Talk:Kfar Hananya

Merge
Propose to merge Kafr 'Inan -> Kfar Hananya, due to the fact it is the same place and essentially same place name with different transliteration. Through most of the history (classic, middle ages) it was a Jewish village Kfar Hananya and in Ottoman period became Arab village Kafr 'Inan, later to be reconstructed as Kfar Hananya once again in late 20th century.GreyShark (dibra) 06:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It isn't the same place but (on average) about 1km away.  The only connection is the name. I'm also opposed in principle to articles of the form "It was Jewish, then there was a break, then it was Jewish again". Zerotalk 21:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I oppose the merger for the same reason as mentioned by Zero0000. The newer Israeli settlement is named after the older village, now an Arab village. It does not actually sit on the old site. The historical "Kfar Hananya" is the present Arab village.Davidbena (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per Zero. JahlilMA (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I am against merging these two articles for the simple reason that a merge will take-away from the article which deals specifically with the original site, Kafr 'Inan. Each article has different focus. We often find two Wikipedia articles treating on the same town (e.g. Az-Zakariyya and Zekharia; Bayt Jibrin and Beit Guvrin; Kafr 'Ana and Or Yehuda; Battir and Betar (fortress), Beit Dagan and Bayt Dajan, etc., etc. - although each pair of articles treats on the very same town! You may add to these: Berytus/Beirut, Londinium/London, Mediolanum/Milan, Jicheng (Beijing)/Yanjing/Dadu/Beijing, Batavia, Dutch East Indies/Jakarta, Tenochtitlan/Mexico City). There are many, many more. The reason for this distinction is because of the focus of each article, just as it is here. Here, too, the two places are actually different places.Davidbena (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)