Talk:Banias/Archive 1

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)

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

Location
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
 * The International legal position says other wise. Banias is in Syrian sovereign territory that is occupied by Israel......Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Lack of water
Makes trees die and fall over, dying trees do not stop water.

possibly due to deforestation of Mount Hermon, or realignment of faults in the rock layers from earthquakes.

anyone for a ref on that...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No ref, but... possibly deforestation, but that would have been quite a while ago to see effects now. All previous empires raped that resource.  Possible earthquakes/faults, but that should be a provable cause-effect (on a specific date or over a short period of time after quake), and I doubt it.  Possibly caused by greater usage of rain water higher on the slopes, less water available to seep down within bedrock.  Most likely reason is either long-term decrease in precipitation, or over-usage of the resource causing a general lowering of the groundwater level under the Golan (which is Israeli-occupied Syria), or a combination of the two.   Precip. decrease can be documented, if that is it.  The general lowering of water level would be known by the water Ministry people.  If the springs, Banias, Dan and Wassani (in Israeli-occupied Lebanon Ghajar) are connected, a decrease in all three would be expected. Again, water/national resource people would have data.
 * This is all based on the noted difference between formerly 'gushing' and now only 'seeping.' Question: Has anyone living seen it gushing, or is that a Biblical/Ancient ref? If it is an old ref, virtually all of the above are possible and likely contributors.  ... considered professional opinion. Hope that helps.  CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

E Robinson (1838) calls it "a copious stream"...whatever that means...the "gushing" is attested in Byzantine and up to 12/13 century refs.....I was looking for a ref that is a bit more substantial than an editorialising comment...I'll just have to keep looking and leave out the editorialising until I find something...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Take a look at recent refs added here and likely easy refs for Johnson Plan on Google; they mention some numbers, which, unless you are familiar, tend to be similarly unenlightening, but definable. Also, if my attempts to concatenate related issues below bear fruit, we may find more. CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 07:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

1953 Syrian offer
I am looking at the Shlaim book, which is used as a reference, and he is quite explicit that this was not a "peace agreement", specifically because the Syrians refused to discuss it. To wit: (p73-74) "The Syrians proposed a division of the DMZs...Isreal's delegation did not rule out such a division but insisted that an agreement could only be part of the general peace settlement...The Syrians preferred to talk in terms of amending the existing armistice agreement". Later on (p76), Shlaim describes the Israeli counter proposals, and says "These were rejected by Syria, and the negotiations ended". Please stop trying to portray this as a Syrian peace offer rejected by Israel. NoCal100 (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * After some research into what (who and when) was in the deleted para, I have reverted a part of the deletion (very relevant), but moved it to a better, chronologic position, and added words to transition it with the rest of the section. I believe it is accurate, but accept the possibility of better words/sources.  Additionally, I note that it only states one side of the ‘claims’; we should look into others’ claims.  The noted 8th meeting indicates that talks were on-going; under whose auspices were they conducted (Mixed Armistice Commission, or bilateral or what).  I added this apparent fact with a fact tag.


 * I added back the relevant fact of who Blass was (why they listened); this is important and RS’d.  Also made an attempt to neutralize the views expressed in the two previous edits, without getting into ’land for peace’ or ‘claims’, since there were at least three different claim povs (I/S sides, UN, (et al?) and we don’t know the previously agreed Mixed Armistice Commission(?) ground rules).  I attempted to stay with agreed facts, maybe claims are elsewhere with a ref/link.  I’ll look at some other refs to see how it was received elsewhere, concerning the peace reference.


 * A question, is the last sentence added into the The Iron Wall, p 75 ref, in the reference? I don’t have it and it was not included in the previous quote.  NoCal, it would be helpful if the entire quotes you note were available to read. Could you fill in the ... with the words?  You might also add the quoted material you noted above.


 * I can live without the Lake Huleh reference, but feel it should be added back if this development project included work in the designated DMZ (I don’t think it does, but don’t know).


 * I could not live without the mention of the National water carrier, however, because it pre-dates Syrian development and would not be NPOV if it was left out. I added it with a fact tag and will work on refs.  Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's the full quote, with the missing words (originally left out because they are not important in the context of the point I was making re:'Land for Peace'): "The Syrians proposed a division of the DMZs between the two sides along a line that would lie on the east side of the lakes and the Jordan river. Isreal's delegation did not rule out such a division but insisted that an agreement could only be part of the general peace settlement or a nonaggression pact or at least that it be described as a step away from the armistice agreement in the direction of peace. The Syrians preferred to talk in terms of amending the existing armistice agreement".
 * I don't think this article is the place to describe in detail the DMZs, and the various claims each side made with regard to them. This requires a lot of detail in order to be presented accurately and fairly, and that woudl be outside the scope of this article. This article is about a village & related historical site, and the DMZs are only very peripherally relevant, in as far as the 1953 initiative which involved an area near the village. We certainly can't just present Israel's claim, as quoted from some unknown source which describes the claims in an inaccurate way. (Israel's claim was based on the fact that the DMZs were entirely within the territory allotted to the Jewish state in UNGAR 181, and the fact that the Syrian presence there was the result of a war of aggression, launched in clear violation of UNSC resolutions). NoCal100 (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My view of whether this is the place (or time) is similar to yours (it isn’t really the place), specifically for the reasons you state in your 2nd sentence, but I will note two additional items that tend to move it back to Banias. The main reason is that your view, “This article is about a village & related historical site, and the DMZs are only very peripherally relevant”, misses an obvious reality/fact required by NPOV.  That item is the water resource that was and still is Banias. That water resource is why history is found there, why it was fought over, and why it remains contested from the Mandate to now.  Times have certainly changed since Banias was first famous, but the reason has not.  It is the water; it wasn’t the fort; it was the water resource the fort protected.  Control of water resources (and railroad right of way) are two strategic reasons amongst others why the Sykes-Picot ‘line on a map’ was moved on the ground in 1920 and 1923.  This strategic water resource was within/near the DMZs for water resource reasons, as noted in the reference and in the period of time we are discussing.   It is very relevant; some mutually acceptable mention must stay.


 * The second reason deals more with timing and is subject to political pov (rather than the natural resource pov needed for NPOV above) and I do not want to overstate it. Let me just ask, if not here, where?  I have tried to find something “presented accurately and fairly” specifically concerning the importance of water resources as a core issue in the I/A and I/P conflict. Quite frankly, it is one of several elephant in the room that Wikipedia just can’t seem to deal with accurately and fairly. Some editors just can’t or  seem not to allow it.  The previously accepted quote notes the water resource reality and has brought it into play.  I can and am willing to try; I see and know the elephant.  If you can point to a Wiki-article that does present the water issue well or at all, please show me one.


 * Thanks for the requested quote. I will leave your later sentences for now, because I am now unfamiliar with what all parties claim and, as stated before I am trying to finish this up without getting into claims.  I will likely take the pov of the group assigned as referees during the period and am not yet sure who that was.  I am looking forward to working collaboratively. Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that the importance that Israel & Syria attached to the area has to do with the water source and not with the village, and that is why I am ok with a small paragraph that describes the 1953 Syrian initiative - but there is no need to discuss the DMZs in any detail to do so. It would suffice to introduce that section with something like "After the 1948 War, the Banias water basin was located in the DMZ, an area controlled by Israel but subject to a sovereignty dispute between Israel and Syria. In 1953...." As to the question of where the DMZs should be covered in detail - I think it belongs in 2 different articles, which do not yet exist. One would be Water in the Arab-Israel Conflict - which would be a comprehensive article dealing with everything from early Zionist attempts to include the Litani as the northern border of the British mandate, to current agreements between Israel and Jordan and the Hasbani dispute. the other would be a much more focused article, that deals with the DMZs created after the war- here, on the Jordanian front, and on the Egyptian front. NoCal100 (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Sounds good to me, and I would very much like to fade away and leave this to you and others to get the words right. But, your suggested sentence got me thinking… and researching. When I found this, and already know of this, I realized that your sentence was more a matter of rights and claims, than facts. Both maps clearly show that Banias was not within the DMZ. So, then I looked at the agreed Israeli-Syrian General Armistice agreement to see what it says. I was particularly struck at Article I.1, II.1 and .2, III.2 and .3, Article IV, all, and Article V, all. Article VII establishes the Mixed Armistice Commission as the ‘referee’ that I was asking about. Based on the above, I believe this sentence might be better stated as, "After the 1948 War, the Banias spring remained in Syrian territory, as it had since 1923, although a lower portion of the Banais River crossed the DMZ.  In 1953....’’

To this, I’d like to add the following from an excellent source, which says: June 15, 1949. Foreign Minister Moshe Shertok of Israel speaks to Knesset: UN partition plan as well as internationalization of Jerusalem is void because Arabs attacked Israel; Israel should not give up any land that is in excess of partition plan. Arabs are trying to gain land politically because they could not gain land militarily; if Arab refugees are allowed to return before peace settlement, refugees could form army. Israel wants to obtain territory in Gaza from Egypt if 230,000 Arab refugees are readmitted to area; Syria wants more land on the Syrian-Israeli frontier near Galilee, a term Israel will never concede to. July 20, 1949. Israel and Syria sign armistice. Disputed frontier areas are demilitarized.

Now, how could the DMZ be ‘an area controlled by Israel but subject to a sovereignty dispute between Israel and Syria,’ if it had been de-militarized and Israel had not broken the Armistice? I too agree we should have those articles, although I’d likely only participate in the former, because of more pressing NPOV edits elsewhere. Finally, one question of mine was not tey answered, so I will repeat it. A question, is the last sentence added into the The Iron Wall, p 75 ref, in the reference? [Blass explained that the movement of the International boundary in the area of Banias would affect Israel’s water rights.] I'd very much like to know, as noted in my hidden comment in the article. Regards,CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The sentence about Blass and his explanation does indeed appear in The Iron Wall. With regards to the "control' question - control does not have to be military - Israel controlled it by virtue of having civilian communities there conducting agricultural activities. I am opposed to your suggestion of stating "as it had since 1923", since the article currently states (and cites sources for this cliam) that the area had passed to British control after WWII. NoCal100 (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, as long as it is in there; my problem was the mixing of an engineer's usage of 'water development plan' and 'Israel’s water rights'. These are two different things to me.  That same sense of ‘control’ works just as well for the (majority?) Arab farmers in the area too, until they were removed, that is.  You can drop that 1923 back ref; the new refs about the change in borders are new to me so I will back off until I know more.  I will just note that even that close to the end of their empires, they were still very adept at screwing a third party.  Sounds like a bit of French pique over Syrian national aspirations to me.  CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

After reading NoCal100’s statement and reading the references from the article it appears that NoCal is being disingenuous and editing in bad faith. The author and academic John F Wilson in his book on the subject Banias (2004) ISBN 1850434409 found that the Hula draining incident was that important to the story of Banias that he should mention the incident in his book on page 178:-

In 1951 Israel began work on a channel that would drain the Heula marsh and carry the waters to the Negev desert. Arab villages in the path of this development were bulldozed and the inhabitants scattered. By the spring of 1951 the Israelis had occupied the two southern demilitarised zones and Syria had taken possession of the Banias area.

He gets a few details incorrect (the villages were destroyed by Aerial bombardment and not by bulldozer) also the villagers weren’t scattered but removed en-mass further into Israel under martial law and further some of villagers were allowed to return.

If an event occurred that is fundamental to Banias it should be recorded in the article. That you don’t like it is not justification for removal. As CasualObserver'48 has observed water issues are fundamental to the story of Banias. Water is the elephant in the room, it’s time for it to have a bathe.Charlie O&#39;Sulivan (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * in fact, water from hermon will prove (and already is proving) to be a bigger deal than the status of jerusalem imho. the golan is about hermon's water before it is about a military buffer. btw - the katzrin winery is also in the golan, along with lots of arable (no pun intended) land on volcanic soil. has anyone on here dug at banias besides me? IsraelXKV8R (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Border questions
I made some edits to the first para in the new section #British Mandate to contemporary. I have provided some alternative words to my non-grammatical edits and am open to changes. I hid refs to the other areal springs at Dan and Wazzani (tho slightly off topic) because I would like to educate myself on a wider scope while the topic and regional geography are being discussed. I do have a lack of understanding with the last two sentences, however, which I believe should be tightened for better understanding. If the border moves north to include Banias in 1920, it must also have moved west (later in the 1923 final agreement?) to place Banias in Syria. Is this the case, based on the refs? Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

Google search results for Caesarea Philipi (note the proper spelling only has one l), are: 87,600 hits no false positives in the first 20

Google search results for Banias are: 603,000 with 7 false positives in the first 20.

you could say that it is 20:13 in favour of moving Banias to Caesarea Philipi....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Easily divergent Banias is about the spring and water and not a city. While Caesarea Philipi is a great city. Both articles are quite separate and independent..Therefore do not support...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Example of two articles about 1 city:

Caesarea Maritima and Caesarea.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

How surprising
How surprising that the article has been left with obvious errors from when i was constructing the article in the first place?...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 07:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Arabic name
In the lead paragraph it says the Arabic name is "Jabal ash-Shaiykh" but the Arabic itself actually says Mount Hermon (Jabal Harmun). I assume the two should say the same thing, but which one is it? Adam Bishop (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

have you got the Arabic script for "Jabal ash-Shaiykh"..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, I've changed it. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring
Folks, as a reminder, this article falls within the scope of Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, which means that the Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to place discretionary sanctions: "''Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.''"

I am specifically concerned by the recent edit-warring on this article, especially as the reverts do not seem to be being accompanied by adequate discussion on the talkpage. I am not placing a revert restriction on this article at this time, but I'm thinking about it. So please, could everyone try to step away from the "undo" button, and instead focus on building consensus at the talkpage? This will be a much better way to ensure lasting changes to the article. Thanks, --Elonka 19:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Then please speak with NoCal100 as he/she has hit the revert button as his/her edit...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Page ban
Per the discretionary sanctions authorized by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, has been banned from editing the Banias article, and this talkpage, for 30 days. If this ban is violated, please contact me or any other administrator, or post a request at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions, --Elonka 18:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (addendum) Because of disruptive activity on the Ma'ale Akrabim massacre article, Ashley kennedy3's ban has been extended to that article as well. The ban expiration date (for both that article and this one) is January 19, 2009. --Elonka 18:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by Philip trueman
Mr "Trueman" (as opposed to lesser breeds of aravoushim) has been reverting any attempts to create a Neutral POV on this page. Is there a way he can be banned? 208.61.100.212 (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

wikiproject Egypt?
How is Egypt involved in this?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Factual accuracy French-British bilateral agreement.
In this entry one can read that “After the cessation of WWII hostilities, and at the time Syria was granted Independence (April 1946), the former mandate powers, France and Britain, bilaterally signed an agreement to pass control of Banias to the British mandate of Palestine.” I have tried to find something about this agreement, but couldn’t. I have followed the footnotes and I still did not find anything about it. The first footnote is a link to a site and the second is a reference to Wilson, J. F. (2004). Caesarea Philippi : Banias, the lost city of Pan. I.B. Tauris. On the named pages (177-178) there is no reference to such agreement. The book names one article from Eretz Magazine “The Making of a Border” by Yadin Roman. One can find this article on google. In this article there is no mention of such an agreement either. The only agreement I can find is about 1920-1923 when Banias is made part of the French Mandate. Could anyone have a look and correct the entry if needed?

Mihai Martoiu Ticu (talk) 07:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You are quite right. It seems that some editor has misunderstood the sources.  The new state of Syria did not recognize the 1923 boundary agreement made between Britain and France that settled the border between the British and French mandates.  That is what the sources are referring to.  There was no new agreement in 1946.  Zerotalk 10:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hatnote
The article acquired a hatnote at some point recently, announcing that Banias is "one and the same with Caesarea Philippi". I've deleted this, a) because it is un-MOS-like, and b) because it is inappropriate; the article already tells us that, in detail. OTOH the Roman section here largely duplicates what is in the Caesarea Philippi article, so I have summarized it and added a main article tag. I trust that is OK with everyone. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

"Banias River" redirected here and then largely ignored
The river or stream only has its springs here. It might not be the Nile or Volga, but it is long enough to deserve more. If it stays here, it should at least get a paragraph of its own where more info could accumulate with time (length, course, mills, bridges, tourism etc.)Arminden (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Banias. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20081005003551/http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/fractured/ to http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/fractured/

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) 06:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Banias. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20080909201308/http://untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_120000/20/29/00039450.pdf to http://untreaty.un.org/unts/60001_120000/20/29/00039450.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130304140946/http://www.parks.org.il/parks/ParksAndReserves/hermon/Pages/default.aspx to http://www.parks.org.il/parks/ParksAndReserves/hermon/Pages/default.aspx

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) 19:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Banias. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20080724183029/http://www.jafi.org.il/education/noar/sites/banias.htm to http://www.jafi.org.il/education/noar/SITES/banias.htm

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) 15:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Harv ref?
Harvp reference system was introduced in 25 November 2015 : the problem is that it is only half the references... it doesn't look pretty.... Suggestions? Huldra (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Nimrod Castle map of the PEF Survery
The map of the PEF Survery belongs in the Nimrod Fortress article, not in the Banias one. The Nimrod Fortress (Qalaat Namrud, Qal'at al-Subeiba) rises way above the Banias place and is a noticeably different historic site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drz (talk • contribs)


 * The image is mislabeled. Whether it belongs here or not is a matter of opinion since the castle and the town have interlinked history. Zerotalk 06:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a matter of geography and history, not of opinion. Drz (talk)