Talk:Ma'ayan Harod

Road from Nablus to Baisan

I have removed the link to Baisan as this is redirected to Baisan Monpon, a a Sōtō Zen monk. There is a hatnote on this article referring to Beit She'an as an alternative to check, but on modern maps the Ma'ayan Ḥarod National Park does not lie between Nablus and Beit She'an - can anyone please advise whether Baisan should be identified with Beit She'an? - BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Common Name

Per WP:COMMONNAME, the common name in English for this location is Ain Jalut. See Ngram here and Battle of Ain Jalut. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, Lets have proper move discussion before renaming --Shrike (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems that Ein Harod is WP:COMMONAME [1] as we should take in account that most of the sources talk about the battle and not about the place Shrike (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I think we can agree that "Well of Harod" (or "spring of Harod") is not common usage.

If you add "Ain Jalut" and "Ayn Jalut" together, you get about double "Ein Harod". Is there another English spelling of the Hebrew term we could try?

Ngrams won't let me search for 'Ayn or 'Ain with an apostrophe for some reason.

The main problem we have is that most of the google books references to Ain Jalut refer to the battle, and the ones for Ein Harod refer to the kibbutzes and the interesting related history.

Onceinawhile (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Some numbers, starting with "scholar.google.com":

• "Spring of Harod": 79
• "Well of Harod": 37
• "Ayn Jalut": 711
• "Ain Jalut": 554

Huldra (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• now do this excluding the sources that refer to the battle of Ayn/Ain Jalut. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Huldra, You fogot "Ein Harod" with 1220 hits [2] Shrike (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• She did, but it is moot. If you exclude the sources that refer to the 13th C. Battle of Ayn Jalut, and the sources which refer to the modern day village in Syria, you end up with just a handful of Google Scholar references to Ayn Jalut: [3]. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• You forgot to search for "Ain Jalud" (SWP spelling), "Ain Jalut" (le Strange spelling), "Ain Djaloud" (Guérin spelling), Huldra (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Using the same exclusions, and also excluding the modern day PLA military unit named for the 13th C battle, "Ain Jalut" yields maybe 1 English language reference to this place (4th result here, which I can't access): [4]
• Ain Jalud yields less than 10 [5], and Ain Djaloud none at all [6]. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Shrike, we can of course include that, but the ones I have seen, all refer to Ein Harod, and then Ein Harod (Ihud) and Ein Harod (Meuhad), Huldra (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

And the "spring of Harod" and "well of Harod" refer to biblical usage in Judges 7.

I am not clear what the right answer is here, other than that "Well of Harod" does not work as it fails a number of tests at WP:AT. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

If we look at the sources from before 1948, say SWP or Le Strange, they all refer to this place as Ain Jalut (and that is not referring to the Battle of Ain Jalut), Huldra (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

...or for that matter: look at any map, (and no, they did nor refer to the 1260-battle) Huldra (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

What contemporary maps tell us?-22:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more precise: pre-48 maps, Huldra (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Per commonname we have two choices: Ein Harod (spring) or Ain Jalut. Per the five conditions at WP:AT, they score similarly on Recognizability/Naturalness/Precision/Consistency. Ain Jalut is better on Conciseness.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

1942 map helpfully has "'Ein Jalud ('Ein Harod)". The Ein Harod kibbutz used to be here but then it moved to about 4km away. Zero^talk 02:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Ngrams This chart compares Ain Jalut and cognates to Ein Harod over time. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Per that chart, Ein Harod is the common name. In any case ngrams aren't considered as sources on Wikipedia/are original research. In any case, Ain Harod is another hebrew transliteration Drsmoo (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Odd. When I do it, I get Ein Harod losing, not winning, even if Ain Harod is included. Zero^talk 14:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 16:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Move to Maayan

Assuming everyone agrees with the move, should it be "Ma'ayan" or "Maayan"? Onceinawhile have you updated inbound links following the move? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind. I made the faster move (Ma'ayan would require a technical request) so we can get on with getting the article into agreed form. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

When was the name "Ein Harod" first applied to Ain Jalut

I have moved the below here, which uses BibleHub as its only source:

It is mentioned in the [[Book of Judges]], chapter 7, where it is said that [[Gideon]] dismissed 22,000 potential warriors who were "fearful and afraid" and then chose 300 men to fight with him according to how they drank water from the Well of Harod.<ref>[http://biblehub.com/kjv/judges/7.htm Judges 7: Gideon's Army of Three Hundred]</ref> Anglican bishop [[Charles Ellicott]] and Presbyterian theologian [[Albert Barnes (theologian)|Albert Barnes]] both suggest that "Harod" means "trembling", "with an obvious allusion to the timidity of the people (''chareed'', {{bibleverse||Judges|7:3|NKJV}})".<ref>[http://biblehub.com/commentaries/ellicott/judges/7.htm Ellicott's Commentary for Modern Readers] on Judges 7 and [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/judges/7.htm Barnes' Notes] on Judges 7, accessed 24 October 2016</ref>

We can be confident that the name of the kibbutz was taken from the "Ein Harod" in Judges 7:1, and that some theologians assume that the word Harod is the same as that in Judges 7:3 which translates as "fearful".

What we are missing is a source that explains why the founders of Kibbutz Ein Harod decided that Ain Jalut was the same as Ein Harod. Did they just make it up out of thin air in 1921, or was there a historic connection?

Onceinawhile (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, Probably some religious tradition like tradition that identified this place with Goliath --Shrike (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

There have been speculations at least since the time of Robinson, Guerin and SWP, that the "well of Harod" was Ain Jalud, Huldra (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I have seen a few of those, but they seem to be European-scholarly speculation based on extremely flimsy evidence, and those same scholars suggested other locations for the Well of Harod. Conder for example ultimately concluded that the well of Harod was at 'Ain el Jem'ain, the “Well of the Two Troops“. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, this source (which Shrike inserted, and I removed):

• Smith, George Adam (1920). The historical geography of the Holy Land, especially in relation to the history of Israel and of the early church. The Library of Congress. New York, George H. Doran company.

...does the same. There are a zillion places in Israel/Palestine likewise named, Huldra (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

This recent academic article concluded "there is no reason to identify the Spring of Harod in Ein Jalud". A German source is given for survey. Zero^talk 09:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

See a glowing review of the German source here: Anson Rainey, Reviewed Work Die Ortsnamen des Richterbuchs in historischer und redaktioneller Perspektive by Erasmus Gaß, Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 127, no. 2, 2007, pp. 221–223

It would be a very interesting work to get hold of – would help us deconstruct some of the other poorly supported Biblical attributions. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I have managed to get hold of one page of the German work (p.280), pasted below. A very similar article is as [7] - it seems to have been written by the same author, Erasmus Gaß.

Für En-Harod sind bislang zwei Identifizierungen vorgeschlagen worden:
a) “Ēn el-Ġim'ain: Ēn el - Ġim'ain ist eine Quelle mit exzellentem Frischwasser. Das Wasser sprudelt aus dem Felsen und ergießt sich in einen Bach, der zwischen zwei weiteren größeren Bächen fließt . Neben der Quelle ' En el-Gim'ain erhebt sich der Doppelhügel Tell Humud mit einem muslimischen Friedhof, Fundamenten, schwarzen Granitsäulen und einem römischen Wasserkanal.
b) “Ēn Ğālūd: Die als “Goliat - Quelle” gedeutete "Ēn Ğālūd befindet sich im oberen Teil der Jesreelebene. Von der Tradition, derzufolge Goliat in diesem Tal den Tod fand, berichtet bereits der Pilger von Bordeaux. Vielleicht darf 'En Gālūd (“Angsthasenquelle?”) aber auch als direkte Übertragung von En-Harod gelten. In der Nähe der "Ēn Gālūd fand man römische Meilensteine, die Wände eines alten Reservoirs, das sich kaum datieren läßt, und eine kleine Ruine mit römischen Munzen.
Der eigentliche Lagerplatz der Israeliten wird gelegentlich in der Nähe der “ Ēn Ğālūd , auf der Hirbet el-Karm am Nordabhang des Gilboa , gesucht. Der Keramikbefund der Ortslage Hirbet el-Karm weist von der Frühbronzezeit bis in die Eisenzeit II und in die römische Zeit. Diese Hirbe bietet allerdings keinen strategischen Vorteil, da sie zwischen zwei nach Norden vorstechenden Hügeln eingebettet ist. Außerdem ist fraglich, ob der biblische Erzähler tatsächlich genaue topographische Angaben machen.

Onceinawhile (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Sicre Díaz, José Luis (24 October 2018). Jueces. Verbo Divino. pp. 444–. ISBN 978-84-9073-430-8. in a footnote gives the following quote from Gass (p281), about the etymology and two possible identifications:

"La fuente de En Harod solo era importante por la presentacion literaria de la seleccion de trescientos soldados; de ahi no es preciso concluir que realmente se reuniesen alli mas de treinta mil personas." which Google translates as

"En Harod's source was only important because of the literary presentation of the selection of three hundred soldiers; from there it is not necessary to conclude that more than thirty thousand people actually gathered there." No idea if that helps.Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I found this old 1903 missive, Encyclopaedia Biblica that has some stuff about this (1291, 1294, 1724), if you don't have it already.Selfstudier (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I found an interesting article by Gidi Yahalom, an Israeli archaeologist and a student of Israel Finkelstein. He writes that in the biblical description of the battle between Gideon and the Midianites, Gideon tells the soldiers who are afraid to watch from "Mount Gilead". Since the Gilead of transjordan is too far away, Yahalom suggests that the meaning is not the Gilead in Transjordan, but the word Gilead that means a heap of stones. He mentions Nechemia Zuri's survey of the Harod Valley, published in his book in 1977 (which I also need to get my hand on) in which he found on the Gilboa a heap of stones with flint and pottery tools from the Paleolithic to Roman periods, including the Iron Age. He, therefore, suggests that this is the origin of the name "Ayn Jalut" (Jalut/Jalud = Gilead) and this is the source of the false connection of these site with Goliath. He also states talks about the etymology of "Harod", which comes from "fear" but in the bible often used in the context of gathering, especially in times of war. Therefore he suggests that the meaning of "Ein Harod" is the Spring of Gathering and it makes sense since there are two battles in the bible fought in this area as well as two battles from the Crusader and Mamluk times fought here. He also proposes that the identification of the "Spring of Jezreel" in Ayn Jalut was mistakenly suggested becuase Ayn al Metiye, the modern "Ein Jezreel" was dry in many periods throughout history (and therefore called "the dead spring") and when the scholars asked the residents of Zar'in, the location of ancient Jezreel (city) where is their water source, they said it is Ayn Jalut, since Ayn al Metiye, which is closer to Jezreel, was probably dry at that time.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Quest to answer this question

Add as many sources as you can find. So far it seems that there is an old tradition of identifying Ayn Jalut with Ein Harod.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Source	Ayn Jalud	Spring of Harod	Spring in Jezreel	Tabunia
Ishtori Haparchi (14th century)(Blumenfeld's 1957 edition)	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"."	Mentions Tabunia as a different place.
Robinson and Smith, 1841	"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."
Guérin, 1868	"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,"
Ridgeaway, 1876	"From Jezreel we descended along the north-west slope of Gilboa to 'Ain Jalud..."	"...known in the Bible as the Well of Harod, (Judges vii, I,)..."	"...and as the "fountain which is in Jezreel." I Sam. xxix, I."	No mention
encyclopedia Biblica, Vol 2, 1903 p, 1294	...we should perhaps read ‘Spring of Harod’ (Tin for mn), the most probable site of which, ‘Ain Jalud, is nearly 10 m. NNE. from Jenin.	...we should perhaps read ‘Spring of Harod’ (Tin for mn), the most probable site of which, ‘Ain Jalud, is nearly 10 m. NNE. from Jenin.
Smith, 1920	"...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"	No mention
Zev Vilensky, 1978	"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."	No mention	No mention
Israel Finkelstein and Oded Lipschits, 2017	"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

Good faith changes

@Bolter21: thanks for your edits here. I think it is moving in a sensible direction, albeit the lede is definitely not working yet. In order to bring the temperature down and allow for constructive debate, could we move the draft text here (or somewhere else, as you prefer) rather than edit the main article so significantly while the AfD is going on? Shrike undoing the improvements to the article from a few weeks ago is bad enough, but I am prepared to let that go if we can all agree to the same during this short period. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

A bit rushy, but I think what Shrike did was actually the correct thing to do. There was a bad article about Ein Harod and it was proposed to move it to Ain Jalut. The discussion failed and one of the editors decided to start a new article. There is no bureaucracy in starting an article, but there is a lot in deleting it. I don't regard it as POVFORK becuase I don't really think about any POV here. The more you look into the sources the more you realise it isn't Ayn Jalut vs. Ein Harod and that there is so much to it. Here are the things planned to do so far:

• Try to get a hold on a traveler book by Abraham Moses Luncz which may add up to the people who initially identified the spring with the Spring of Harod
• Apparently there are three archaeological sites to mention. The first is the spring itself, where Islamic flour mills were discovered. Two others are in the immediate vicinity of the spring and trace remains back to the stone age and both the Iron Age and the Mamluk era (time of the battle of Ain Jalut).
• Add information about Israel Finkelstein's claims that the battle didn't take place in the Gilboa.
• Add information about the national park: the Gideon Cave, the House of Ussiskin, the original location of Kibbutz Ein Harod.
• Add the descriptions of the site from the European travelers.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Bolter21, Did you mean this book [8]? Shrike (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Shrike, no I didn't. I refer to מורה דרך לארץ ישראל וסוריה. I couldn't find it anywhere online. I've put a request in the Hebrew Wikipedia for help if someone has this book.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Oncenawhile, I've changed the lead to say "It has been linked to several biblical traditions from which it got its Hebrew and Arab names.". The sources are in the identification section. Is this better?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bolter21: no, because it still creates a false equivalence. "Ain Jalut" is not just a name it has been linked to, it is the traditional name throughout recorded history. "Well of Harod" is not just a name it has been linked to, it a name proposed in modern times as one of two or three possible identifications for Well of Harod. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

By modern, you mean as early 1868, 152 year ago. Anyway. If I change

The Well of Harod, (Also known as Ma'ayan Harod (Hebrew: מעיין חרוד, "Spring of Harod) or ʿAyn Jalut'

to:

Ma'ayan Harod (Hebrew: מעיין חרוד, "Spring of Harod"), historically known as 'Ayn Jalut (Arabic: عين جالوت, "Spring of Goliath") by the Arabs who inhabited the region until 1948

Would that be better? The Identification section already begins with "The spring is first mentioned in the 12th century by the name Ain Jalut...". I'll add part of Haparchi's 14th-century book, where he says explicitly that the name "Ayn Jalut" is how the locals call it. I am not trying to censor "Ayn Jalut", but since most contemporary sources would refer to this site as the [something] of Harod, and not Ayn Jalut, the name should be [something] of Harod while the article respects the historical name as much as needed. Don't care about Independence vs. Nakba narratives.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Delete ”by the Arabs” please, and add that the connection to Harod was first suggested by Dean Stanley in 18xx [sourced to the PEF who say it was his suggestion]. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Ma'ayan Harod (Hebrew: מעיין חרוד, "Spring of Harod"), historically known as 'Ayn Jalut (Arabic: عين جالوت, "Spring of Goliath") is a spring...It was identified as "Ein Harod" of the Book of Judges (7:1) as early as 1856 by Dean Stanley.

Better?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bolter21: how about:

Ma'ayan Harod (Hebrew: מעיין חרוד, "Spring of Harod") or 'Ayn Jalut (Arabic: عين جالوت, "Spring of Goliath") is a spring... Its traditional name, Ain Jalut, has been recorded since the 12th century; the name is thought to be a reference to "Goliath"... In the 1920s it was renamed Ein Harod, after the land was purchased by the Jewish National Fund; the connection with "Ein Harod" of the Book of Judges (7:1) was made as early as 1856 by Dean Stanley, although other locations were suggested by contemporary scholars.

What do you think? Onceinawhile (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The issue is that the connection to "Goliath" which is clearly problematic, is not challenged while the identification as Ein Harod (At the very least more plausible than the site of Goliath's death) is indeed challenged. I want to avoid as much "the indigenous Palestinians are right/the Zionists corrected the Palestinians mistake" feeling. We all roughly agree on the same facts but the readers probably don't, especially when this article can be linked both to Israeli and Palestinian topics. Also for some reason, you and the editors of the Ain Jalut have written that the land was purchased by the JNF, while it was purchased by the Palestine Land Development Company and was transferred to the JNF in the late 1920s but that's a minor issue. This article together with Ain Jalut both receive a max of 50 views every day on average, and I don't think there is any record of a more serious discussion about this site than ours. It isn't Israel or State of Palestine. Maybe its better to have the lead section direct the readers to the identification section because I've counted so many theories:

a) It is the site of Goliath's death

b) It is the camp of Saul before his death - and not Goliath

c) It is the camp of Gideon before his victory - and not Goliath

d) It is both places - and not Goliath

e) It is neither - the battle took place in a different place in the country

g) It is the camp of Gideon and "Jalut" means "Gilead" and not "Goliath"

So maybe it is better not to pick some of them and put them in the lead section. None of them are true with no doubt.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Since there seem to be forming a discussion on the lead section, I am going to shorten some of the disputed topics.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, fair points. How about: @Bolter21: how about something along the lines of:

Ma'ayan Harod (Hebrew: מעיין חרוד, "Spring of Harod") or 'Ain Jalut (Arabic: عين جالوت, "Spring of Goliath") is a spring... Its traditional name, Ain Jalut, has been recorded since the 12th century; the name Jalut means "Goliath". In the 1920s it was renamed Ein Harod after the land was purchased by the Palestine Land Development Company, following a connection to "Ein Harod" of the Book of Judges (7:1) made as early as 1856 by Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, who later became Dean of Westminster and a co-founder of the Palestine Exploration Fund. In addition to the connection to the Biblical events of Goliath's death (1 Samuel 17) and Gideon's defeat of the Midianites (Judges 7), it has also been proposed as the location of Saul's defeat of the Philistines (1 Samuel 29); scholarly discussion continues and none of these identifications can be certain.

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there a source for the act of changing the name and when? The only authority able to change legal names was the mandatory government. However, official maps later in the mandate give the name as "'Ein Harod" so something indeed happened. Zero^talk 01:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Zero0000: I was intrigued by your comment here re the actual process of changing names; any insights you can share at Hebraization of Palestinian place names would be appreciated. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Zero0000, the 1922 census said Ain Harod (Jalud), and recorded only Jews living there.[9] Onceinawhile (talk) 08:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This source: Boaz Neumann (2011). Land and Desire in Early Zionism. UPNE. p. 167. ISBN 978-1-58465-968-6. ...Nuris became Ein Harod...

says that the land was originally called Nuris (presumably because the land the PLDC bought from Sursock used to belong to that village) and was changed by the HeHalutz to Ein Harod as part of their Hebraization movement. The implication is that it was done after discussion and debate; I imagine those records will still exist somewhere. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

In Hebrew sources, the place is referred to as "Nuris Bloc" but all maps I could find of this territory show that the village of Nuris was actually outside the bloc, so I don't know if it is safe to say the land belonged to the village. At the very least it belonged to the Sursock family. Usually, most Kibbutzim are established as a community before the settle the land, and often they have no name after settling. As it seems, the farm established in Ein Harod in 1921 was immediately named Ein Harod. Since this is a very large and important spring, it is possible that Jews already called it Ein Harod before 1921 and when they registered their new settlement in Nuris at the British Authorities, it became official. I'll try to look more but as libraries are closed we are mostly limited to online English sources--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The 1922 census recorded names of settlements, not names of springs. Incidentally, the oldest 1:20K map I have (sometime in the 1920s) doesn't show the spring at all, which is odd. It shows a cluster of buildings labeled `Ein Harod close to the spring location on the east side, and another cluster "`Ein Harod (Qumye)" several km ENE where Ein Harod is now. (Qumye/Qumiya was the Arab village 1km north of the latter site.) In the 1942 1:20K map, the spring is shown as "`Ein Jalud (`Ein Harod)" and the nearby cluster of buildings is absent. Zero^talk 11:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This makes total sense. In 1921 Ayn Jalut was used as a campsite of the new Ein Harod settlement. In 1929 they all moved to Qumye. I found an interesting article in JSTOR about the biblical influence on the Gdud Avoda. It contains a quote of Shlomo Levitan from the Gdud's newspaper. It was published on 8 November 1921, 2 weeks after the first members of the Gdud moved to Ein Harod. One part of it says:

Giv'at HaMoreh (Hermon Katan) on one side with the tomb of a holy Muslim man, on the other side the Gilboa mountains and between them, next to the spring [מעיין=ma'ayan] of Ein-Harod, on the foothills of Mount Gilboa where Gideon stood with his camp - camps the company [of the Gdud]"

This proves that already when the first settlers arrived to the Nuris Bloc they were aware of the biblical tradition attached to the site.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Legacy

I suggest moving legacy to the battle article as it legacy of the battle and not the spring --Shrike (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

+1. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Although I didn't have a problem with the Legacy section before, Shrike brings a good point. The information shouldn't be censored (although it is very limited right now), but moved to the article about the battle. Generally, this article has provided a lot of information that can be used in many existing articles such as Battle of Ayn Jalut, Ein Harod and Gideon as well as non-existing article such as the Nuris Bloc, the Harod Valley and maybe even an article about the biblical battle, since there was a lot written about it. No need to fight on every bit of information. Ein Harod also has a lot of legacy in Israeli history and I try hard to set that aside and deal only with the events related to the spring. The same can be done with anything else.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I also agree. It could be mentioned in the Battle of Ayn Jalut JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

There is consensus to merge, fully, not partially. Now the merge is done, if you want to get rid of information, you need consensus – if you want to do that properly it means notifying those who had recently edited the Ain Jalut page and talk page on this question. As I have stated before, I consider this information relevant because Arafat explicitly made the connection to the land, not just the battle, in his speech. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll remain neutral on that. Both Shrike and Oncenawhile have good points.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources to be added

• The 'Josef Trumpeldor Jewish Labor Brigade' and the Bible - Description of the region from the Gdud's newspaper, 8 November 1921
• SAD VICTORY: BEN-GURION AND GDUD HA'AVODA - more background to the split
• ייבוש ביצות בעמק-יזרעאל אינו אגדה, and ביצות עמק-יזרעאל — אגדה או מציאות? - Drying the swamp in Ein Harod

Spring of Jezreel

@Bolter21: I think that most writings connecting this place to "Spring of Jezreel" are doing so in agreement with the name Ain Jalut, not in contradiction to it.

I say that because both Biblical events take place in the same first book of Samuel, only 12 chapters apart; it would make sense for the latter reference to be referring to the former. What do you think? Onceinawhile (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, Jezreel is a city and there's a spring right next to it which is today identified as Ein Jezreel. Yahalom which I've yet to add to the article claims that the identification with of Ein Jezreel with Ayn Jalut comes from the fact that Ein Jezreel, known as Ayn al-Metiyeh often dries completely, so when the biblical researchers, including Ishtori Haparchi, asked the people of Zar'in from where they drain their water, and it was mostly Ayn Jalut since anyway it is bigger. Today Israeli schoalrs identify Ein Jezreel in the spring that is right next to Jezreel.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 5 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. There doesn't seem to be a consensus on how to interpret the evidence and what evidence is reliable. The move was shown to be supported by Ngrams and Scholar, however that was countered by the fact that Ngrams is unreliable and that most the Scholar results are about the battle. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 06:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Ma'ayan Harod → Ain Jalut – Per clear WP:COMMONNAME as evidenced by the no-contest results on Ngrams and long-term scholarly prominence (787 hits on Google Scholar for "Ain Jalut" / 846 hits on Google Scholar for "Ayn Jalut"), largely in relation to the extremely significant 1260 Battle of Ain Jalut at the locale. "Ain Jalut" is a name of legendary renown that continues to echo across history and appear in the history books as the spot where the Mamluks turned back the tide of the Mongol advance in the Middle East. The current page title, "Ma'ayan Harod", is just a transliterated foreign language-term created as part of a 20th-century rebranding exercise that, by contrast, has little to no presence in English language sources, with just 19 hits on Google Scholar, several of which are not English language sources, leaving maybe a dozen mentions that check out. As the page itself also states, serious archaeologists, such as Israel Finkelstein, actually reject the association between Ain Jalut and the aspirational Biblical association with Herod, so it is a clear WP:COMMONNAME versus an uncommon and contested name. Between the two spellings of Ain/Ayn Jalut it is a fairly even toss up, as the Ngrams and Google Scholar evidence shows, but "Ain Jalut" is simpler, more natural spelling and is consistent with the title of the page for the associated battle. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Iskandar323 (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support I vaguely remember the Afd, I didn't agree at the time but consensus then was to merge Ain Jalut (back to) here and closer said "How to call the resulting article is another matter.."· Since Ain jalut is the apparent commonname and more logically connects with the notable Battle of Ain Jalut, support.Selfstudier (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Selfstudier. 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The term "Ain Jalut" is frequent when describing the famous battle that took place there, not the location itself, which lies in modern-day Israel. locally known as Ma'ayan Harod, today part of the Ma'ayan Harod National Park, a name by which the majority of Israelis as well as tourists come to know it. Similarly, the battle of Stalingrad took place in what is known today as Volgograd, and the Gallipoli campaign took place in what is today known as Gelibolu. In those cases, and many others, the articles for the battles use the periodical name, while the articles on the locations use the modern-day name. Tombah (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps it is indeed known in great frequency as Ma'ayan Harod in Hebrew, but this is en.wiki and we go by English language sources, in which the great paucity of sources using the name "Ma'ayan Harod", as compared to the great abundance of sources mentioning "Ain/Ayn Jalut", is quite plain. This is for obvious reasons: the name Ain Jalut has been used for the spring (/town) since at least the 1260 battle at the site, but presumably longer, and – one might assume – the entire Islamic period, and hence its longevity and persistence in the sources. The site was associated with Herod, as mentioned above, quite possibly erroneously and only in the 1920s. The Hebraization of Palestinian place names was of course quite a deliberate and political process. In the harsher readings it was one of very much intentional erasure. Perhaps it is ongoing. The Ma'ayan Harod National Park works quite hard as a website to not provide up front and generally ignore the site's far more famous name, neglecting it on all but the history page, where it misspells it as "En Jalut". Whether due to ignorance or malfeasance, it does illustrate rather well the lack of interest of proponents of the name of "Ma'ayan Harod" in anything resembling actual history. And not only does the name barely exist in English, but its usage actually appears to be decreasing, with barely a whisper of it since 2000. Volgograd has 326,000 Google Scholar hits by contrast, while the Gallipoli peninsula is in fact still displayed at the page title of Gallipoli. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Adding to the opposing comments above - Ein (another name for a spring = Maayan) Harod is also the Biblical name of the site. Atbannett (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Atbannett: Have you actually read the page? That identification remains spurious at best. It certainly cannot be stated, in Wikivoice, that the site is the biblical Ein Harod, even if one were to assume that the bible is factual as a starting point. Far from it. That supposition basically stands on some idle guesswork by 19th century amateurs. Israel Finkelstein and Oded Lipschits have dismissed it. What do you think you know that these career archaeologists and subject-matter experts do not? Not that it is even relevant. Ein Harod is not the page name, but Ma'ayan Harod, and this RM is about the WP:COMMONNAME case for moving it from the latter to Ain Jalut based on actual usage. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per Tombah's explanation. Dovidroth (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
• Post-Vote Comment: It sure looks like the !votes are dividing neatly across national lines. Should something be done about this? RfC perhaps? 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Let's wait, the commonname argument is key and the oppose votes do not appear to address that afaics. Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Will you be starting an RFC, since consensus wise there isn't enough support for the change? Crainsaw (talk) 06:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  This RM needs to be closed before any RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Ngrams are not an appropriate barometer of common name here, as most of the "Ain Jalut" hits appear to be about about the battle. Skimming through Google and Google Book searches, every Ain Jalut hit I've seen references historic events, not the spring, whereas every Maayan Harod one is about the spring. WP:MODERNPLACENAME would also seem to require the Hebrew name be used. Number 57 21:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Number 57: Quite literally the only sources on the page for "Ma'ayan Harod" as a name are the official/corporate park websites. If you were to produce a standalone article on "Ma'ayan Harod National Park" it might reasonably be challenged under WP:GNG for its lack of independent, secondary sources. WP:MODERNPLACENAME = convention; WP:COMMONNAME = policy. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Maayan Harod — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlSerafino (talk • contribs) 17:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: Is any editor supporting the existing title even able to tell me when the site was renamed "Ma'ayan Harod"? Because as it stands, nothing on the page and no source that I can find actually states when the national park was established/incorporated (the national park website, shit as it is on details, provides no clues). It could be 20 years or 70 years for all the page currently helps. So currently the page name is one of unknown provenance and entered usage at an unknown date. I don't even get why it is "Ma'ayan Harod", which isn't even the Biblical name, which is En Harod: it's bloody mysterious. There is almost no information. Literally nothing is known about this name except that its the appellation of the national park. And that begs a further question: if the name is principally known in association with the national park, is it even the most prevalent name for the spring/place/locale, or just for the national park (an administrative unit that incorporates it)? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Not to mention Ein Harod.. Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know the answer, but I can report that Survey of Israel maps changed the name of the spring from Ein Harod to Ma'ayan Harod some time between 1960 and 1966. My guess is that distinguishing it from the other Ein Harod was one motive. Zero^talk 01:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  To add to the confusion, this from the Australian Jewish News of 7 Nov 1941: "A new training project will be carried through by Hanoar Haoved (Working Youth) in the Jewish year 5702; a group of its members will take up their settlement at Maayan Harod, on the slopes of Mount Gilboa. The Keren Hayesod settlements of Ain Haron and Tel Joseph have granted the group an area of of 250 dunams. The name of the new village will be announced at a conference of Hanoar Haoved to be held during the Succoth week, and it will be the first of 15 such villages for youthful settlers." So the name existed earlier, but that's all I know. Zero^talk 02:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Ngrams suggest that the proposed title is the clear WP:COMMONNAME, even when the phrase "Battle of Ain Jalut" is factored out: see Ain Jalut and Ayn Jalut. (Ngram character limits prevented me from putting the permutations of both spellings into the same query.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - First of all Ngrams is definitely not a reliable source ([10]), it can vary drastically based on capitalization and other factors. As you said yourself: long-term scholarly prominence (787 hits on Google Scholar for "Ain Jalut" / 846 hits on Google Scholar for "Ayn Jalut"), largely in relation to the extremely significant 1260 Battle of Ain Jalut at the locale. "Ain Jalut" is a name of legendary renown that continues to echo across history and appear in the history books as the spot where the Mamluks turned back the tide of the Mongol advance in the Middle East., which would violate WP:MPN. Ma'ayan Harod oesn't haveas many hits because it's a relatively newer name, and not host to the Battle of Ain Jalut. I highly doubt that even 1% of the Google Scholar hits out of the 1500 are about the town rather than the battle. Crainsaw (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Ngrams isn't perfect, but I'm not seeing a good argument that this specific use of Ngrams is wrong, and ModernDayTrilobite's data seems to indicate it's not just the battle. If there's an argument to keep it at Ma'ayan Harod, that sounds like a good thing to expand the article with if sources can be found - also agree with thoughts above that if anything, it seems like this article should be at "Ein Harod" with some disambiguator to distinguish it from the kibbutz. SnowFire (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support per ModernDayTrilobite, just saying ngrams can be faulty isnt useful, show how this one is. Right now the evidence, all of it, points in one direction here. nableezy - 00:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Tombah, Ain Jalut in scholarly usage obviously refers primarily to the battle (just click on the links in the proposer's post). The ngrams provided by ModernDayTrilobite do not remove all possible combinations ("victory at Ain Jalut", "defeat at Ain Jalut", "setback at Ain Jalut", etc.). Alaexis_¿question? 12:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.