page link provided, you'll see where it expressly says: "Zakariyya was partially destroyed, and the all remaining houses and its mosque became the property of the Jewish National Fund and Israeli government. Some Kurdish or Khazari Jews have taken residence in some of its houses." You can see it here: . Besides, if you look at the photo gallery on the same web-site, you'll see one of the old Arab houses still standing, shown here: . When I was there on Sunday, I photographed the same house, as you can see here: File:House_in_Zekharia,_built_before_1948.jpg. There's no reason to hide the fact that Moshav Zekharia is built upon the site of the old Arab Az-Zakariyya.Davidbena (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * One more thing, User:Huldra, if Az-Zakariyya is not the same as the Moshav by that same name, then why did you suggest that we merge the two Wikipedia articles? It seems to me that you can't be pushing both opinions. I would cordially invite others to give an opinion here, such as User:Andrevan.Cheers.Davidbena (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Davidbena: The Pal. rem site is generally not considered WP:RS these days; we have to be very careful with what we use from it. I use it as WP:EL, not as WP:RS. As I told Al Ameer on Talk:Abu Zurayq: " This was uploaded to Yasur, Gaza, but is actually closer to Al-Jura, ....and several of the pictures in Welcome To al-Ja'una are actually old buildings from Rosh Pinna, etc. Proceed with caution!"
 * And I suggested that you would propose a "merge"-vote, as that is the correct way to proceed. As you can see; I have already voted against it. Your first suggestion; (that we simply delete one article) is rather outrageous: you simply do not respect all the work and time that people have spend on these articles... Huldra (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Davidbena: and your editing here (removing the "merge"-suggestion) is starting to get rather disruptive, Huldra (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Huldra, didn't you just write on this Talk Page that you're against the merger? See: Talk:Az-Zakariyya. It was you who first suggested merging the two articles, and then you voted against it.Davidbena (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, User:Huldra, that the web-site "Palestine Remembered" is not always reliable, but in this case it is reliable when it equates Az-Zakariyya with the Moshav by that name, now inhabited by Kurdish Jews. In fact, judging by the photo gallery on that web-page, many Arabs visited the Moshav to see the homes wherein they and their families used to live. Nothing has changed, except the residents.Davidbena (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Initially, I was for merging the two articles, and I have actually worked hard to do that. The only opposition that I encountered was from you, Huldra, since you wanted to keep your WP article limited to pre-1948 history, with no reference to its modern-day Jewish condition. If you insist on retaining a limited scope on your article, Az-Zakariyya, without mentioning its Jewish nature, then I would suggest that you re-name your article and call it, "Az-Zakariyya - pre-1948." Perhaps User:Number 57 has a view on this.Davidbena (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I really don´t think you have evaluated the consequences here: what about  Ijzim and Kerem Maharal, that I asked about above? And if it is merged: I suspect there will be endless edit-warring: have you thought of that? I, for one will not accept a picture of the modern Moshav in the info-box: not representative. There has to be another principle about these villages, other than the  "I visited it last Sunday, and thought it was one village"-principle. Huldra (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The proper venue for discussing other possible mergers is on the Talk Pages of those articles.Davidbena (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the normal practice is that there will be two articles,since there is no institutional continuity (just as there is a separate article for New Amsterdam  DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. Andrevan@ 01:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Az-Zakariyya. 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:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5iPvhN4qP?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.palestineremembered.com%2Fdownload%2FVillageStatistics%2FTable%2520I%2FHebron%2FPage-050.jpg to http://www.palestineremembered.com/download/VillageStatistics/Table%20I/Hebron/Page-050.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

1948 photo
I have come across a second copy of this picture in the Palmach archive (Harel 4th Battalion volume 3 album 5/15) with a caption Beit Nabala. I prefer the Az-Zakariyya identification because its caption has more detail: Bayt Jibrin + Elah valley - which are close to the location. Padres Hana (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The caption also states that "the village is now inhabited by Kurdish immigrants". Padres Hana (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, Khalidi, 1992, p. 226 writes that in 1950 moshav Zekharia was established by Kurdish Jewish immigrants on the village site. Huldra (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

??????
User:Davidbena, seriously, you cannot add stuff like: "The hill rises to a maximum elevation of 347 meters above sea level, with a height of 117 meters at its lowest elevation, and a mean elevation of approximately 275 meters above sea level", citing it to Khalidi, 1992, pp. 224-225, when Khalidi say nothing of the kind!! Khalidi only writes that the average elevation is 275 meters...Huldra (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Huldra, only the mean elevation was taken from Khalidi, but the other elevations were taken from another source.Davidbena (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Davidbena, well, why dont you mention the other source, then? Huldra (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll have to look for it again. Wait.Davidbena (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being so...picky ...but this is the IP area, after all! Huldra (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "this is the IP area"? By the way, the source for the higher elevation is taken from here: Tel Azekah, but the lowest elevation I took from the Hebrew Wikipedia.Davidbena (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * IP area = Israel Palestine area. And Hebrew Wikipedia cannot be used as a source (no more that English Wikipedia can be used as a source), Huldra (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Since the place is ran by the Israeli government, why can't we use Israeli sources? But if you'd feel any better, just delete the statistics for the lower elevation.Davidbena (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course we can use Israeli sources, ...but we cannot use Hebrew Wikipedia as a source. Surely you see the difference? Huldra (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. Feel free to delete the lower elevation. Perhaps I'll find another source later.Davidbena (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

If you look at a topographic map, it seems you have to look many kilometers away to find an elevation of 117 meters. So that number is nonsense anyway. Zerotalk 07:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Merger Proposal
I propose that Beit Zakariah be merged into Az-Zakariyya. I think that the content in the Beit Zakariah article can easily be explained in the context of Az-Zakariyya, and the Az-Zakariyya article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Beit Zakariah will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Davidbena (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This should NOT be done, because these are different villages, despite the similar names. Az-Zakariyya is a past village in modern-day Israel. Beit Zakariah is a current village in the West Bank. Ar2332 (talk) 07:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You are plainly mistaken. Both articles refer to the exact same place. In fact, the lead sentence proves it: "The village is the site of the Battle of Beth Zechariah between the Jewish Maccabeans and Selucid Greek forces during the Maccabean revolt against the Seleucid Empire, in the year 162 BCE," as does the very last line prove that we are talking about the same village: "After the Six-Day War in 1967, the Gush Etzion settlements were reestablished. At some point after January 1948, the Arab residents of Beit Zakariah returned to their homes. They now form a small Arab minority within the Gush Etzion bloc." You seem to be very confused about the issue. There is only one Beit Zakariah in all of this part of our country.Davidbena (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Upon searching the maps, I see that you are correct in asserting that there was a ruin by the name of Hurbat Zakariyya, near the Kibbutz that now stands in that area, and that it was once an Arab ruin, believed to house the tomb of a saint called Zachariah. What confused me was your insistence of it being identified with the place of battle during the Hasmonaean period. That view has been rejected, as it is now largely identified with another place also called "Beit Zachariah," near the Elah Valley. Today, the site that you mention is where Rosh Tzurim now stands, but it was formerly called Khirbet Beit Skâria, which implies that it was only a khirba (ruin), but not a village. My apologies to you. Still, your article needs to be updated. Your article ought to be renamed "Khirbet Beit Zakariyya" since, to my knowledge, there was no town there, at least not in 1878 when they published the Palestine Exploration Fund Map, and which shows Kh. Beit Skâria at the very bottom of the map..Davidbena (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Battle of Beth Zechariah and its Hebrew version say that the Hasmonean battle happened in the West Bank location (not the Israel location). I am unaware of sources that state otherwise. As far as the question of renaming the West Bank location to Beit Zakariah to "Khirbet Beit Zakariyya": I would like to see evidence that "Khirbet Beit Zakariyya" is the currently used name. It certainly wasn't the name used in the Hasmonean period, and I don't see why the name used in 1878 should be privileged. Ar2332 (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The "Hebrew version" is purely the opinion of its editor, as Israeli archaeologists and renowned Western historical geographers (such as Victor Guerin) have placed the scene of the battle at the location near Azekah, the old Beit Zechariah.Davidbena (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please provide a source that it is near Azekah. The first few sources I found by Googling (1 2 3) all support the West Bank location, not the Azekah location. This is also the opinion of . Ar2332 (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * - Here are a few sources: Although the hill Azekah is now widely known as the Tel (ruin) of Azekah, in the early 19th-century the hilltop ruin was known locally by the name of Tell Zakariyeh. See Preliminary Evaluation of the Renewed Excavations at the Site and see also Erich Zenger, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, p. 721 In 1838, British-American explorer Edward Robinson passed by the site of Tell Zakariyeh, which stood to the left of the modern village bearing the same name. You can see his report in Biblical Researches in Palestine, vol. II, section XI, London 1856, pp. 16, 21. French explorer Victor Guérin thought Tell Zakariyeh to be the village mentioned in the Book of I Maccabees (6:32), known then as Beit Zakariah. See: Victor Guérin, Description de la Palestine, Judée, Description de la Judée, Paris 1869, pp. 316–319; . You may also wish to see Josephus, Antiquities (Book xii, chapter ix, verse 4). "As for Azekah," Guérin writes, "it has not yet been found with certainty, this name appearing to have disappeared." (Victor Guérin, Description de la Palestine, Judée, Description de la Judée, Paris 1869, p. 333. Original French: "Quant à Azéca, en hébreu A’zekah, elle n’a pas encore été retrouvée d’une manière certaine, ce nom paraissant avoir disparu"). Scholars believe that the town's old namesake was changed at some early time in Jewish history.Davidbena (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case, how about we change both articles to reflect that the battle location is disputed? You change your article, I change mine? Ar2332 (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I can agree to that, but I'll need to see your sources.Davidbena (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I gave to you the link for the old 1878 map that shows Kh. Beit Skâria. Click here, at bottom of map. It was a khirba (ruin). It's unfair of you to ask for evidence that currently it is still called by that name, since today there is built over the site a kibbutz.Davidbena (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * After looking a bit, I see some recent sources that use the name "Kh. Beit Skâria" so I'm willing to change to that. BTW, there is no kibbutz there - it's an Arab village, though the Rosh Tzurim kibbutz is nearby. Ar2332 (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. Then we are in agreement. Have a good day!Davidbena (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Beit Zakariah is an article I long had plans about writing, and collected sources under User:Huldra/Beit Sakariya, will expand that. Most of what is in the article will have to go, unless we find better sources than  etzion-bloc.org.il, that is hardly WP:RS. Can we remove the merge template? Huldra (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome back, Huldra. Yes, the "merge template" can be removed.Davidbena (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Az-Zakariyya. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.palestineremembered.com/download/VillageStatistics/Table%20I/Hebron/Page-050.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071230160757/http://www.moifa.org/collections/coll-textile.html to http://www.moifa.org/collections/coll-textile.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

New study
Dan Tsahor, Postwar Nakba: A Microhistory of the Depopulation of Zakariyya, 1950 is open access I think. Lots of interesting stuff there. Zerotalk 09:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that Al-Andalusi added that back in February ;) Huldra (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

In the Madaba Map
This tweet assumes that this place is the place called  Beth Zachar[ia] on the Madaba Map.

That seems likely, based on the position. Alas, how to add it? the
 * P. Palmer, Dr. Guthe (1906), Die Mosaikkarte von Madeba, Im Auftrage des Deutschen Vereins zur Erforschung Palätinas

..only shows the mosaic, not the identification.

And: only deal with area further south. Does anyone know of a WP:RS for this claim? Huldra (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

1940s map?
User:Onceinawhile; do you know where the 1940s map went? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I looked – it seems it was never uploaded. I am not sure why. I will go and dig back in my files when I am able to. Onceinawhile (talk) 03:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If you mean the one in the infobox, it shows to me just fine. Zerotalk 09:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Zero0000; do you see the 1940s map without the modern overlay? Huldra (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ahah, now I get it. No, it isn't there. I'll try to fix it. Zerotalk 13:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed, hopefully. Zerotalk 14:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Huldra (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)