The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to
Well of Harod. Despite a very lengthy discussion, I think there is clear consensus that we should not have two different articles about what appears to be predominantly identified as the same site or location. How to call the resulting article is another matter, and is to be decided by editors on the article talk page. Sandstein 07:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. We can consider delete or merge when there are two articles on the same place. However, as demonstrated at
Talk:Well of Harod, the most recent scholarly opinion is that they are not the same place. With this knowledge, the case for them being covered together is gone.
Zerotalk07:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Zero0000, It really doesn't matter if a biblical well of harod is different place what matters is that the
WP:commonname of place knowns as Ain Jalut is Well of Harod and the original article was about that place. The creation was disruptive attempt to circumvent the move procedure
Shrike (
talk)
07:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
It is perfectly reasonable and normal for there to be two articles for two locations. The only question here is what the names of the articles should be, and you correctly note that this is complicated by the fact that the name of one of the places is commonly used for the other place. The way to resolve that is to discuss the article names in a proper place, i.e. not AfD, not to force us to have one article for two places.
Zerotalk08:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
To determine name there are proper move procedure that instead of using it created the article about the same geographical place --
Shrike (
talk)
13:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
You are describing material that I personally added to the Well of Harod article a couple of weeks ago, two days before sources were provided showing that these are actually two distinct topics. I moved the relevant information to the Ain Jalut article; you added it back to Well of Harod. The overlap is there because you want it to be.
Onceinawhile (
talk)
15:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I didn't believe my comment was offensive in the context, but it has been judged to be so and I apologise for any offence. Also please note that Zeros comment was before I clarified 'As you ask , as per nom as per
WP:POVFORK'
81.111.119.153 (
talk)
15:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect (we don't even need a merge currently - material is in position.) This historically considered location is covered perfectly adequately and in context at
Well of Harod. I don't see any gain from ripping it out. Can't pronounce on precedents for treating historic locations and their hypothetical identities in separate articles - the only one that comes to my mind is
Troy and
Hisarlik, but these are both large topics on their own and would overwhelm a single article. Clearly not the case here. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
19:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I didn't miss it. Just about all the relevant material is about the hypothetical connection, regardless of whether it turned out to be correct or not. It's the most relevant context. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
03:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge - These are surely the same location, though even if not, the content and context fit easily into Well of Harod, so a spin-off article like this is entirely unnecessary.
Patiodweller (
talk)
03:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Three points: (1) Wikipedia is not an advertising agency for the Bible; we must be careful not to add weight behind spurious claims to authenticity of Biblical locations; (2) We make an exception for this where there is a traditional location for a Biblical place. There has never been a traditional location for the "Well of Harod". In the late 19th century there was a debate between a handful of European scholars, based on their interpretation of a single sentence in the Bible, which landed on two possible places. (3) Throughout Wikipedia for these situations, where there are multiple possible locations and no traditional one, we have multiple articles. One for the Biblical location, and the articles for the actual places. See for example:
Rehoboth,
Baal-hazor and
Kadesh.
Onceinawhile (
talk)
08:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
, It has nothing to do with Bible the article was about certain geographical place with its
wp:commonname you created the article about exactly the same place to circumvent move procedure--
Shrike (
talk)
09:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
If one could be bothered, an good case could be made for merging
Baal-hazor and
Tall Asur - two undersourced stubs that together might make a start class article. This is an anti-example for a split in the present case. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
15:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge with Well of Harod. The name "Well of Harod" is simply the Israeli name of Ain Jalut, which is the Arabic name of a spring where there is today a national park called the "Well of Harod National Park". The Well of Harod should change scope from a biblical site to an actual site know by the locals as "Well of Harod". The modern Well of Harod/Ain Jalut can be seen in this picture.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)10:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
If there was much to write about both I would agree, but all of the information, about biblical Ein-Harod, the modern Ma'ayan Harod National Park and the historical Ain Jalut can all be inside one article. As far as I know there is really no clear identification for the spring next to
Gidona which is known by the Arabs as
Ain Jalut. This is really a minor place, it shouldn't be too complicated, better give the readers everything in one decent article.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)11:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Even if there should be be two articles they should be both named by their
WP:commonname which is Ain Jalut is not one of them.But I agree with Bolter one article is enough --
Shrike (
talk)
11:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Lead section should be something like:
"Well ofSpring of Harod (
Hebrew: מעיין חרוד), also known as Ain Jalut (
Arabic: عين جالوت) is a historical spring next to the community settlement of
Gidona. The Arabic name associate the site with biblical Goliath while the Hebrew name associate it a spring from the
Book of Judges. It is the site of the
Battle of Ain Jalut. Today it is part of the Ma'ayan Harod National Park[1."
This way, the article will draw connection between a modern park to its history. The subject of the article should be the spring it self becuase it is a physical thing while the biblical place should be added as the background for the name.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)11:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
That gives a
false equivalence between the two names. The name Ain Jalut has verified provenance as the name of the place in recorded history. “Well of Harod” is a phrase in the bible which some European explorers thought could be Ain Jalut or could be Ain el Jemain, and then some real estate developers decided to take a view on this scholarly debate when building a settlement in the area of one of the two possible places in the 1920s.
Either way, what the “right” name is is not the question here. The point of relevance is that there are two distinct topics: (1) the place mentioned in the bible and the subsequent scholarly debate over where it might be located; (2) the place in Israel today called Ain Jalut/Gideon’s Fountain/Maayan Harod, and the history of that place. Your proposed lede above deals with #2 but not #1.
Onceinawhile (
talk)
13:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I wanted to add #2 but I don't know the subject. There is no problem in adding to the lead secion I proposed that the actual Spring of Harod is maybe somehwere else. According to the article, Ain Jalut is thought to be the place where David killed Goliath, while it is actually some 100 kilometers from there. So is the Arabic name also wrong?--
Bolter21(
talk to me)17:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge (leaving the usual redirect). Most of the subject article appears in the target already. The target discusses the issue of identity and no doubt more could be added on the arguments about that.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - per Zero, if they arent the same place they shouldnt be covered in the same article as though they were. nableezy -
17:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep If they are two different places, then 2 articles, if there is some doubt, still two articles and hat note "Not to be confused with.." or something of that sort.
Selfstudier (
talk)
17:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment:
Selfstudier,
Nableezy,
Zero0000,
Nishidani. Please take a look at
this. Today in 2020, Ma'ayan Harod (i.e. Spring of Harod, i.e. Well of Harod) is the name ascribed to Ain Jalud. When visiting Ain Jalud from 19th and 20th-century maps, you also visit "Ma'ayan Harod National Park" which is a known tourist attraction in Israel. There should be one article about a physical place located in the coordinates shown in the top-left of the illustration, since "Ain Jalud" and "Ma'ayan Harod" are just names ascribed to a natural spring that can be visited by anyone here. All of the information about biblical/Islamic traditions of this place and if they misidentified it, mention it. It is always interesting to know about historical misconceptions rather than censoring them for the sake of historical "truth".--
Bolter21(
talk to me)13:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
If Wikipedia combines a biblical place which has two possible locations with one real place, it makes a strong inference, irrespective of whether we write somewhere in the article that there is another possible location. That is fine when there is a tradition, but this is a modern invention. I like your map, and the name of "Ma'ayan Harod National Park" because that is the name of an actual place. "Well of Harod" is a place in the bible; noone uses that name in English-language tourist literature in Israel; our Well of Harod article is structured to focus on the biblical question. If we merge the article about a biblical place into an article about an actual place, that feels a little too much like WP:OR.
Onceinawhile (
talk)
13:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I think the scope of the article should move to Ma'ayan Harod/Ain Jalud. Is there a problem with writing that the name "Ma'ayan Harod" comes from "Well of Harod" in the bible ("Well of Harod" is just one of the English translations of Ein-Harod) even though scholars suggest that the actual "Well of Harod" is in a different place? If the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia can deal with this, so is the Ma'ayan Harod National Park, which is a great park around the Ain Jalud spring, whose name by the way is probably the outcome of a misidentification (although I haven't read enough of the sources to determine whether there is actually a clear identification for Ein Harod of the bible). There are many places in Israel such as
Gat Rimon which is a modern village named after an ancient city that was probably 5 or 7 kilometers west in
Tel Zeton or
Tel Gerisa.
Otherwise, I rename "Ain Jalut" to "Ma'ayan Harod National Park" and keep the article for the biblical site. In my opinion biblical Ein Harod doesn't need an article and right now the article doesn't provide much information about whether it is Jalut or Jemain.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)14:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Usually I stay away from biblical stories, I don't trust any of it but I looked at
https://bibleatlas.org/harod.htm just to see so it says there "There is no good reason to question the accuracy of the common view..." which makes me think that it has been questioned else why mention it? So this modern scholarship is questioning it but you want to ignore that in favor of bible studies, that's about the size of it, right?
Selfstudier (
talk)
15:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
You completely misunderstood me. I want to stay away from biblical sources. Instead of talking about a biblical place of an event that didn't necessarily happen in real life, talk about the actual spring, which was once Ain Jalut the site of an important battle and today a national park in Israel with a recreation village and is named after the biblical place. The biblical connection this spring is the name at the very least. There is no archaeological record or any map from the Iron Age to prove the description of the biblical events. The European travelers just looked at some springs did their best to link them with biblical sites. You and I can go and swim in those springs. What we can't do is swim exactly where the mythological Gideon saw his soldiers drink.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)15:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge/redirect per POVFORK and Bolter. If an editor thinks the COMMOMNAME has changed, the thing to do is make a move request. If there's no consensus, you can't just make a new article. That's a POVFORK.
Levivichdubious –
discuss14:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm not opposed to a discussion about either renaming the article or splitting it, but AFD isn't the place for that. This article was created as a BOLD split, which isn't a problem per se, but once it was challenged, it should have just been reverted, with a discussion proceeding on the talk page of the original article. I think the best thing to do right now is to turn
Ain Jalut into a redirect to
Well of Harod (making this AFD moot), and then anyone who thinks there should be a split or title change should propose it at
Talk:Well of Harod.
Levivichdubious –
discuss18:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep one article is about a biblical place and the other is about a real place. If the real place name is disputed then you can start a move request.--
SharʿabSalam▼ (
talk)
15:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC) (I made my comment during
this version of the article)reply
Shrike, it is not a POVFORK. Ayin Jalut is mentioned in many sources throughout history as Ayin Jalut. The biblical place is a biblical place. It's actually POV to put content of Ayin Jalut in the place that is mentioned in the Bible. The historicity of the Bible is much worse than the sources that call it Ayin Jalut.--
SharʿabSalam▼ (
talk)
16:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Well of Harod: There is a significant enough overlap in scope and content between the two subjects that this falls under
WP:OVERLAP. By
WP:COMMONNAME, the name for the combined article seems to be Well of Harod.It’s not like naming the article by the common name will assert that the literature referring to the place as Ayn Jalut is POV-relegated to a lower standing because the article title is the other name; all names can still be shown prominently in the lead and all relevant content can be covered. We don’t need separate articles for every topic that has different names from different groups of sources. — MarkH21talk16:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't know how long this is to run. One thing is obvious. Editors are voting 'merge' based on their reading of a page which, through lack of serious editing, is misleading in its representation of the facts, as are virtually all wiki articles dealing with the Bible. All these articles quote that as a primary source, and ignore the complex scholarship contentiously surrounding virtually every other verse.
To understand the point being made by Once and Zero, you have to read up on the information so far omitted. That takes time. It has taken me alone some hours to check closely one (Israeli) academic source from 2017. That source, by
Israel Finkelstein and
Oded Lipschits, concludes that the Spring of Harod figuring in the Gideon legend was not in the
Jezreel Valley - a confusion caused by a redactor writing several centuries after the event who was wholly unfamiliar with the geography. For this and several other reasons, they conclude that the identification of our
Well of Harod/Ein Jalud with the Gideon tale of the Well of Harod has no factual basis. Gideon's biblical 'spring/well of Harod' lay near
Shechem, way south. So too the Hill of Moreh is not around
Givat HaMoreh in the Jezreel valley, but more likely the site of
Sahl 'Askar, just south of the refugee camp of that name, and again near Shechem. The difference is fundamental. The implication is that the site Israel names Well of Harod, and which historians of the site associate with the Battle of Ein Jalud, have nothing to do, due to redactorial name confusion, with the story of Gideon and the Midianites. So merge or separate, as one will, one has to correct the Well of Harod article, removing the Biblical bit about Gideon.
By the way, that Givat HaMoreh wiki article is a farce: it puts the Hill of Moreh in the Jezreel valley and then cites three biblical verses that locate the Oak of Moreh elsewhere, in Shechem, while asserting that Moreh here refers to the same locality.
So, there are grounds for suggesting that editors should refrain from making up their minds (and from using contiguous wiki articles as a frame of reference) until the actual ascertained historical facts of probabilities are set forth, to allow them to judge on the basis of correct information, hitherto not in their purview, due to the lamentable state of these articles.
Nishidani (
talk)
17:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
This sounds more like an argument to create/split off a
Well of Harod (biblical) than against merging
Ain Jalut to
Well of Harod, the latter which is moreso an issue for the
WP:COMMONNAME of the Jezreel Valley spring in the national park near the location of the 13th century battle. Whether the biblical place is separate and should have a separate article is an appropriate discussion after this AfD. — MarkH21talk18:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Nish, I must remind you that "Ein Jalut" means "spring of Goliath", which apparently comes from the a Christian traveler who linked a spring next to the city of Jezreel with the story of David and Goliath. The name Ayn Jalut is just as wrong as Ein Harod. Even more if you consider the fact most scholars do accept the identification of Ein Harod with Ain Jalut, while no one doubts the biblical battle of David took place in the Elah Valley between Azekah and Sokho in Judea and not in the Jezreel Valley.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)18:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
(a)No need for the reminder, since I do tend to remember what I read, esp. if it concerns linguistics. People get very intense in the I/P area about imagined POV slants in trivia, and go through a manifold of forums, talk pages to work the worry beads on this or that issue to death, last man standing being the consensus'. All the current uproar tells me is that neither this nor the other page are getting any work done on them. That the Well of Harod has to be gutted of the Gideon legend bit, except for a corrective note; that things in the Ain Jalut article have to be reworked. One example, the one you allude to:-
The
Itinerarium Burdigalense (586) notes "ibi est campus, ubi David Goliat occidit" in reference to a location just before Scythopolis.[1]
Now, the source is Robinson p.168 n.1, which nowhere mentions 'a location before Scythopolis'(unlinked). Robinson writes:
In connection with Stradela (Jezreel) the (Itinerarium Burdigalense) has:'ibi est campus, ubi David Goliat occidit.'
So what we have is not what Robinson wrote. He implied not Scythopolis below but Zir'in above it.
(b)'The name 'Ayn Jalut is just as wrong as Ein Harod.' The name Ayn Jalut is the Arabic toponym, attested for 8 centuries, and reflecting a (undoubtedly ancient local Jewish)tradition referred to by the Christian chronicle in the fourth century CE. The name En Harod was attached to it by Victor Guerin in 1870 in an attempt to pin down that Biblical toponym at Judges 7:1 where it is a
hapax legomenon. The fact that the Goliath-David story is a myth (repeated in the Greek Iliad) and therefore not true, and that the Gideon legend refers to an oral tradition associated with an area much farther south, all means not that the names are wrong, but that calling the present site En Harod with the attached assumption this refers to the Bible legend is an modern historical dislocation, whereas Ain Jalut conserves a legend associated for 2,000 years with that particular site.
I couldn't give a flying fuck one way or another, really, about this passionate dispute. What pisses me off is that no one gets interested in the scholarship required to ground articles accurately, unless there a perceived political issue at stake in a wording or page move. Then, the ink spills into tidal talk page too-ing-and fro-ing, and the substance of encyclopedic construction languishes in insouciant disrepair.
Nishidani (
talk)
13:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Alternatives_to_deletion - "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases" would appear to be the operative guide here. Since those proposing deletion are not able to prove that these two places are the same, and there is independent content for both, I don't see any justification for deletion.
Selfstudier (
talk)
12:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Well, this is an Articles for Deletion, right? Says so right there at the top. And if you merge it, that amounts to deletion, right? Now go away and bother someone else.
Selfstudier (
talk)
14:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Did you read the policy page you linked to ? A merge or a redirect is listed there as an alternative to deletion, so no, they are not the same. If you are not familiar with wikipedia policy, perhaps you should stay out of AfD debates.
JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (
talk)
15:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I want an encyclopedia with non-duplicate content , and I want editors participating in AfD discussions to understand the relevant policies. So I will continue to create AfDs as needed (this one was suggested by the content-fork creator , BTW), and continue to request you familiarize yourself with policies before commenting.
JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (
talk)
15:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Like I said, no proof they are the same, independent content and no reason to "get rid of" the article. Oh gosh, I just commented again, naughty me.
Selfstudier (
talk)
16:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Selfstudier Stop saying there is no evidence this is the same place. There is only one spring in question, and it is the one found today near
Gideona. It is called Ma'ayan Harod by Israel, and was once called Ayn Jalut. The meaning of "Ayn Jalut" is "Spring of Goliath" and a traveler from the 4th century described the area next to
Jezreel (city) (2 miles to the west) as the place where David slew Goliath. It is accepted by all scholars today that the battle against Goliath occured in Judah so "Ayn Jalut" is actually a false name.
Ishtori Haparchi has addressed this misidentification already in the 14th century. He identified the site with the "Spring which is in Jezreel" from the tale of Saul's death. Rabbi Joseph Blumenfeld published Haparchi's book in 1957 with his notes and wrote that today the site is identified with the Ein Harod, with reference to
Abraham Moses Luncz (I am trying to get my hand on one of his history books right now but the local libraries are still closed). Robinson and Smith also addressed the problem of "Ayn Jalut" in 1841 and identified it with the Spring in Jezreel. Victor Gurein has identified this site with both Ein Harod of the story of Gideon and with the Spring in Jezreel. Ridgeway in 1876 has also identified it with both the "Well of Harod" and the "fountain which is in Jezreel". A book of Israeli geographer Ze'ev Vilnai called "Legends of Galilee, Jordan, and Sinai" simply calls the place Ein Harod, which is identified with Ayn Jalut.
The more I read in the sources the more I realize that there is no single identification but one thing is sure, all sources today will call this place "Ma'ayan Harod National Park" because this is what it is. Saying that the biblical Ein Harod can't be there doesn't change the fact that Goliath was killed in Judah and not in Ayn Jalut, so the Arabic name is just as false. The name of the site today is Ma'ayan Harod, and its former name "Ayn Jalut" is criticized for its inaccuracy by every scholar who mentions its meaning.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)19:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
deeply naïve, i.e. 'The fact that Goliath was killed in Judah and not in Ayn Jalut'. If you are taking any of these kinds of epic or fairy tales as facts, then argument is pointless. There is a vast literature on the compositional strata of both the Septuagint and Hebrew bibles (which differ in this regard), sifting early versions as legends oral traditions that may reflect some distant realities, and later redactions that weave in theological point or romance with a moral point. Goliath is not a historical figure in any case. There are two legends about his death, the other victor being Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19), probably Elhanan ben-Dodo, because even there the text is garbled. You cannot touch anything in the Bible/Tanach without looking into modern commentaries and criticism, and little is 'factual' in such texts, any more than the Iliad is factual. Goliath is a fairy tale almost certainly,- since the exact same story appears in many legendary traditions- whoever 'killed him' whether in the
Valley of Elah or somewhere else. Tradition names four possibilities even in and on the border of Judah (
Ephes Dammim,
Sokho, a toponym used of two areas quite distant from each other,- one way southwest of Hebron not quite Judea, or even in the Philistine town of Gob, perhaps
Khirbet Qeiyafa). None of these are facts anymore than Ain Jalun- the Spring of Goliath - implies the factitity of Goliath. Legends are not facts. Wiki articles like these don't document the truth. The bvest we can do is describe how traditional stories are analysed in modern scholarly treatments of them, something editors here seem remarkably reluctant to do, preferring the primary source, that wonderful motherlode of just-so stories tinctured with historical makeup, or vice versa.
Nishidani (
talk)
20:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Oh c'mon. This entire comment for one word? I supposed you figured out my opinion on the accountability of biblical stories. I meant, that today there is no argument that the site of the biblical legend of David and Goliath (a man killing a giant with a sling to chose the fate of two nations) took place between Sokho and Azekah which have been identified in Judah. But that's not the argument here. There is a spring, found today in the Ma'ayan Harod National Park which was known until the 1920s as Ayn Jalut. Many scholars who came to this place have identified it with the Spring of Harod. Two scholars identified it elsewhere (Condor and Finkelstein). Many others have identified it with the "Spring of Jezreel", and sometimes with both (an article from 2015 explains that since the spring next to
Zar'in (Jezreel) is usually dry, many scholars mistakenly identified it with the larger Ayn Jalut. Today in popular culture of the region it is identified with Ein Harod of the bible. Whether this is the exact identification or not is not important becuase there is no alternative. It is a legend and none of the sources can prove that there is an exact identification for this spring.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)21:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I take people at their word. Your prose construes that way. It's a second language, fine, but readers like myself are being helpful in tuning your ear to the finer points of a language you are showing excellent proficiency in. As I showed in the essay heading my talk page, there is a wiki problem in negotiating one's way through an official Israeli policy to erase the Palestinian landscape of its Arabic resonance by replacing all toponyms with Hebrew place names. So Israel renamed what every one for centuries called, and Arabs still call, Ayn Jalut, with En Harod, which of course makes everyone nowadays think it is the Biblical well. It almost certainly isn't. Thanks for the grid and comments below, hard work, which many who comment here don't do.
Nishidani (
talk)
22:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I never said there was no evidence, I said those proposing to do away with the article cannot prove that they are the same place, there is some doubt about it and since there seems on the face of it to be two stories (narratives if you prefer) to go along with that, it seems quite unreasonable to me to to subsume one narrative in the other. The new scholarship as I understand it builds on past queries about identification and is a bridge between biblical scholarship on the one hand and archaeology on the other, called geographical history and the work is subject of many plaudits, it is not for you to dismiss it.
Selfstudier (
talk)
19:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Selfstudier, when we say "Ein Harod/Spring of Harod/Ma'ayan Harod" we refer to the same place as Ayn Jalut. This is today the name of the spring. The names "Harod" and "Jalut" both come from legends, but the spring itself is one. There is no point in writing an article about the biblical place because it is just a place in the story of
Gideon.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)21:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Listen, you are failing to understand my intentions. Look at the
Well of Harod article. The "Identification" section does not imply in any part that Ayn Jalut is indeed the biblical Ein Harod, nor it implies it is the biblical "Spring which is next to Jezreel". It simply mentions the scholars who identified it with Ein Harod and the scholars who identified it elsewhere (Condor and Finkelstein). There is no scientific proof to whether Ayn Jalut is Ein Harod, but there are enough scholars who supported this identification which is plausible and therefore since 1921 this site is also known as Ein Harod. In 1948 it was no longer known as Ayn Jalut and a distinction between the kibbutz Ein Harod, which relocated east, and Ma'ayan Harod was made. Both meaning "Spring of Harod". Interesting side note, the official website of the Ma'ayan Harod park in Arabic calls it "The National Park "Ma'ayan Harod" Ayn Jalut" (
الحديقة الوطنية "معيان حارود" عين جالوت).
I do not intend in any moment to suggest a clear identification for Ayn Jalut as Ein Harod. I simply mirror the sources which supports this claim and thus we got the modern name. Which although is not supported by all sources, is supported by most sources. Is Ein Harod located in Ayn Jalut? Maybe. Is the biblical narrative falsely relocated an Israelite legend from the city of Shechem? Maybe. Is Condor right to identify the spring on the Beit She'an Valley? Maybe. One thing is true: There is a spring today known as Ma'ayan Harod with respect to its traditional Arabic name Ayn Jalut.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)10:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
My intention is to write an interesting article about the spring located next to Gideona. This spring is traditionally known as Ayn Jalut and has been traditionally identified as Ein Harod. Today it is known as Ma'ayan Harod and it is a national park. There is one place, there is no need for two articles. Therefore, merge Ain Jalut, not "get rid", with Well of Harod, whose first sentence mentions the Arabic name. Also I think "Well of Harod" should change to "Ma'ayan Harod", but one discussion at a time.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)12:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge back. Right now we have two articles with leads proclaiming they are about springs. But there is only one and the same spring.
Srnec (
talk)
15:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
No one proposed that. No one also wants to change the
Battle of Kadesh to
Battle of Tell Nebi Mend, that would be ridiculous. While searching for sources in Hebrew I found that many history books in Hebrew about the Mamluks say "Krav Ein Jalut" - Battle of Ain Jalut. Some of them explain that today Ayn Jalut is the Ein Harod and others don't. The battle is known as the battle in "Ain Jalut" no matter how it is called today. If another battle would be fought there, it would probably be known as the Battle of Ma'ayan Harod. It is really a question of COMMONNAME. If Wikipedia was written before 1920, it would be called Ayn Jalut no doubt, but it is written in 2020, a hundred years after new people settled this place and for generations knew it as Ein Harod. Every contemporary map or source, when referring to the location today and not in context with historical events, refer to this place as Ma'ayan or Ein Harod. (My best guess was that when they opened the park they changed it to Ma'ayan to differentiate between the spring and the kibbutz, still searching for sources to clarify that). Today if you go there you see signs saying "Ma'ayan Harod" and it has been that way for 100 years. And besides, the first sentence of the world has Ayn Jalut so the name isn't censored or removed. There was some confusion becuase of the bad state of the Well of Harod article, which gave more weight to the biblical tradition rather than the actual place. There is no political implication or POV pushing in merging two articles in the same place. It is simply the current reality and this logic most certainly cannot be applied to every single place in this country, as each place has its own unique story.
Merge/Redirect - I don't find the keep votes particularly persuasive; I think the merge votes accurately explain the situation. Additionally, to respond to the comment about disputes over content, I would say this is not a dispute over content. A dispute over content would be a dispute over what the article contains. This is a dispute about whether the subjects are distinct enough to warrant two articles or whether this is a
WP:POVFORK; that doesn't particularly have anything to do with content.
Ikjbagl (
talk)
05:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
למזרח יזרעאל ביושר כמרוצות הסוס הוא העין שחנו עליה ישראל במלחמת שאול האחרונה ויוצא מהרי מהרי הגלבוע מן הדרום וקורין לו "עין ג'ילות". ואומרים הישמעאלים כי שם היה מלחמת דוד עם גלית, והם טועים, כי לא היה אלא בארץ יהודה בין שוכה ובין עזקה
"To East of Yizrael... is the spring upon which Israel camped during the last Saul War, and emerges from the Gilboa Mountains from the south and is called "'Ayn Jiluth". And the Ismaelites say the war of David with Goliath was there, and they are wrong, because it was in the Land of Judah between Sokho and Azekah."
Blumenfeld note (1957): לפי דעת התיירים החדשים העין הזה "עין החרוד" הנז' בשופטים ז' א' (הראמ"ל)
"According to the opinion of the new tourists, this spring [is] "Ein Harod", mentioned in Judges 7:1"
"To East of Yizrael... is the spring upon which Israel camped during the last Saul War, and emerges from the Gilboa Mountains from the south and is called "'Ayn Jiluth"."
"It is difficult, at first, to see how this name should come to be found in this region ; but there would seem to have been an early legend that here was the scene of David's combat with Goliath. In connection with Stradela (Jezreel) the Itin. Hieros. has the following: "Ibi est campus, ubi David Goliat occibit ;" p.586, ed. Wessenling. But I find no other trace of this legend."
No mention
"There is every reason to regard this as the ancient fountain of Jezreel, where Saul and Jonathan pitched before their last fatal battle;..."
"...and where, too, in the days of the crusades, Saladin and the Christians successively encamped. At that time the Christians called it Tubania; but among the Araiis it already bore its present name.^ The presence of fish in the fountain probably gave rise to the story off its furnishing a miraculous supply for the whole Christian army during several days."
"En continuant à nous avancer vers l'ouest, nous atteignons, à midi vingt minutes, l'A'ïn Djaloud, source très-abondante, à côté de laquelle nous faisons halte quelques instants."
"Cette source est, selon toute vraisemblance, l'E'n-Harod de la Bible, en hébreu עין חרוד, en grec [Greek letters], en lalin fons qui vocalur Harod, près de laquelle Gédéon campa avec son armée avant d'attaquer les Madianites."
"Elle est appelée dans ce verset source de Jezraël; en efl'et, elle coule à vingt-cinq minutes à l'est de cette ville. Néanmoins, je dois avouer qu'une autre source, appelée aujourd'hui A'ïn el-Maïlek, est plus rapprochée deZera'ïn, l'antique Jezraël; mais comme elle est beaucoup moins abondante que la précédente, j'inclinerais assez à penser que Saiil choisit de préférence le voisinage de celle-ci pour y asseoir son camp."
"A l'époque des croisades, Saladin lit dresser les tentes de son armée près de cette même fontaine, (jue Bohaeddin' désigne sous le nom d'A'ïn el-Djaloiit, nom, comme on le voit, identique à celui qu'elle porte encore aujourd'hui parmi les Arabes; les Francs la connaissaient sous la désignation de Tubania,"
"Dean Stanley, followed by Guerin, would put the Well of Harod at 'Ain Jalud, the story of Goliath (Jalud) having displaced in some way the recollection of the former name."
"Lieutenant Conder suggests 'Ain el Jemain for the Well of Harod. (Judges vii. i.) Dean Stanley, followed by Guerin, would put the Well of Harod at 'Ain Jalud, the story of Goliath (Jalud) having displaced in some way the recollection of the former name."
"...tradition has rightly fixed on the third and largest, now called the 'Ain Jalud, as the well of Harod."
"tradition has rightly fixed on the third and largest, now called the 'Ain Jalud, as the well of Harod."
Doesn't identify "Spring in Jezreel" with Ayn Jalud/Ein Harod, but mentions Ayn Jalud with the description of the battle of Saul:
"But they went round Jezreel, and attacked the promontory of the hill by the easier slopes and wadies to the south which lead up to open ground about the village of Nuris, and directly above the 'Ain Jalud"
"According to an old tradition the battlefield of David the sheperd and Goliath the Philistine was also situated next to Ein Harod...called by the Arabs Ayn Jalut..."
"In the Valley of Jezreel there flows a spring which in biblical times was called Ein-Harod. The new village nearby bears its name."
"Thus, there is no reason to identify the Spring of Harod in Ein Jalud."
"Thus, there is no reason to identify the Spring of Harod in Ein Jalud."
"...placing the Spring of Harod in the area of Shechem seems reasonable. This was also the way that Josephus understood the story, in describing these events near the Jordan River"
No mention
No mention
Proposal to pause AfD
I'm cutting off this side-discussion, since we basically don't put AfDs on hold. It can be difficult to conduct a discussion while the article is undergoing substantial changes, but that happens and editors need to work around it. --
RoySmith(talk)16:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Proposal to pause this AfD due to the problematic situation at the article and its talk page. Editors who support deletion of this article are currently (a) edit warring to block any new content being added to the article; and (b) edit warring to block the article being added to WikiProject Palestine and/or ARBPIA. The first point is important because the exclusion of the additional information stops editors from addressing any of the comments regarding similar content, and the second point is important because at least two of the "votes" above would not qualify under the ARBPIA 500/30 exclusion. Some of the information being excluded also highlights the relevance of this article to ARBPIA.
Onceinawhile (
talk)
15:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
And there is no basis to try and put the article under ARBPIA-related restrictions. This has zip to do with the modern conflict, and the only one who has even thought of bringing up this context appears to be you. Might as well try that for Daboia palaestinae (actually the case would be stronger there, based on recurring vandalism...) --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
15:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Elmidae: the relevance to Palestine, Palestinian history and Zionism is very clear and well sourced, but unfortunately it has
been deleted from the article... This place has been used in political rhetoric by the Palestinians to evoke memories of ancient victories against foreigners, and the village there was depopulated after it was purchased by the Jewish National Fund.
Onceinawhile (
talk)
16:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
No. The Ain Jalut article was created with no discussion, it should be at the very least deleted and added after more discussion. The article shouldn't exist as long as there is no consensus for its existence, and we are not 100% likely to even reach a consensus. Instead, the discussion needs to continue after the problem of the
Ain Jalut and the alleged POVFORK is dealt with. This might end up with no consensus and two problematic articles.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)15:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Let it run. I have no problem with no consensus and two problematic articles. And a discussion to create an article is not a policy requirement afaik. Time will sort it all out eventually. In the meantime,
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Alternatives_to_deletion - "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases" would appear to be the operative guide here. One editor in particular seems to think that endless reverting is OK, it isn't.
Selfstudier (
talk)
15:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
May I suggest deleting the Ayn Jalut (which unlike the original Well of Harod article, censors the identifications with Harod which appear in its sources (Gurien and SWP) while drawing modern connection only to the PLO? This is clear POV.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)23:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
No and please stop trying to disrupt the AFD process, there is no pausing of the AFD process. Your actions are on the verge of disruptive, you already tried to propose this very recently. It's irrelevant who the author of the AFD is, it's at AFD now and you just need to wait the seven days for completion.
Sir Joseph(talk)23:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
No here we don't discuss the editors but the articles. If the devil itself nominated an article that doesn't meet wikipedia criteria, than that article should be deleted --
AlejandroLeloirRey (
talk)
08:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
^Cite error: The named reference Robinson168 was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to
Well of Harod. Despite a very lengthy discussion, I think there is clear consensus that we should not have two different articles about what appears to be predominantly identified as the same site or location. How to call the resulting article is another matter, and is to be decided by editors on the article talk page. Sandstein 07:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. We can consider delete or merge when there are two articles on the same place. However, as demonstrated at
Talk:Well of Harod, the most recent scholarly opinion is that they are not the same place. With this knowledge, the case for them being covered together is gone.
Zerotalk07:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Zero0000, It really doesn't matter if a biblical well of harod is different place what matters is that the
WP:commonname of place knowns as Ain Jalut is Well of Harod and the original article was about that place. The creation was disruptive attempt to circumvent the move procedure
Shrike (
talk)
07:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
It is perfectly reasonable and normal for there to be two articles for two locations. The only question here is what the names of the articles should be, and you correctly note that this is complicated by the fact that the name of one of the places is commonly used for the other place. The way to resolve that is to discuss the article names in a proper place, i.e. not AfD, not to force us to have one article for two places.
Zerotalk08:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
To determine name there are proper move procedure that instead of using it created the article about the same geographical place --
Shrike (
talk)
13:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
You are describing material that I personally added to the Well of Harod article a couple of weeks ago, two days before sources were provided showing that these are actually two distinct topics. I moved the relevant information to the Ain Jalut article; you added it back to Well of Harod. The overlap is there because you want it to be.
Onceinawhile (
talk)
15:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I didn't believe my comment was offensive in the context, but it has been judged to be so and I apologise for any offence. Also please note that Zeros comment was before I clarified 'As you ask , as per nom as per
WP:POVFORK'
81.111.119.153 (
talk)
15:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect (we don't even need a merge currently - material is in position.) This historically considered location is covered perfectly adequately and in context at
Well of Harod. I don't see any gain from ripping it out. Can't pronounce on precedents for treating historic locations and their hypothetical identities in separate articles - the only one that comes to my mind is
Troy and
Hisarlik, but these are both large topics on their own and would overwhelm a single article. Clearly not the case here. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
19:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I didn't miss it. Just about all the relevant material is about the hypothetical connection, regardless of whether it turned out to be correct or not. It's the most relevant context. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
03:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge - These are surely the same location, though even if not, the content and context fit easily into Well of Harod, so a spin-off article like this is entirely unnecessary.
Patiodweller (
talk)
03:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Three points: (1) Wikipedia is not an advertising agency for the Bible; we must be careful not to add weight behind spurious claims to authenticity of Biblical locations; (2) We make an exception for this where there is a traditional location for a Biblical place. There has never been a traditional location for the "Well of Harod". In the late 19th century there was a debate between a handful of European scholars, based on their interpretation of a single sentence in the Bible, which landed on two possible places. (3) Throughout Wikipedia for these situations, where there are multiple possible locations and no traditional one, we have multiple articles. One for the Biblical location, and the articles for the actual places. See for example:
Rehoboth,
Baal-hazor and
Kadesh.
Onceinawhile (
talk)
08:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
, It has nothing to do with Bible the article was about certain geographical place with its
wp:commonname you created the article about exactly the same place to circumvent move procedure--
Shrike (
talk)
09:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
If one could be bothered, an good case could be made for merging
Baal-hazor and
Tall Asur - two undersourced stubs that together might make a start class article. This is an anti-example for a split in the present case. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
15:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge with Well of Harod. The name "Well of Harod" is simply the Israeli name of Ain Jalut, which is the Arabic name of a spring where there is today a national park called the "Well of Harod National Park". The Well of Harod should change scope from a biblical site to an actual site know by the locals as "Well of Harod". The modern Well of Harod/Ain Jalut can be seen in this picture.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)10:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
If there was much to write about both I would agree, but all of the information, about biblical Ein-Harod, the modern Ma'ayan Harod National Park and the historical Ain Jalut can all be inside one article. As far as I know there is really no clear identification for the spring next to
Gidona which is known by the Arabs as
Ain Jalut. This is really a minor place, it shouldn't be too complicated, better give the readers everything in one decent article.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)11:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Even if there should be be two articles they should be both named by their
WP:commonname which is Ain Jalut is not one of them.But I agree with Bolter one article is enough --
Shrike (
talk)
11:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Lead section should be something like:
"Well ofSpring of Harod (
Hebrew: מעיין חרוד), also known as Ain Jalut (
Arabic: عين جالوت) is a historical spring next to the community settlement of
Gidona. The Arabic name associate the site with biblical Goliath while the Hebrew name associate it a spring from the
Book of Judges. It is the site of the
Battle of Ain Jalut. Today it is part of the Ma'ayan Harod National Park[1."
This way, the article will draw connection between a modern park to its history. The subject of the article should be the spring it self becuase it is a physical thing while the biblical place should be added as the background for the name.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)11:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
That gives a
false equivalence between the two names. The name Ain Jalut has verified provenance as the name of the place in recorded history. “Well of Harod” is a phrase in the bible which some European explorers thought could be Ain Jalut or could be Ain el Jemain, and then some real estate developers decided to take a view on this scholarly debate when building a settlement in the area of one of the two possible places in the 1920s.
Either way, what the “right” name is is not the question here. The point of relevance is that there are two distinct topics: (1) the place mentioned in the bible and the subsequent scholarly debate over where it might be located; (2) the place in Israel today called Ain Jalut/Gideon’s Fountain/Maayan Harod, and the history of that place. Your proposed lede above deals with #2 but not #1.
Onceinawhile (
talk)
13:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I wanted to add #2 but I don't know the subject. There is no problem in adding to the lead secion I proposed that the actual Spring of Harod is maybe somehwere else. According to the article, Ain Jalut is thought to be the place where David killed Goliath, while it is actually some 100 kilometers from there. So is the Arabic name also wrong?--
Bolter21(
talk to me)17:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge (leaving the usual redirect). Most of the subject article appears in the target already. The target discusses the issue of identity and no doubt more could be added on the arguments about that.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - per Zero, if they arent the same place they shouldnt be covered in the same article as though they were. nableezy -
17:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep If they are two different places, then 2 articles, if there is some doubt, still two articles and hat note "Not to be confused with.." or something of that sort.
Selfstudier (
talk)
17:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment:
Selfstudier,
Nableezy,
Zero0000,
Nishidani. Please take a look at
this. Today in 2020, Ma'ayan Harod (i.e. Spring of Harod, i.e. Well of Harod) is the name ascribed to Ain Jalud. When visiting Ain Jalud from 19th and 20th-century maps, you also visit "Ma'ayan Harod National Park" which is a known tourist attraction in Israel. There should be one article about a physical place located in the coordinates shown in the top-left of the illustration, since "Ain Jalud" and "Ma'ayan Harod" are just names ascribed to a natural spring that can be visited by anyone here. All of the information about biblical/Islamic traditions of this place and if they misidentified it, mention it. It is always interesting to know about historical misconceptions rather than censoring them for the sake of historical "truth".--
Bolter21(
talk to me)13:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
If Wikipedia combines a biblical place which has two possible locations with one real place, it makes a strong inference, irrespective of whether we write somewhere in the article that there is another possible location. That is fine when there is a tradition, but this is a modern invention. I like your map, and the name of "Ma'ayan Harod National Park" because that is the name of an actual place. "Well of Harod" is a place in the bible; noone uses that name in English-language tourist literature in Israel; our Well of Harod article is structured to focus on the biblical question. If we merge the article about a biblical place into an article about an actual place, that feels a little too much like WP:OR.
Onceinawhile (
talk)
13:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I think the scope of the article should move to Ma'ayan Harod/Ain Jalud. Is there a problem with writing that the name "Ma'ayan Harod" comes from "Well of Harod" in the bible ("Well of Harod" is just one of the English translations of Ein-Harod) even though scholars suggest that the actual "Well of Harod" is in a different place? If the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia can deal with this, so is the Ma'ayan Harod National Park, which is a great park around the Ain Jalud spring, whose name by the way is probably the outcome of a misidentification (although I haven't read enough of the sources to determine whether there is actually a clear identification for Ein Harod of the bible). There are many places in Israel such as
Gat Rimon which is a modern village named after an ancient city that was probably 5 or 7 kilometers west in
Tel Zeton or
Tel Gerisa.
Otherwise, I rename "Ain Jalut" to "Ma'ayan Harod National Park" and keep the article for the biblical site. In my opinion biblical Ein Harod doesn't need an article and right now the article doesn't provide much information about whether it is Jalut or Jemain.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)14:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Usually I stay away from biblical stories, I don't trust any of it but I looked at
https://bibleatlas.org/harod.htm just to see so it says there "There is no good reason to question the accuracy of the common view..." which makes me think that it has been questioned else why mention it? So this modern scholarship is questioning it but you want to ignore that in favor of bible studies, that's about the size of it, right?
Selfstudier (
talk)
15:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
You completely misunderstood me. I want to stay away from biblical sources. Instead of talking about a biblical place of an event that didn't necessarily happen in real life, talk about the actual spring, which was once Ain Jalut the site of an important battle and today a national park in Israel with a recreation village and is named after the biblical place. The biblical connection this spring is the name at the very least. There is no archaeological record or any map from the Iron Age to prove the description of the biblical events. The European travelers just looked at some springs did their best to link them with biblical sites. You and I can go and swim in those springs. What we can't do is swim exactly where the mythological Gideon saw his soldiers drink.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)15:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge/redirect per POVFORK and Bolter. If an editor thinks the COMMOMNAME has changed, the thing to do is make a move request. If there's no consensus, you can't just make a new article. That's a POVFORK.
Levivichdubious –
discuss14:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm not opposed to a discussion about either renaming the article or splitting it, but AFD isn't the place for that. This article was created as a BOLD split, which isn't a problem per se, but once it was challenged, it should have just been reverted, with a discussion proceeding on the talk page of the original article. I think the best thing to do right now is to turn
Ain Jalut into a redirect to
Well of Harod (making this AFD moot), and then anyone who thinks there should be a split or title change should propose it at
Talk:Well of Harod.
Levivichdubious –
discuss18:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep one article is about a biblical place and the other is about a real place. If the real place name is disputed then you can start a move request.--
SharʿabSalam▼ (
talk)
15:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC) (I made my comment during
this version of the article)reply
Shrike, it is not a POVFORK. Ayin Jalut is mentioned in many sources throughout history as Ayin Jalut. The biblical place is a biblical place. It's actually POV to put content of Ayin Jalut in the place that is mentioned in the Bible. The historicity of the Bible is much worse than the sources that call it Ayin Jalut.--
SharʿabSalam▼ (
talk)
16:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Well of Harod: There is a significant enough overlap in scope and content between the two subjects that this falls under
WP:OVERLAP. By
WP:COMMONNAME, the name for the combined article seems to be Well of Harod.It’s not like naming the article by the common name will assert that the literature referring to the place as Ayn Jalut is POV-relegated to a lower standing because the article title is the other name; all names can still be shown prominently in the lead and all relevant content can be covered. We don’t need separate articles for every topic that has different names from different groups of sources. — MarkH21talk16:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't know how long this is to run. One thing is obvious. Editors are voting 'merge' based on their reading of a page which, through lack of serious editing, is misleading in its representation of the facts, as are virtually all wiki articles dealing with the Bible. All these articles quote that as a primary source, and ignore the complex scholarship contentiously surrounding virtually every other verse.
To understand the point being made by Once and Zero, you have to read up on the information so far omitted. That takes time. It has taken me alone some hours to check closely one (Israeli) academic source from 2017. That source, by
Israel Finkelstein and
Oded Lipschits, concludes that the Spring of Harod figuring in the Gideon legend was not in the
Jezreel Valley - a confusion caused by a redactor writing several centuries after the event who was wholly unfamiliar with the geography. For this and several other reasons, they conclude that the identification of our
Well of Harod/Ein Jalud with the Gideon tale of the Well of Harod has no factual basis. Gideon's biblical 'spring/well of Harod' lay near
Shechem, way south. So too the Hill of Moreh is not around
Givat HaMoreh in the Jezreel valley, but more likely the site of
Sahl 'Askar, just south of the refugee camp of that name, and again near Shechem. The difference is fundamental. The implication is that the site Israel names Well of Harod, and which historians of the site associate with the Battle of Ein Jalud, have nothing to do, due to redactorial name confusion, with the story of Gideon and the Midianites. So merge or separate, as one will, one has to correct the Well of Harod article, removing the Biblical bit about Gideon.
By the way, that Givat HaMoreh wiki article is a farce: it puts the Hill of Moreh in the Jezreel valley and then cites three biblical verses that locate the Oak of Moreh elsewhere, in Shechem, while asserting that Moreh here refers to the same locality.
So, there are grounds for suggesting that editors should refrain from making up their minds (and from using contiguous wiki articles as a frame of reference) until the actual ascertained historical facts of probabilities are set forth, to allow them to judge on the basis of correct information, hitherto not in their purview, due to the lamentable state of these articles.
Nishidani (
talk)
17:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
This sounds more like an argument to create/split off a
Well of Harod (biblical) than against merging
Ain Jalut to
Well of Harod, the latter which is moreso an issue for the
WP:COMMONNAME of the Jezreel Valley spring in the national park near the location of the 13th century battle. Whether the biblical place is separate and should have a separate article is an appropriate discussion after this AfD. — MarkH21talk18:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Nish, I must remind you that "Ein Jalut" means "spring of Goliath", which apparently comes from the a Christian traveler who linked a spring next to the city of Jezreel with the story of David and Goliath. The name Ayn Jalut is just as wrong as Ein Harod. Even more if you consider the fact most scholars do accept the identification of Ein Harod with Ain Jalut, while no one doubts the biblical battle of David took place in the Elah Valley between Azekah and Sokho in Judea and not in the Jezreel Valley.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)18:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
(a)No need for the reminder, since I do tend to remember what I read, esp. if it concerns linguistics. People get very intense in the I/P area about imagined POV slants in trivia, and go through a manifold of forums, talk pages to work the worry beads on this or that issue to death, last man standing being the consensus'. All the current uproar tells me is that neither this nor the other page are getting any work done on them. That the Well of Harod has to be gutted of the Gideon legend bit, except for a corrective note; that things in the Ain Jalut article have to be reworked. One example, the one you allude to:-
The
Itinerarium Burdigalense (586) notes "ibi est campus, ubi David Goliat occidit" in reference to a location just before Scythopolis.[1]
Now, the source is Robinson p.168 n.1, which nowhere mentions 'a location before Scythopolis'(unlinked). Robinson writes:
In connection with Stradela (Jezreel) the (Itinerarium Burdigalense) has:'ibi est campus, ubi David Goliat occidit.'
So what we have is not what Robinson wrote. He implied not Scythopolis below but Zir'in above it.
(b)'The name 'Ayn Jalut is just as wrong as Ein Harod.' The name Ayn Jalut is the Arabic toponym, attested for 8 centuries, and reflecting a (undoubtedly ancient local Jewish)tradition referred to by the Christian chronicle in the fourth century CE. The name En Harod was attached to it by Victor Guerin in 1870 in an attempt to pin down that Biblical toponym at Judges 7:1 where it is a
hapax legomenon. The fact that the Goliath-David story is a myth (repeated in the Greek Iliad) and therefore not true, and that the Gideon legend refers to an oral tradition associated with an area much farther south, all means not that the names are wrong, but that calling the present site En Harod with the attached assumption this refers to the Bible legend is an modern historical dislocation, whereas Ain Jalut conserves a legend associated for 2,000 years with that particular site.
I couldn't give a flying fuck one way or another, really, about this passionate dispute. What pisses me off is that no one gets interested in the scholarship required to ground articles accurately, unless there a perceived political issue at stake in a wording or page move. Then, the ink spills into tidal talk page too-ing-and fro-ing, and the substance of encyclopedic construction languishes in insouciant disrepair.
Nishidani (
talk)
13:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Alternatives_to_deletion - "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases" would appear to be the operative guide here. Since those proposing deletion are not able to prove that these two places are the same, and there is independent content for both, I don't see any justification for deletion.
Selfstudier (
talk)
12:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Well, this is an Articles for Deletion, right? Says so right there at the top. And if you merge it, that amounts to deletion, right? Now go away and bother someone else.
Selfstudier (
talk)
14:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Did you read the policy page you linked to ? A merge or a redirect is listed there as an alternative to deletion, so no, they are not the same. If you are not familiar with wikipedia policy, perhaps you should stay out of AfD debates.
JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (
talk)
15:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I want an encyclopedia with non-duplicate content , and I want editors participating in AfD discussions to understand the relevant policies. So I will continue to create AfDs as needed (this one was suggested by the content-fork creator , BTW), and continue to request you familiarize yourself with policies before commenting.
JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (
talk)
15:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Like I said, no proof they are the same, independent content and no reason to "get rid of" the article. Oh gosh, I just commented again, naughty me.
Selfstudier (
talk)
16:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Selfstudier Stop saying there is no evidence this is the same place. There is only one spring in question, and it is the one found today near
Gideona. It is called Ma'ayan Harod by Israel, and was once called Ayn Jalut. The meaning of "Ayn Jalut" is "Spring of Goliath" and a traveler from the 4th century described the area next to
Jezreel (city) (2 miles to the west) as the place where David slew Goliath. It is accepted by all scholars today that the battle against Goliath occured in Judah so "Ayn Jalut" is actually a false name.
Ishtori Haparchi has addressed this misidentification already in the 14th century. He identified the site with the "Spring which is in Jezreel" from the tale of Saul's death. Rabbi Joseph Blumenfeld published Haparchi's book in 1957 with his notes and wrote that today the site is identified with the Ein Harod, with reference to
Abraham Moses Luncz (I am trying to get my hand on one of his history books right now but the local libraries are still closed). Robinson and Smith also addressed the problem of "Ayn Jalut" in 1841 and identified it with the Spring in Jezreel. Victor Gurein has identified this site with both Ein Harod of the story of Gideon and with the Spring in Jezreel. Ridgeway in 1876 has also identified it with both the "Well of Harod" and the "fountain which is in Jezreel". A book of Israeli geographer Ze'ev Vilnai called "Legends of Galilee, Jordan, and Sinai" simply calls the place Ein Harod, which is identified with Ayn Jalut.
The more I read in the sources the more I realize that there is no single identification but one thing is sure, all sources today will call this place "Ma'ayan Harod National Park" because this is what it is. Saying that the biblical Ein Harod can't be there doesn't change the fact that Goliath was killed in Judah and not in Ayn Jalut, so the Arabic name is just as false. The name of the site today is Ma'ayan Harod, and its former name "Ayn Jalut" is criticized for its inaccuracy by every scholar who mentions its meaning.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)19:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
deeply naïve, i.e. 'The fact that Goliath was killed in Judah and not in Ayn Jalut'. If you are taking any of these kinds of epic or fairy tales as facts, then argument is pointless. There is a vast literature on the compositional strata of both the Septuagint and Hebrew bibles (which differ in this regard), sifting early versions as legends oral traditions that may reflect some distant realities, and later redactions that weave in theological point or romance with a moral point. Goliath is not a historical figure in any case. There are two legends about his death, the other victor being Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19), probably Elhanan ben-Dodo, because even there the text is garbled. You cannot touch anything in the Bible/Tanach without looking into modern commentaries and criticism, and little is 'factual' in such texts, any more than the Iliad is factual. Goliath is a fairy tale almost certainly,- since the exact same story appears in many legendary traditions- whoever 'killed him' whether in the
Valley of Elah or somewhere else. Tradition names four possibilities even in and on the border of Judah (
Ephes Dammim,
Sokho, a toponym used of two areas quite distant from each other,- one way southwest of Hebron not quite Judea, or even in the Philistine town of Gob, perhaps
Khirbet Qeiyafa). None of these are facts anymore than Ain Jalun- the Spring of Goliath - implies the factitity of Goliath. Legends are not facts. Wiki articles like these don't document the truth. The bvest we can do is describe how traditional stories are analysed in modern scholarly treatments of them, something editors here seem remarkably reluctant to do, preferring the primary source, that wonderful motherlode of just-so stories tinctured with historical makeup, or vice versa.
Nishidani (
talk)
20:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Oh c'mon. This entire comment for one word? I supposed you figured out my opinion on the accountability of biblical stories. I meant, that today there is no argument that the site of the biblical legend of David and Goliath (a man killing a giant with a sling to chose the fate of two nations) took place between Sokho and Azekah which have been identified in Judah. But that's not the argument here. There is a spring, found today in the Ma'ayan Harod National Park which was known until the 1920s as Ayn Jalut. Many scholars who came to this place have identified it with the Spring of Harod. Two scholars identified it elsewhere (Condor and Finkelstein). Many others have identified it with the "Spring of Jezreel", and sometimes with both (an article from 2015 explains that since the spring next to
Zar'in (Jezreel) is usually dry, many scholars mistakenly identified it with the larger Ayn Jalut. Today in popular culture of the region it is identified with Ein Harod of the bible. Whether this is the exact identification or not is not important becuase there is no alternative. It is a legend and none of the sources can prove that there is an exact identification for this spring.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)21:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I take people at their word. Your prose construes that way. It's a second language, fine, but readers like myself are being helpful in tuning your ear to the finer points of a language you are showing excellent proficiency in. As I showed in the essay heading my talk page, there is a wiki problem in negotiating one's way through an official Israeli policy to erase the Palestinian landscape of its Arabic resonance by replacing all toponyms with Hebrew place names. So Israel renamed what every one for centuries called, and Arabs still call, Ayn Jalut, with En Harod, which of course makes everyone nowadays think it is the Biblical well. It almost certainly isn't. Thanks for the grid and comments below, hard work, which many who comment here don't do.
Nishidani (
talk)
22:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I never said there was no evidence, I said those proposing to do away with the article cannot prove that they are the same place, there is some doubt about it and since there seems on the face of it to be two stories (narratives if you prefer) to go along with that, it seems quite unreasonable to me to to subsume one narrative in the other. The new scholarship as I understand it builds on past queries about identification and is a bridge between biblical scholarship on the one hand and archaeology on the other, called geographical history and the work is subject of many plaudits, it is not for you to dismiss it.
Selfstudier (
talk)
19:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Selfstudier, when we say "Ein Harod/Spring of Harod/Ma'ayan Harod" we refer to the same place as Ayn Jalut. This is today the name of the spring. The names "Harod" and "Jalut" both come from legends, but the spring itself is one. There is no point in writing an article about the biblical place because it is just a place in the story of
Gideon.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)21:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Listen, you are failing to understand my intentions. Look at the
Well of Harod article. The "Identification" section does not imply in any part that Ayn Jalut is indeed the biblical Ein Harod, nor it implies it is the biblical "Spring which is next to Jezreel". It simply mentions the scholars who identified it with Ein Harod and the scholars who identified it elsewhere (Condor and Finkelstein). There is no scientific proof to whether Ayn Jalut is Ein Harod, but there are enough scholars who supported this identification which is plausible and therefore since 1921 this site is also known as Ein Harod. In 1948 it was no longer known as Ayn Jalut and a distinction between the kibbutz Ein Harod, which relocated east, and Ma'ayan Harod was made. Both meaning "Spring of Harod". Interesting side note, the official website of the Ma'ayan Harod park in Arabic calls it "The National Park "Ma'ayan Harod" Ayn Jalut" (
الحديقة الوطنية "معيان حارود" عين جالوت).
I do not intend in any moment to suggest a clear identification for Ayn Jalut as Ein Harod. I simply mirror the sources which supports this claim and thus we got the modern name. Which although is not supported by all sources, is supported by most sources. Is Ein Harod located in Ayn Jalut? Maybe. Is the biblical narrative falsely relocated an Israelite legend from the city of Shechem? Maybe. Is Condor right to identify the spring on the Beit She'an Valley? Maybe. One thing is true: There is a spring today known as Ma'ayan Harod with respect to its traditional Arabic name Ayn Jalut.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)10:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
My intention is to write an interesting article about the spring located next to Gideona. This spring is traditionally known as Ayn Jalut and has been traditionally identified as Ein Harod. Today it is known as Ma'ayan Harod and it is a national park. There is one place, there is no need for two articles. Therefore, merge Ain Jalut, not "get rid", with Well of Harod, whose first sentence mentions the Arabic name. Also I think "Well of Harod" should change to "Ma'ayan Harod", but one discussion at a time.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)12:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge back. Right now we have two articles with leads proclaiming they are about springs. But there is only one and the same spring.
Srnec (
talk)
15:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
No one proposed that. No one also wants to change the
Battle of Kadesh to
Battle of Tell Nebi Mend, that would be ridiculous. While searching for sources in Hebrew I found that many history books in Hebrew about the Mamluks say "Krav Ein Jalut" - Battle of Ain Jalut. Some of them explain that today Ayn Jalut is the Ein Harod and others don't. The battle is known as the battle in "Ain Jalut" no matter how it is called today. If another battle would be fought there, it would probably be known as the Battle of Ma'ayan Harod. It is really a question of COMMONNAME. If Wikipedia was written before 1920, it would be called Ayn Jalut no doubt, but it is written in 2020, a hundred years after new people settled this place and for generations knew it as Ein Harod. Every contemporary map or source, when referring to the location today and not in context with historical events, refer to this place as Ma'ayan or Ein Harod. (My best guess was that when they opened the park they changed it to Ma'ayan to differentiate between the spring and the kibbutz, still searching for sources to clarify that). Today if you go there you see signs saying "Ma'ayan Harod" and it has been that way for 100 years. And besides, the first sentence of the world has Ayn Jalut so the name isn't censored or removed. There was some confusion becuase of the bad state of the Well of Harod article, which gave more weight to the biblical tradition rather than the actual place. There is no political implication or POV pushing in merging two articles in the same place. It is simply the current reality and this logic most certainly cannot be applied to every single place in this country, as each place has its own unique story.
Merge/Redirect - I don't find the keep votes particularly persuasive; I think the merge votes accurately explain the situation. Additionally, to respond to the comment about disputes over content, I would say this is not a dispute over content. A dispute over content would be a dispute over what the article contains. This is a dispute about whether the subjects are distinct enough to warrant two articles or whether this is a
WP:POVFORK; that doesn't particularly have anything to do with content.
Ikjbagl (
talk)
05:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
למזרח יזרעאל ביושר כמרוצות הסוס הוא העין שחנו עליה ישראל במלחמת שאול האחרונה ויוצא מהרי מהרי הגלבוע מן הדרום וקורין לו "עין ג'ילות". ואומרים הישמעאלים כי שם היה מלחמת דוד עם גלית, והם טועים, כי לא היה אלא בארץ יהודה בין שוכה ובין עזקה
"To East of Yizrael... is the spring upon which Israel camped during the last Saul War, and emerges from the Gilboa Mountains from the south and is called "'Ayn Jiluth". And the Ismaelites say the war of David with Goliath was there, and they are wrong, because it was in the Land of Judah between Sokho and Azekah."
Blumenfeld note (1957): לפי דעת התיירים החדשים העין הזה "עין החרוד" הנז' בשופטים ז' א' (הראמ"ל)
"According to the opinion of the new tourists, this spring [is] "Ein Harod", mentioned in Judges 7:1"
"To East of Yizrael... is the spring upon which Israel camped during the last Saul War, and emerges from the Gilboa Mountains from the south and is called "'Ayn Jiluth"."
"It is difficult, at first, to see how this name should come to be found in this region ; but there would seem to have been an early legend that here was the scene of David's combat with Goliath. In connection with Stradela (Jezreel) the Itin. Hieros. has the following: "Ibi est campus, ubi David Goliat occibit ;" p.586, ed. Wessenling. But I find no other trace of this legend."
No mention
"There is every reason to regard this as the ancient fountain of Jezreel, where Saul and Jonathan pitched before their last fatal battle;..."
"...and where, too, in the days of the crusades, Saladin and the Christians successively encamped. At that time the Christians called it Tubania; but among the Araiis it already bore its present name.^ The presence of fish in the fountain probably gave rise to the story off its furnishing a miraculous supply for the whole Christian army during several days."
"En continuant à nous avancer vers l'ouest, nous atteignons, à midi vingt minutes, l'A'ïn Djaloud, source très-abondante, à côté de laquelle nous faisons halte quelques instants."
"Cette source est, selon toute vraisemblance, l'E'n-Harod de la Bible, en hébreu עין חרוד, en grec [Greek letters], en lalin fons qui vocalur Harod, près de laquelle Gédéon campa avec son armée avant d'attaquer les Madianites."
"Elle est appelée dans ce verset source de Jezraël; en efl'et, elle coule à vingt-cinq minutes à l'est de cette ville. Néanmoins, je dois avouer qu'une autre source, appelée aujourd'hui A'ïn el-Maïlek, est plus rapprochée deZera'ïn, l'antique Jezraël; mais comme elle est beaucoup moins abondante que la précédente, j'inclinerais assez à penser que Saiil choisit de préférence le voisinage de celle-ci pour y asseoir son camp."
"A l'époque des croisades, Saladin lit dresser les tentes de son armée près de cette même fontaine, (jue Bohaeddin' désigne sous le nom d'A'ïn el-Djaloiit, nom, comme on le voit, identique à celui qu'elle porte encore aujourd'hui parmi les Arabes; les Francs la connaissaient sous la désignation de Tubania,"
"Dean Stanley, followed by Guerin, would put the Well of Harod at 'Ain Jalud, the story of Goliath (Jalud) having displaced in some way the recollection of the former name."
"Lieutenant Conder suggests 'Ain el Jemain for the Well of Harod. (Judges vii. i.) Dean Stanley, followed by Guerin, would put the Well of Harod at 'Ain Jalud, the story of Goliath (Jalud) having displaced in some way the recollection of the former name."
"...tradition has rightly fixed on the third and largest, now called the 'Ain Jalud, as the well of Harod."
"tradition has rightly fixed on the third and largest, now called the 'Ain Jalud, as the well of Harod."
Doesn't identify "Spring in Jezreel" with Ayn Jalud/Ein Harod, but mentions Ayn Jalud with the description of the battle of Saul:
"But they went round Jezreel, and attacked the promontory of the hill by the easier slopes and wadies to the south which lead up to open ground about the village of Nuris, and directly above the 'Ain Jalud"
"According to an old tradition the battlefield of David the sheperd and Goliath the Philistine was also situated next to Ein Harod...called by the Arabs Ayn Jalut..."
"In the Valley of Jezreel there flows a spring which in biblical times was called Ein-Harod. The new village nearby bears its name."
"Thus, there is no reason to identify the Spring of Harod in Ein Jalud."
"Thus, there is no reason to identify the Spring of Harod in Ein Jalud."
"...placing the Spring of Harod in the area of Shechem seems reasonable. This was also the way that Josephus understood the story, in describing these events near the Jordan River"
No mention
No mention
Proposal to pause AfD
I'm cutting off this side-discussion, since we basically don't put AfDs on hold. It can be difficult to conduct a discussion while the article is undergoing substantial changes, but that happens and editors need to work around it. --
RoySmith(talk)16:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Proposal to pause this AfD due to the problematic situation at the article and its talk page. Editors who support deletion of this article are currently (a) edit warring to block any new content being added to the article; and (b) edit warring to block the article being added to WikiProject Palestine and/or ARBPIA. The first point is important because the exclusion of the additional information stops editors from addressing any of the comments regarding similar content, and the second point is important because at least two of the "votes" above would not qualify under the ARBPIA 500/30 exclusion. Some of the information being excluded also highlights the relevance of this article to ARBPIA.
Onceinawhile (
talk)
15:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
And there is no basis to try and put the article under ARBPIA-related restrictions. This has zip to do with the modern conflict, and the only one who has even thought of bringing up this context appears to be you. Might as well try that for Daboia palaestinae (actually the case would be stronger there, based on recurring vandalism...) --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
15:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Elmidae: the relevance to Palestine, Palestinian history and Zionism is very clear and well sourced, but unfortunately it has
been deleted from the article... This place has been used in political rhetoric by the Palestinians to evoke memories of ancient victories against foreigners, and the village there was depopulated after it was purchased by the Jewish National Fund.
Onceinawhile (
talk)
16:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
No. The Ain Jalut article was created with no discussion, it should be at the very least deleted and added after more discussion. The article shouldn't exist as long as there is no consensus for its existence, and we are not 100% likely to even reach a consensus. Instead, the discussion needs to continue after the problem of the
Ain Jalut and the alleged POVFORK is dealt with. This might end up with no consensus and two problematic articles.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)15:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Let it run. I have no problem with no consensus and two problematic articles. And a discussion to create an article is not a policy requirement afaik. Time will sort it all out eventually. In the meantime,
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Alternatives_to_deletion - "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases" would appear to be the operative guide here. One editor in particular seems to think that endless reverting is OK, it isn't.
Selfstudier (
talk)
15:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
May I suggest deleting the Ayn Jalut (which unlike the original Well of Harod article, censors the identifications with Harod which appear in its sources (Gurien and SWP) while drawing modern connection only to the PLO? This is clear POV.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)23:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
No and please stop trying to disrupt the AFD process, there is no pausing of the AFD process. Your actions are on the verge of disruptive, you already tried to propose this very recently. It's irrelevant who the author of the AFD is, it's at AFD now and you just need to wait the seven days for completion.
Sir Joseph(talk)23:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
No here we don't discuss the editors but the articles. If the devil itself nominated an article that doesn't meet wikipedia criteria, than that article should be deleted --
AlejandroLeloirRey (
talk)
08:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
^Cite error: The named reference Robinson168 was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
.jpg)
