Talk:Meiron

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Which war?

" had fought in the war." Just name the war exactly and we got information about it !! --Tamás Kádár (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I took it out, since it was redundant when the war was already mentioned in the first part of the sentence. Thanks anyway. Tiamut^talk 19:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

1931: Khalidi mistake somewhere

On p. 476 Khalidi writes that the 1931 population was a total of 189; on p. 477 he writes that the population that year was 259 Arabs and 31 Jews. Mills gives a total of 189 persons; 158 Muslims and 31 Jews. Iow: Khalidi is correct on p. 476. Huldra (talk) 22:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Meiron vs. Meron, Israel

Is it common to have two different wiki pages for essentially the same geographic location? Especially much of the content seems duplicative. | MK17b | (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

hey, this is pretty much an unwritten rule when it comes to depopulated palestinian villages, for various reasons. I would guess the main one is the context of depopulation - that those villages are not existent in that form anymore and almost all their people have been exiled. Western.galilee (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Negev & Gibson

Mikeblas hi. Thanks for pointing out the issue with Negev & Gibson, but it doesn't stop at that one ref.

I have the 2001 edition. Do you have the 2005 edition?

Online the 2005 edition isn't at all accessible, I cannot say anything about what's written there.

In the 2001 ed., all of Meiron is dealt with on half a column, most of it on p. 330, with 2 final lines on p. 331.

Before I did the recent edits, the article here misread & misquoted the Maroun ar-Ras issue, and cited 2 different pages, 330 and 332, of the 2005 ed.:

• p. 330: tower and olive oil
• p. 332: town names and basalt bowl

1. I don't think the 2005 ed. extended the art. from less than one column to 3 pages, i.e. to a minimum of 3 full columns (2 columns per page), but A) I cannot be sure, and B) the 2001 ed. has nothing on a basalt bowl, so either there isn't any basalt bowl in 2005 either (ref mistake), or Gibson has greatly expanded the text in 2005.
2. However, it makes no sense that the 2005 ed. deals with a particular finding and the Talmud mention (tower and olive oil, "p. 330") 2 pages before discussing the name & identification (Meiron, Meroth, Marun ar-Ras option; "p. 332"). In 2001 name, identification, and Talmud mention of oil are all in the first paragraph, and that's also the (logical) pattern throughout the book; it's highly unlikely that Gibson changed that in 2005.

My guess is that the 2005 ed. MAYBE has Meiron on p. 332, but more likely it stayed unchanged on p. 330, with a tiny "tail" with data not quoted anyway in our art. on p. 331, so "p. 332" is probably wrong altogether. And either there is new material vs. the 2001 ed. mentioning a basalt bowl, or that's misreferenced: either not concerning Meiron at all (bowl "borrowed" from Negev & Gibson, but not found at Meiron), or not from Negev & Gibson.

I did make my own editing mistake, didn't clean up to the end. But the refs, as they were before, and as they are now, don't make sense. If you do have the 2005 ed., you could help to sort out & fix the mistake, whichever it is. If not, I'll quote for everything ed. 2001 and p. 330, except for the basalt bowl, where I'll leave 2005 and add a "dubious" tag. Thank you. Arminden (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I checked again: the 2005, p. 332 relates to the entire Bronze Age issue (not just the bowl):

"Soundings conducted below the floors of houses excavated in the 1970s indicate the presence of even earlier structures with a different layout. While these lower levels have not yet been excavated, the possibility that they date back to the Early Bronze Age was not ruled out by the archaeologists. A handful of artifacts dating to the Early Bronze Age, including seal impressions and a basalt bowl, were also found during the digs."

So yes, either Gibson added it in 2005 (but NOT on p. 330, i.e. 2 pages before dealing with the name of the site, Meiron/Meroth), or it's from another book. So as of now, it's not even clear if this passage isn't misplaced here altogether.

I can't tell what the sentence "Soundings conducted below the floors of houses excavated in the 1970s" means: Were the soundings done during the 1970s excavations, or not and so possibly after 2001? Mystery.

I started searching for "Meiron" & "Bronze Age", and an article abot the thin Canaanite settlement in all of Galilee, published in 1988 (so if the alleged soundings are from the 70s, they should have been known to the author), states that there was no (!) sign of Bronze Age settlement at Meiron ("no archaeol. evidence for a Bronze Age site at that place", period) - Gal, Zvi. “The Late Bronze Age in Galilee: A Reassessment.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, no. 272, 1988, pp. 79–84 [see 82, bottom of left column]. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1356788. Accessed 12 Apr. 2024.

Fishier and Fishier. Arminden (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The whole Bronze Age section was introduced by Tiamut in 2009, when she created most of the article on a solid base, but probably mixed up the sources on this bit (here). Tiamut is hardly active on Wiki anymore. Who's the Sherlock Holmes who can figure out her source, or whatever went wrong here? I'm still not confident that this Bronze Age story does indeed belong here. Arminden (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I did find something. Just no bowl yet. Arminden (talk) 08:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

With due regret, as Tiamut's text is richer and easy to read, I removed it and replaced it with material from Haaretz, which can be more easily accessed and checked. I'm personalky convinced that the Negev ref was a copy-paste mistake, as we all make. Here is that material, in case it can be properly sourced and reused somehow (seal impressions?).

Soundings conducted below the floors of houses excavated in the 1970s indicate the presence of even earlier structures with a different layout. While these lower levels have not yet been excavated, the possibility that they date back to the Early Bronze Age was not ruled out by the archaeologists. A handful of artifacts dating to the Early Bronze Age, including seal impressions and a basalt bowl, were also found during the digs.<ref name= Negev2005>Negev and Gibson (2005), p. 332.</ref>

Arminden (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! I don't have access to that book. There were two issues that I wanted to fix. One was that you started using a reference named "Negev332", but never defined it. You'll note that there was a typo in the reference declaration you edited which caused that. (And some robot came by with a clumsy fix to add to the confusion.) Next, that you had tried to define "Negev332" to reference page 330 of the book. That's pretty confusing, since the page number embedded in the reference name didn't match the page number in the actual reference.

I'm fine with whatever fix you want to make regarding the paging of the actual book at whatever edition you want to reference. But it just needs to be referenced correctly--with the references here properly defined so that the article renders correctly. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Name: with or w/o an i?

Archaeologists call it MERON. I guess Meiron is the Ashkenazi pronunciation and it has strong traction as a mainly Hasidic pilgrimage site.

• Usually this is explained in the intro. Anyone?
• Why was this title chosen? The moshav shouldn't be the reason!

Arminden (talk) 10:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Total rewrite needed

Western.galilee, hi. You're onto something. I got confused, I admit. This whole article is a mess, it's supposed to be about the Pal. village, but it's not. Considering that we have a very important ancient town, AND a modern moshav by the same name & in the same place, I'm not even sure this article has a reason to be here; or if it does, it should be a short spin-off of the other, main one, with only the (hi)story of the Arab village. Khalidi plus some history :)

The majority-Arab village had its own identity and history. If it can be detached from the longue durée arch, then go for it. Or if the village had its built-up area, say, 100-200 m away from the older or/and newer site, that would add a spatial element of distinctiveness. Has it? Otherwise...

As it is now, it's purely repetitive and on the verge of deletion request. This is not palestineremembered.com, each project with its justified own purpose. Arminden (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

If there is enough of a reason for it, we can have 3 fully distinct articles, as well - ancient, Arab, and modern Me(i)ron. I'm not at all in favour of it, but for the sake of the discussion. In any case: these endless repetitions/overlaps are a no-go, completely non-encyclopedic, illogical and impractical.

I'm sure we'll get hung up on the title, once the one-article or one-main-article solution is agreed on. But there are precedents and Wiki rules for that. Arminden (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mk17b, I see now that you've brought it up already. Arminden (talk) 06:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this article is too much of a mess. It is only necessary to define the scope more firmly. Modern Meron has spread out more, especially to the north. But in essence the ancient, medieval, and modern locations were all the same. 100-200m means nothing, it's like counting a house but excluding its adjacent vegetable patch. The options are to cover all periods in one article or to cut it into two at 1948. It would make no sense to pull out the Arab period and artificially join the two ends together. Zero^talk 08:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Good point. It's kind of become wikipedia convention at this point that palestinian villages and later israeli townships get distinct articles and that each one gets its own share of history. It might be suboptimal, but i don't think there's a better solution right now.

For now, it'd say the article isn't a complete mess and your contributions definitely are of great value. I'll do some research into articles with similar dilemmas and get back to it Western.galilee (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Zero, hi WGal. Potahtoh-potaytow. I'm using harsh headings to attract attention, otherwise 3-6-10+ years can pass w/o any reaction at all.

Zero, we're saying the same thing. I propose one single article, all periods, and if "pro-Pal" editors wish so, a SHORT spin-off on Arab Miroun, covering only the relevant periods. That means: 80% of what's here now must go (to the main page); now for me, that's a major rewrite. The spatial difference thing was more of a matter of courtesy, and of covering all the bases.

Arguments in favour one article:

• The site is the same.
• The spring and the ancient tombs are the focus.
  • The spring fed the town/village.
  • The Shimon Bar Yochai tomb has been the main attraction for Jews for 9 centuries. Not sure if the other traditions aren't even older. Must check, also wider context (see nearby Khirbet Shema).
• The name only varied very moderately.
• Almost continuous habitation since the Bronze Age, several changes in population notwithstanding.

More than enough.

I guess the main issue will be: under what overall title? I won't agree to Miroun & variants, since this wouldn't adress the modern and ancient names. Meron might be the more neutral one, but it's not about being neutral. I think Wiki style prescribes going by the current name. If so: is Meiron official? I don't know, officially the Ashkenazi ei for i is usually avoided. Must look for RS. If all strands agree on Meron, it's clear to go and someone will need to do the work; maybe me, but it depends on real-world work.

Thanks, Arminden (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Wrong name for Arab village

This is one reason why I got confused at first.

The name of the Arab village was Mirun, also spelled Myrun, Myroun (see at PalestineRemembered.com etc.). The pronunciation with an -ei is more often than not Yiddish-inspired; Arabic does have its eis/ays and 'ais/'ays too, see 'ein for spring, but here it doesn't seem to be the case. So "Meiron" must go anyway if this page is about the Arab village. Arminden (talk) 12:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The usual spelling during the mandate period was Meirun, with or without various accents. Zero^talk 08:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I see the Mandate-period map at Pal. Remembered has Meirun and Kh. Meirun at its NW edge.

"Wrong name for Arab village" remains correct. Meiron sounds Yiddish, Meirun (-oun, with long vowel), Arabic. Hunch was correct if not fully on the mark, and you pointed toward the correct form.

The article (or section in a unified art.) concerning the Arab village should be renamed. The khirba was NW of the village, what was there? The tomb of RASHBY was SE of the village, and the site was a Jewish pilgrimage site for centuries, so Jewish names are legit and should be mentioned as such, but only as secondary ones. Arab village, Arab name, primarily. Arminden (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I see the SWP spelling is Meirôn. Strange. Who knows what they used ô for? Arminden (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

It indicates that the vowel is long. Zero^talk 06:18, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. 2 points there:

1. long vowel
2. probably that Arabic vowel not fully u and not fully o. PDF went for o, Mandate geographers for u - how much might the PEF have been ingluenced by biblical name? We'll never know.

Arminden (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I support using Meirun for the Arab village. Zero^talk 08:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd prefer that too, but given the long vowel issue I'd find Meiroun phonetically better. All American-influenced users, which are most likely a majority, will read Meirun like some Texan Mayren. But they might not know what to do with the French ou either, true. Meiroon would be almost perfect phonetically, but it has no precedent, 'cause Brits used to learn French in school (and still do, I believe). Dilemma, unless we choose to set the article to "use British English". Arminden (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Meiroun has few precedents outside French sources while Meirun is common. In other words, Meirun is what the rules prescribe. Zero^talk 07:00, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. I pointed out the problem here, among us. Arminden (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion 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.

---

I propose merging Meron, Israel into Meiron. The articles are about the same location, have the same content, and the article names are practically identical. Moreover, the modern town article lists both 'Meron or Meiron' as options, and the Hebrew מֵירוֹן transliterates better to 'Meiron'. There is zero benefit to having separate articles. I realize that @Western.galilee: believes that there is value and an unwritten wikipedia standard of having different articles for depopulated Palestinian villages - I disagree that there is value here. @Mk17b and Arminden: seem to be in favour of merging, @Zero0000: proposed merging or surgically splitting. Please let us come to a conclusion. TimeEngineer (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

AGAINST, and strongly so.

Merging all into one Meron/Meiron, yes. But not with the former (!) Arab village, which only covers the middle of the historical evolution, as the MAIN bit into which the rest is merged. No way. Pls. read what I have written above, incl. the problem of finding a common name for all periods. We don't need to repeat things, there's enough efgort in discussing the problems and agreeing on solutions.

Also: merging ain't a matter of copy and paste, of mechanical collage. It needs thorough reworking, avoiding overlaps/repetitions and major cases of one section contradicting the next. Should go w/o saying, but experience teaches otherwise. Who's ready to do it? Now I can't, sorry.

The Arab village as a spin-off for those supporting the "Palestinian cause" on Wiki might be unavoidable, even if we do get to have a main, common article. I hope it can be avoided, as neither history nor encyclopedias work like that (nor does efficient activism, but that's irrelevant), but let's see. Arminden (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Arminden: I'm only saying merge into this article because the name is more consistent. The overall article should put just as much weight on the modern village as Meron, Israel does, while still being one article. I'm happy to do the rewrite. TimeEngineer (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Great, sorry if I got carried away.

Personally, I'm more interested in the archaeology and history. The Arab village had its day, the modern moshav isn't all that thrilling either, but the way the place evolved, changed population, shifted worship from Joshua to Simeon bar Yochai, was a place of worship for a whole bunch of ethno-religious minorities which, however, didn't inhabit it (only Jews at some point joined the Muslims; not clear from the article when and how), that I do find fascinating. Arminden (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I find your comments wholly unacceptable. Reporting on an Arab village that existed for centuries is not activism, it is plain truth telling. Zero^talk 23:43, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Zero0000 Can you comment on the merge proposal? TimeEngineer (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I cannot possibly have been so careless in my wording as to be reduced to "reporting on an Arab village that existed for centuries = activism". I profit from learning about them and so do many people. Obsessing and focusing to the point where one link in a historical chain gets more attention than the whole, that is activism. And it can be of any old nationalistic or messianic shade. We've also had discussions about places where there's little more than an "Arab el..." name on a colonial map, with no knowledge about a settlement existing there, but still getting an article where it's called a 'village': that's also activism. Here there's no such discussion.

Here a due section - or several, if the material dictates it - should be dedicated to the very real Arab village, no doubt. But we both know that there will be, yes, activists, who won't like seeing it sandwiched between an ancient (Canaanite, Israelite, Jewish, maybe then Christian) phase and a mixed Arab-Jewish and finally, after depopulation, Zionist-Israeli one. On a human level, easy to understand; for an encyclopedia serving wider understanding, not at all. There might be a future Lebanese Shia future for the site, or none whatsoever - if there'll still be someone around interested in adding a section presenting that evolution, that's exactly what they should do.

C'mon. Arminden (talk) 11:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I am in some doubt about a merger, in my experience such mergers tend to remove the Arab Palestinian history. (I can give examples, if needed). What is clearly needed, is a clean-up of these two articles; now they re-iterate some of the same material (even the same pictures!) in both articles. Iow: remove some of the Jewish history from this article, and remove some of the Arab Palestinian history from the Meron, Israel-article, Huldra (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

What did I say? Arminden (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

It's the same place. The Arab & Jewish history even overlapped for a few centuries. And there were all kind of Arabs belonging to fringe religions & sects who worshipped there in a cave their version of Joshua before the Jews came back, and they saw miracles happen with nice regularity each year - Yazidis and so forth. Not the entire Arab history in the region belongs to the narrow concept of "Palestinians".

Back to what I predicted & suggested:

• one main article, from prehistory till today
• a spin-off for whoever can't live with only that.

It's the same spring that held it together throughout. Agriculture, religion, all. One site, one name, one spring. Many conquests, massacres, earthquakes. And the difference between an encyclopaedia and palestineremembered.com, chabad.co.il or secondcoming.amen. Seriously. Arminden (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

It isn't that I haven't read what you have written, I am just not convinced by your argument. And repeating them will not make them more valid, sorry, Huldra (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

OK, your turn to offer arguments. Arminden (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

• Against One article is about the ancient village Meiron, its ancient history, excavations, Arab and Jewish presence before the establishment of Israel; and the second article, is about the modern moshav and its history. Perhaps some of the ancient history should be trimmed on the Meron page, but since both articles seem to be quite robust, there seems to be no reason to merge them.DaringDonna (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2025 (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.

Different sites need to be identified & treated separately

The Mandate-period map at Pal. Remembered has Meirun village, the tomb of RASHBY SE of it, and Kh. Meirun at its NW edge.

Re. Kh. Meirun: maybe the cave of Joshua with the miraculous basins is there? If not, where is it, and what's at the khirba? We must figure it out and differentiate between sites:

• village,
• cave with basins,
• tomb,
• spring.

Arminden (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2025 (UTC)