Talk:Caesarea Philippi

Incorrect name

Caesarea Philippi only has one l....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Map depiction

The current map depiction has strong POV overtones and is a digitally altered and skewed map that reflects partisan opinions. The Golan Heights have been under Israeli civilian control for 44.5 years. They have been under Syrian control for only 21. I have compiled a number of maps from reliable sources (including National Geographic and United Press International) showing the Golan as belonging to neither Israel nor Syria. Please note the UPI map.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] The Golan remains under defacto Israeli control and it’s disputed status should be reflected on corresponding maps. Moreover, Caesarea Philippi is a tourist attraction and as such it's status should at the very least be shown to be within the area of the controlling sovereign so that the reader who wishes to visit the subject area knows where he/she is going. Accordingly, I have replaced the existing non-neutral, digitally altered, partisan map with a more neutral depiction.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The Golan remains Syrian territory under Israeli occupation, as the Golan Heights article makes clear. Your collection of news sources do not trump the countless scholarly sources that make this point crystal clear. Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia, not a hasbara production. nableezy - 15:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Caesarea Philippi

Cyberbot II has detected links on Caesarea Philippi which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.bible-history.com/biblestudy/caesarea-philippi.html

  Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Caesarea Philippi

Cyberbot II has detected links on Caesarea Philippi which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.bible-history.com/biblestudy/caesarea-philippi.html

  Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Caesarea Philippi

Cyberbot II has detected links on Caesarea Philippi which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.bible-history.com/biblestudy/caesarea-philippi.html

  Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Caesarea Philippi

Cyberbot II has detected links on Caesarea Philippi which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.bible-history.com/biblestudy/caesarea-philippi.html

  Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge with Banias—-or define much sharper

@Zero0000: Hi Zero. I don't know why this page exists. In my opinion, it should either be much clearer defined, or (far better) merged with Banias. I see no reason why it's been partially, if not very consistently detached from that topic/article. There is some focus by one of the editors on the Christian history of the site, but, as expected, it's been mixed by everyone else with everything else. It has no character of its own, or not sufficiently so as to justify having its own page. I could see why a page entitled "Christian Caesarea Philippi" could have enough readers and thus a justification (mainly the primacy of St Peter, the possibility of being the site of the Transfiguration, then the Church history throughout the ages). But this isn't that, and that fits quite nicely into the main Banias page, too. Good night, Arminden (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge Banias into this article

I propose that Banias be merged into Caesarea Philippi, the name by which the site is better known in English (see, for example, page view statistics). Although the two articles ostensively cover different periods (an entirely unnecessary distinction), the Caesarea Philippi article claiming, "This article deals with the history of Banias between the Hellenistic and early Islamic periods," this is not true. Both articles cover the same periods, with slightly different focus. If merging these articles can be agreed upon, I volunteer to do it. — the Man in Question (in question) 19:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• I am against merging the two articles for the simple reason that a merge will take-away from the Banias article itself, which, as our co-editor has rightly noted, has a 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.Davidbena (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

"Panease Paneades"?!

"Having heard that at Caesarea Philippi, otherwise called Panease Paneades, a city of Phoenicia..."

Paneas yes, Paneades also, but Panease? Or even "Panease Paneades"?! Source is not online, Google finds no other independent source, so please check. Arminden (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Ashley kennedy3 has ceased editing in 2014, so we're stuck with her 2008 edit. She wrote most of the article, thank you AK, now this is on others. Arminden (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The book says, quoting Sozomen, "Having heard that at Caesarea Philippi, otherwise called Panease [Paneades], a city of Phoenicia". The "[Paneades]" part is actually an addition by the author (John Francis Wilson). This is cited to Chester D. Hartranft's translation of Sozomen's Historia Ecclesiastica, which is [helpfully online https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26025.htm]. The online version and the actual book version (on Google Books) says "Paneas", not "Panease". So Wilson typed it wrong in his book. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

map

Arminden, as I am sure you are well aware, this is in Syrian territory. Whether or not one can reach the site from Syria is not relevant to that question, and we have standard pushpin maps on Wikipeida, and this one with "disputed area" added by some Wikipedia user is not that. Care to explain why we should be including non-neutral things like calling occupied territory "disputed territory" here? nableezy - 17:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The US and Israel dispute this is Syrian, and it is controlled by Israel. Showing it within Syria is misleading - you can't get here from Syria. Free1Soul (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

nableezy, hi. I have zero problem with "occupied territory/Israeli occupied Golan Heights". I only find the Syria-only map totally useless, as it ignores the needs of the Wikipedia user, who wants to see the wider context, and definitely how it relates to where he can actually reach Banias from. Go ahead and change wherever "disputed area" occurs (I don't even know where that is, it's sooo irrelevant). A fight I will not be part of, but just to remind you: since Trump, the US and a few countries who followed his lead recognised the occupied parts of the Golan as Israeli territory, so technically it is very much a "disputed area". But again, I'm not going there, and I'm not interested in that aspect. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I am aware that one state changed their view, and that this was rejected by the overwhelming majority of the international community. The Golan is widely recognized as Syrian territory, and we both know that. The Wikipedia user, if they are interested in how to travel somewhere, can consult a travel guide. This however is an encyclopedia. nableezy - 17:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

nableezy: A) You're barking up the wrong tree, if I may put it this way. I have been more than clear: I have NO interest in the topic, you can fight that out with Free1Soul or whoever you find ready for it. I'm NOT. As for a reality check: the US is not "one state", unless you count rowing boats and transatlantic container ships as one category. And others did follow. How legal that is is not the point, if you are willing to make the distinction: de facto vs de jure. But again, that's not my problem, I'm out of that topic. B.) We ALWAYS have to think of the user's best interest, sending them to other sources can mean we close down, there are enough encyclopaedias around. That's plain silly, I expected you to choose your arguments based on logic, not momentary rhetorical needs and emotions. We even have "access to the site" sometimes within the article, and the infobox always contains 'public access'. So let's stay real and respect the spirit of Wiki. As to changing "disputed" to "occupied" (I've managed to find what you mean, with another pair of glasses), go ahead and change it. I don't know how, or else I'd do it, with greetings to The Donald & The Yahu. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

nableezy, maybe the one who created the map would be willing to change the one word - you can talk to him/her: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Golan_Heights_relief_v2.png

It seems that it's in very wide use. Arminden (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Less wide now. nableezy - 18:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

But to the point, no we are not a travel guide, and we don't base our maps on what airport is most convenient to fly in to or out of. Beyond that, are you even looking at the map? There is a reason we use these bland colored maps in the infoboxes, so that one can quickly see where a place is. A relief map makes actually seeing the pushpin difficult. I'd be ok with including two maps as an option in the infobox, Syria Golan and Module:Location_map/data/Israel Golan. But in that order. nableezy - 22:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

As in here. nableezy - 22:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

"Disputed" is used when sovereignty is disputed, what Israel alleges to be the status of WB and if that were accepted, would permit Israel to evade Geneva 4, for example. Decisions of the international community, both in the case of territory claimed by Palestine and in the case of the Golan, designate the relevant territory as occupied by Israel, disputed is therefore incorrect.Selfstudier (talk) 09:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Proclaimed park?

Arminden, concerning your edit:[10], there is no info in the article that the occupation regime has proclaimed the site as a "national park". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness: wrong, see the mention of "the Hermon Stream Nature Reserve" under "Archaeology". I've added the updated link under "External links" to make it easier. The same authority of the aforementioned occupation regime runs both nature reserves and national parks, i.e. archaeology parks, and sometimes the one is contained within the other, such as at Tel Dan and Banias. In the past it was probably known as "Banias National Park", it doesn't matter much; it's been around for decades. Google is a useful tool for some, it has 75 distinct hits for "Banias National Park", including several quotable books. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Arminden, you have to provide a reliable source that says Caesarea Philippi is a national park. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

At the POV titled National parks and nature reserves of Israel one finds Hermon Stream (Banias) Nature Reserve which is a redirect to Hermon National Park in turn redirecting to Banias, both it and this cross referencing each other. Duh.[xUser:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

If it is just within a national park it doesnt belong in that category and the template is out of place as well. nableezy - 22:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

nableezy, please make the required effort and read. To repeat myself: Google has 75 distinct hits for "Banias National Park". So yes, it's there and has been for decades. If you really need the background story, I guess it's this: there is a distinct national park containing all the archaeological findings behind a fence. When the two authorities, the one for national parks and the other for nature reserves have merged in 1998 (which is mentioned in the INPA article's lead), they did combine some parks and reserves for admin. reasons. That does by no means mean that the ruins have been turned into a bio-reserve and planted over, or that the walk along the creek has any archaeological focus: the two parts are kept apart with a minimal overlap at the spring-cum-Pan-shrine. Since the time when the two authorities have merged, there is no more official distinction between the two types of "parks", and, as I've written above, Tel Dan and Banias have both, in Banias the separation between the two being even clearer. If you want to contradict just for the sake of it, go ahead, but your sparring partner is reality, and it tends to win. Or if someone "wins" over reality, he ends up being laughed at. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Arminden, pay attention to me. We have an article on Banias. Our article on National Parks of Israel has Hermon National Park, a redirect to Banias as the national park. The template has Banias, piped to Hermon, as the national park. This is within a national park. It is not a national park. If we are going to say that Caesarea Philippi and Banias are the same national park, then those articles should be merged. I dont think you actually think that though. Maybe try to be a little less condescending and pretend that the people on the other side of an argument are not complete idiots? nableezy - 22:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Here, maybe youll get it if I draw it out like this. Yosemite National Park is in Category:National parks in California (subcat of US) and has the Template:National parks of the United States on its page. Half Dome has neither. This has nothing to do with whether or not it is in Israel. It has to do with whether or not it is, itself, a national park. And it is not. Can you make the required effort and understand what the issue is that I am raising here? nableezy - 23:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy: I apologise for adopting the wrong tone. But I don't agree. Banias deals with the entire history of the site, from Hellenistic period until today (or mainly until 1967), while Caesarea Philippi is a subset of it, dealing mainly with the Roman and Byzantine periods (with just a little bit on Hellenistic and Early Islamic periods). It is of special interest because it has an important mention in the Gospels, I guess that's the only reason it got branched off from the main article, Banias. So same site. As such, it's part of the same archaeological park, now combined since 1987 with the nature reserve under one name, whether that makes practical sense or not. So whatever goes for Banias, goes for C.Ph. as well. Some of the ruins are pre-Roman, some are post-Roman, but there's enough there from the Roman period (mainly the very impressive and extensive remains of the palace of Agrippa II, and the recently discovered, limited remains of the temple built by Herod at the cave entrance). Unlike your example, where the Half Dome is just one small feature compared to the much larger entire Yosemite National Park, the Roman & Byzantine period ruins stretch over most of the area of the archaeological park. The distinction is of historical period, not of location or area. You can argue that the archaeological park, which apparently constituted the "Banias National Park" all by itself until the merger (my guess, I can't swear), is not the same as the park+reserve now called Hermon Stream (Banias) Nature Reserve or whatever they choose to call it, but a.) I've addressed that, and b.) it's semantics, and Israel is a chaotic place, where nobody pays attention to such things even for a second. It's both. "Banias National Park (archaeology)", and "Hermon Stream Nature Reserve"-cum-some-archaeology if you don't care much about ancient stones and prefer a walk through the forest. Every archaeological site prepared to receive tourists is called a "national park" in/by Israel, no matter the size. It's a very different concept from the US. Think of Hammat Tiberias: it's a ruined synagogue, a small Turkish hammam, and the little plot of land around them. The Yosemite main parking lot is probably 10 times larger. El-Maghtas/Qasr al-Yahud is tiny, and so are Bar'am, Bet Alfa (just one building!), Korazim and Kursi are small, and so on. Some are declared as national parks, but nothing has been done for tourism, maybe there's a plan in a drawer or the money never came, I don't know. Nature reserves listed on the INPA website tend to be larger. Check the National parks and nature reserves of Israel article: Banias is listed under parks, Tel Dan under nature reserves, the only possible difference is that the Tel Dan excavations are covering a larger area, but they're also quite distinct from the nature paths (but connected to them). So if you want a mathematical formula or algorithm to figure out why Banias is a national park, you'll be disappointed. Ask anyone who's visited the ruins there if it is a national park, and they'll say of course. A compact area of archaeological remains, excavated, signposted, with an entrance ticket and a flier at the booth - that certainly is a national park in Israel. Go the other way, and it's a nature reserve: forest, creek, waterfall. Or take the whole day, do both, and eat traditional food at the Druze mill on the way. What is it then? Cheers, Arminden (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

PS: I guess the old NPA employees are still fighting it out with the former NRA employees, the former loving their archaeology parks, and the latter their nature reserves. For a while they apparently couldn't compromise even on the name, and they were called the Israel National Parks and Nature Reserves Authority, or some other permutation of these words. Longer than the national anthem. The nature guys seem to have won the upper hand for now. It's all just about saving money and pooling the budgets.

PPS: If you don't ping me, I'm more likely than not to miss what you're writing here, as I haven't put this on my watchlist. Arminden (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

All this NPA/NPR infighting is of only passing interest, in occupied areas it all falls regardless under the so called Civil Administration/COGAT (see the notes at Wadi Qana to see how it works).Selfstudier (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

There's no COGAT in the Golan. Try to learn something before confidently dismissing others. Let's Go Brandon (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, IP with 1 edit, the precise acronyms and legal/bureaucratic gymnastics used are not important, the intent is exactly the same whether WB or Golan, dispossession of the locals.Selfstudier (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

No, clueless who doesn't know what an IP is. There is no COGAT, Civil Administration or anything similar to that in the Golan, it has been annexed to Israel and everything there is managed by the same authorities as elsewhere in Israel. You tried to dismiss a well reasoned argument with an "I know better" one liner, and ended up beclowning yourself. Keep it up, you're a source of amusement. Let's Go Brandon (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure this place was always more popularly known as as Banias (or Paneas) rather than what one of Herod's sons decided to call it as self-aggrandizement.Selfstudier (talk) 10:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Arminden:, fine, this covers a part of the history. Then compare History of the Yosemite area. This is a fairly clear either or for the category and template, either Caesarea Philippi or Banias is the national park. They arent both. The category and template says of Israel, this isnt even a in or out of Israel dispute. It's just a is this a national park, or is Banias the national park. And if they are both the same then they need to be in the same article. If this is a history of a portion of it, it should not be in the category. nableezy - 15:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier, you once more tripped over your own activism. Almost every Hellenistic and Roman ruler who intervened in a city's fate, also renamed it. It was a common habit. Had nothing to do with "one of Herod's sons" (Jew? No Jew? You tell me. Or not, he's not halal & stinks to you.) did for aggrandizement. Besides, he called it Caesarea, to honour the emperor, and added, like all the many Antiochus and Seleukus kings before him, Philippi after himself, after partly rebuilding it. Normal procedure. True, Agrippa II was more modest, he only renamed it after Nero, but he didn't make it his capital either, so easier for him to desist. And it's been Paneas, with a P, all until the Arab Muslim conquest in the 7th c., as Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic have a P in their alphabet. And locals, whatever their nationality, knew the difference between official habits and actual names, and I never read anywhere about admin. punishments for people not conforming to the ever-changing official city names. History has many answers that go far beyond modern antipathies. The BBC just had a programme about the way hate eats you from inside, so mind your blood pressure, it can be very harmful. Arminden (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy, I'm out of words here. The archaeological park is... the archaeological park. Some ruins have layers from several periods, the palace of Agrippa was reused as a Byzantine bathhouse, the street grid was in use throughout many periods - Caesarea Philippi is just a name corresponding to one period, how do you want to slice out a period from a layered site? First and foremost, what is there to gain from it? At Belvoir Castle there's also an open-air exhibition of modern art by Igael Tumarkin - you'd allow the castle as part of the park, but not the sculpture garden? Yogi Bear and Ranger Smith are national park inventory, but Boo Boo is out, 'cause he's smaller? At least they're distinct from each other, C.P. is not distinct from Banias. Or you only accept the whole as a park, but not a certain part, either physical or temporal? I'm leaving the stage to you, I don't see the use of this all for the life of me. Arminden (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I know you dont care for standards and generally edit on what you feel is the ethos that the policies we have represent, and in general you do a commendable job in doing so, but we do indeed have standards and we do indeed try to have some sort of semblance as an internally consistent encyclopedia. We have a categorization structure here, and one of the things we have is one to contain the things that Israel has declared to be national parks. That category has its list at National parks of Israel. We do this across countries across the world. What you are describing as Caesarea Philippi is a subset of the history of what is the Banias national park. That is not a national park of Israel. If anything make a category:Banias National Park and put this in it. But, as part of the way we categorize things, across Wikipedia, this does not belong in that category. nableezy - 15:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Arminden: just put it on your watchlist please, im too old to remember to ping people. nableezy - 16:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

This site (!) IS on the list of Israel national parks. The site. Nowhere will you find PERIODS on that list. Apollonia = Arsuf = Arsur, Masada = Marda, Caco = Caqun, not to mention the walls of Jerusalem = Urusalem = Yerushalayim = Aelia Capitolina = Hagiopolis = Hierosolyma = 'Iliya = Beit el-Maqdis = el-Quds and so on. Sometimes a period gets an article of its own because this or that reason. The site, organised as a national park, naturally covers all periods. All else is bizarre. I really am out now, have a nice day. Arminden (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Where? Where it links to Hermon National Park? No, that is what is on the list. nableezy - 16:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I do 't understand your last posting. Arminden (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

That National_parks_and_nature_reserves_of_Israel#National_parks_of_Israel links to Hermon National Park, which redirects to Banias. My point is this. There is one national park here, right? There should be one article in the category. I dont care which. Really, give 0 care at all. But it should just be one of them. nableezy - 00:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

There is very clearly no consensus for the addition of the category and template, and there have been policy based reasons offered that have not been refuted. Ive reverted the reinsertion. Either Banias or Caesarea Phillippi belong in the category, not both. nableezy - 21:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

S.D. removed the categ. with the edit summary: no proof. I have reintroduced it promising proof on talk-page. Here is the promised proof.

Hermon Stream (Banias) Nature Reserve, official leaflet of the Nature and Parks Authority. With map including the entire archaeological area, and text about it under "Remnants of the Past by Professor Vasilis Tsafiris" (sic, Vassilios Tzaferis), and in the intro: "Historical ruins are also respectfully cared for here. The Israel Nature and Parks Authority develops and conserves the ruins of the ancient city of Paneas, which are an important and inseparable part of the Hermon Stream Nature Reserve."

This is all the proof one needs, but I had found it only after finding a few more, so here they are for your benefit.

Banias Reserve's Suspended Trail, Mike Rogoff for Haaretz, 19 July 2013.

"''''Banias (which the Nature and Parks Authority officially calls the Hermon Stream)''''.... Many visitors know the Banias as a spring, with a ruined Hellenistic/Roman shrine of Pan above it, excavations of the 1st-century CE city of Caesarea Philippi and, of course, the barbeque pits and picnic tables. The more adventurous stroll the fine trail (45 minutes to an hour) to the Banias Waterfall, the country’s largest. If that’s not for you, you can re-use your ticket to enter the (more westerly) waterfall end of the reserve. ... Open (through October) Saturday–Thursday, 8 A.M. –5 P.M.; Friday and the eve of Jewish religious holidays, 8 A.M.–4 P.M.; last entrance one hour before closing time. Entrance fee applies."

So: the Nature and Parks Authority runs it under "Hermon Stream", charges an entrance fee (ticket), and most visitors hang out around the archaeological area known for a while as Caesarea Philippi.

More about how the archaeological site, with the ruins of CB of course, can only be accessed as part of the national park, buying a national park ticket, see the section headed "Hermon-Banias Nature Reserve" (with a blue link to the NP Authority) in this article: The beautiful Banias, Abigail Klein Leichman for israel21c, 29 April 2014

Not enough?

Byzantine Church Built Over Temple to Pan Found in Israel. 'Like Pilgrims Left Graffiti' , Noa Shpigel for Haaretz, 1 Nov 2020.

"The site of the church recently discovered in the Banias nature reserve in the Golan Heights. Photo credit: Israel Nature & Parks Authority/ Banias archaeological team"

An impressive church from the Byzantine era has been discovered in the Hermon Stream Nature Reserve, better known as the Banias.....Phillip founded Caesarea Philippi at the site...."

So zero doubt that the archaeological site of Caesarea Philippi is inside the "Hermon Stream (Banias) Nature Reserve" (official name), run by the (Israel) Nature and Parks Authority. Arminden (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the ancient city of Caesarea Philippi. Its remains is inside a proclaimed national park, but it doesn't meant that the site itself is the national park.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Arminden, again, for the love of anything you hold dear, things within the national park do not belong in the national park category. Banias is correctly included in the category. This article should not be. And you are edit-warring, which itself is not an acceptable tactic. Kindly self-revert, and if a consensus develops to include the contested material then it can go in. But the goodwill I am happy to extend you ends when you start treating this article like your personal property and edit-warring to maintain challenged edits against multiple users. nableezy - 22:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The one who a) started this discussion is Supreme Deliciousness. S/He wrote at the very beginning: "there is no info in the article that the occupation regime has proclaimed the site as a "national park"." It was also S.D. who removed the category with the edit summary: no proof. That is the topic of THIS discussion.

Nableezy, if you wish to "move the goal posts" by separating one HISTORICAL PERIOD from the same compact site, this is a different matter altogether than what S.D. is basing this issue on. I have already explained why this is illogical. Christian pilgrims by the busload are visiting the site WHY? Because it is Caesarea Philippi, not for any other reason. If one of them (or anyone else) looks up the article, and doesn't find the essential information that it's part of a national park, with the link to the official website and the fact that it's run as a national park (means reservation, ticket, opening hours, restricted pathways), they'd have every reason to call the article - well, shit.

The weird thing is that we do have the national park link on the page, under External links, and nobody protested against that. You can't get more nonsensical than that. It's there, but we can't say it is, shhhh, quiet, or the Zionists might think we acknowledged reality, may God forbid and curse their soul.

If a site is inside a national park or any other restricted-access area under somebody's authority, all of its attractions MUST be linked to the respective category, plus external link etc., and it MUST be explicitly said in the text. Anything else is ridiculous. And nowhere else would it be regarded otherwise, not in Chinese-occupied Tibet, not in Russian-occupied Crimea, not in any US or Australian nature reserve still claimed by a native tribe. So let's not pretend it's about anything else. And logic & reality don't stop at the gates of freakin' I/P. If you wanna push it, everyone born under Nazi occupation in Poland has (or should have) a link to the categ. "General Government". Any park declared by the apartheid regime in S Africa was a park as long as... it was one. That's reality. Anything else is activism, and has nothing to do with an encyclopedia. You can write that it's in Israeli occupied Golan before writing the name of the place, but you cannot remove the national park, because CAESAREA PHILIPPI's ENTIRE TERRITORY AND RUINS ARE PART OF A NATIONAL PARK. Let's all come to our senses. This subset of the actual topic here is stillborn, it died for lack of sense. Arminden (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

We wrote simultaneously ("edit conflict"). Arminden (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Kindly, what "consensus" do you envisage to "develop"? It's only you claiming one thing, and me the opposite. I have presented a whole load of good, sturdy arguments. You have presented - what exactly? Where is the balance? What constitutes a consensus in your opinion? Galileo giving some, the Church giving some, both sun & earth make funny moves, maybe the looking glass was faulty, let's kiss & have a "consensus"? Arminden (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Uh no, it is not only me. It is also Supreme Delicousness, and if needed we can take it to an RFC to get more views. You still have not even begun to address the point made, that this itself is not a national park that it lies within a national park and as such does not belong. You just revert to enforce your view. Multiple times. Against multiple editors. nableezy - 22:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

We wrote simultaneously again ("edit conflict"). No, if you can't make the distinction between SD's arguments and yours, any discussion is pointless. Which it is, so I'll stop here.

Kindly, what "consensus" do you envisage to "develop"? It's only you claiming one thing, and me the opposite. I have presented a whole load of good, sturdy arguments. You have presented - what exactly? Where is the balance? What constitutes a consensus in your opinion? Galileo giving some, the Church giving some, both sun & earth make funny moves, maybe the looking glass was faulty, let's kiss & have a "consensus"? Arminden (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It was you who brought up Yosemite National Park. Check it out:

• El Capitan is under the category "Rock formations of Yosemite National Park", a subset of US National Parks
• Yosemite Falls is under the category "Waterfalls of Yosemite National Park", a subset of US National Parks
• Yosemite Valley is under the category "National Register of Historic Places in Yosemite National Park", a subset of US National Parks

Go to those categories and you'll find lots more. If the National Parks categ. has subsets, you can of course use them; Banias is smaller that the main ticket booth of Yosemite National Park - but if you want, you can still create one-item categories galore for it too. It has at least 2 toilets, 2 ticket booths, 3 entrances, lots of hiking paths, etc. One categ. for each. Really, I've lost my temper completely. Block me from this nonsense fair called Wiki and you're doing me a favour, my doctor will thank you. I'd rather keep my sanity than talk to walls, and use my time in a more useful manner than fight over the obvious. So do whatever you please, revert, block, call up THE SUPREME JUDGES, no need to keep me posted. Enjoy & over. OVER. Arminden (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I said make a category Banias and include this in it. I am reverting. nableezy - 13:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

is a redirect of Caesarea Philippi to Banias so there is some problem here, at a minimum, of ambiguity. There is a somewhat similar but different case at City of David (an entity/container rather than a place) where that article was split into two, one for the assumed historical site and the other for the actual site today, thus City of David (historic) and City of David (Silwan)(I still have to fix the categorization, I think). If you applied a similar logic here then we should have Banias (historic) (or possibly Banias (Caesarea Philippi)) and Banias, their being no need to designate the latter as current because there is no argument about it.Selfstudier (talk) 09:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Why is this article separated from Banias?

I can't see a good justification for how this article is defined. Why is "Caesarea Philippi" covering the Hellenistic to Byzantine periods, and stops at the arrival of the Muslims? This name was only in use during Philip the Tetrarch's rule, so I guess it's about a Christian focus (Gospels), see also use of BC/AD instead of BCE/CE. Not very good criterion for an article dealing with history, and can be easily faulted as such: there's no obvious connection between the centuries of pagan history and the short episode of Jesus & Peter visiting the AREA, never the city itself, once. Why is 635 the end, when Hygeburg sees there in 780 a church and a "great many Christians"? There was a sharp decline, but not a trace of occupation gap, and the Umayyad period is sometimes considered as part of "classical antiquity", so no formal hindrance either. The Crusaders, not surprisingly, call it Belinas (from Paneas/Banias) and... Caesarea Philippi. But they don't belong here, because... Because?

Somebody needs to make the case for this split.

The mess I found in the article reflects perfectly well the poorly thought-over split. If one wishes to write an article about Jesus in the region of Caesarea Philippi (Confession of Peter etc.), that is a rich subject. But as it is now, that is hardly addressed, so it cannot be counted as the raison d'être for this weird cut. Arminden (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Now I see: it's even worse. The lead claims "This article deals with the history of the city between the Hellenistic and early Islamic periods", but then has a nice section on the Early Islamic period. AE and BE have opposite meanings for "to" (including/excluding the last element mentioned). That can be reworded, what remains is that now we have the Fatimids & Seljuks, but the Crusaders are out and all those they fought against. Because...? Arminden (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, probably because it started as one of the articles copied from a Public Domain version of the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Im not really sure if it makes sense to have them separate. (Im glad youve come back btw). nableezy - 20:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

170 grams of gold

44 gold coins were found here. Ref: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-63122180 Update to article needed? 82.21.55.166 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)