Jump to content

Talk:Galilee

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Disputed neutrality

[edit]

If you're going to dispute the neutrality of an article, surely you should also put something in the Talk page about what you think is not NPOV, right?

Fair point. My objection is to the history section, on several counts:

  • its astonishing failure to mention or even allude to its 1400 years of Islamic history.
  • the demographically absurd ordering of the populations (when even now Jews remain a minority in most of Galilee) in:
During the 20th century, the Galilee was inhabited by Haredi Jews ("Ke'ilot Kodesh", mainly in Safed), Zionist settlers, Arabs, Druzes and other minorities such Cherksians.
  • the extraordinarily POV description of Israel's brutal war against Lebanon.

- Mustafaa 21:46, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Where is the source for this seemingly dubious statement? It is called Galil by Jews. It's easy to disprove, but is it really trying to say that most Hebrew speaking Jews pronounce it Galil? Or is this how hagalil is pronounced? -Wikibob | Talk 13:56, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

Good point. - Mustafaa 23:32, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We pronounce it "Galil". you may have heared "haGalil" because "ha" is like "the" in English (meaning hagalil = the Galil).

Galil in Hebrew means "center"

[edit]

When you say Galil you mean "the center" and not "circuit". It is the name of the area from the time of Moses. Also - "the brutal war against lebanon....."... please spare us the ugly politics and munipulations. This war was due to a never ending bombings from Lebanon toward the Galilee. We here in the Galilee live a very modest and quite life - arabs and jews have very good relationships. Try to avoid to ruin that. -- 18:30, 16 December 2005‎ 85.65.126.159

Galil in Hebrew means a lot of things...

[edit]

Excuse me for intruding... I will not argue about your preference for the meaning 'center', but in my Biblical Hebrew lexicon (Brown, Driver & Briggs) the word can mean 'turning', 'folding', 'revolving', 'cylinder', 'rod', 'circuit', or - possibly the most relevant here historically - 'district'. Isaiah 8:23 refers to this region as גְּלִיל - הַגּוׁיִם Galîl Haggoyim 'the District of the Nations' because in Isaiah's time (as in various others) a mixture of nationalities were known to live there. DThrax 04:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

Can we please have a map for this article? Badagnani 22:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the home made map: (Map of galilee en.png) as it shows Golan within Israels borders. It also doesn't have a source.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Galilee in 2000-2006

[edit]

I've just expanded the article with some corrections plus new (current) material, based on being a resident of the Western Galilee since 1984 and having experienced the current warfare firsthand (as a civilian) during the second half of July and from interim locations south of the Galilee since then. My material comes from reportage in the broadcast and electronic media and is as NPOV as I could manage. I've written this notation here on the article's Talk page in lieu of being able to provide citations. -- Deborahjay 18:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galilea = Land of "goys"?

[edit]

In Isaiah (8:23), the region is referred to as "the District of the Nations" (גְּלִיל - הַגּוׁיִם; lit:G’lîl Haggôyim) I do not speak Hebrew, but is G’lîl Haggôyim could be translated also to land of goy's = land of non-Jewish. In this case Galilea most be seen as land of not-Jewish? I am just curious. Abdulka (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is how the Gospel of Matthew (4:15) interprets it: quoting Isaiah presumably from the Septuagint, the evangelist refers to (roughly transliterating the Greek) "Galilaia ton ethnon", which is usually rendered in English "Galilee of the Gentiles" - "ethnon" could mean "nations" but in context usually does mean "gentiles". seglea (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Biblical Hebrew, goy simply means nation. In Genesis god promises Abraham "ve'a'asekha legoy gadol" meaning "I will turn you into a large nation". Goy in the meaning of non-Jew is much more modern. TFighterPilot (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a connection of Galilee with Galatians of Turkey, who were a Celtic tribe and it's common for Celts in parts of Europe to be called Galls like Gaul for France, Galicia (Gallego) in Portugal/Spain and Galicia in Poland. 12.218.47.124 (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Galatia was settled c. 279 BCE by Celtic tribes who were moving from the Balkans to Anatolia. Galilee as a place-name first appears in a text typically dated to the 8th century BCE. They are unlikely to be cognate terms. Dimadick (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why "The Galilee"?

[edit]

I'm curious - why does the article refer to "The Galilee"? English usage is normally just "Galilee". Is this a translation of the Hebrew form? And if so, why are we following that translation? We don't usually refer in English to "The France", for example, even though in most French sentences one would speak of "La France". Is the Hebrew form unusual in including a definite article, for example? I'm not arguing for one usage rather than the other, though I do note that in most national or regional where we used to add a definite article in English, e.g. "The Argentine", "The Ukraine" (or to take a more local example, "The Lebanon"), modern usage has dropped it. There are exceptions, though (for example, I think we'd usually talk of "The Vendée") - the question is why (the) Galilee should be such an exception? seglea (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since no-one has responded or objected, I have gone ahead and normalised the English. Please discuss here if you don't think that's appropriate. seglea (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All the examples you gave are of countries, not regions. You can't say "I live in Galilee" like you say "I live in France", it wouldn't sound right. TFighterPilot (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - I just finished watching a documentry where several different scholors referred to the area as "The Galilee" and I remembered your post. The documentry was "PBS Frontline - From Jesus To Christ - The First Christians". I had never heard it used that way either. Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2021

[edit]
Either it is proper English, or it's not. I'm not a native speaker and cannot tell. If the latter is true, maybe it's just another case of mistranslation from Hebrew: 'HaGalil' means lit. 'the Galilee', as it is common tho use the definite Hebrew article for province names. I came across it as "the Galilee" so often that I got used to it, so I'd be quite grateful to learn the correct answer to this questions. Would you please ping me if you have it? Thanks, Arminden (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a right and a wrong way here. By virtue of very frequent usage, both versions are right. Zerotalk 23:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I remember once coming across a piece (BBC World Service? Magazine article?) where the rule was explained as: if a country is named after a distinct natural feature like a mountain, a river, a lake and so forth, then it requires an article, probably as much as that feature does. River-related examples: the Congo, the Gambia (btw, I see now that that article has a good "etymology" section), the Niger. Named after mountains: the Lebanon. A different case are plural forms: the Netherlands, the Philippines, the Bahamas. Not PC anymore is the Ukraine, as ukraina means "borderland". Can't figure out Yemen and Sudan. Ah, here we are: a BBC article on this topic. So Sudan was perceived in English to be named after a desert.
For Galilee, I think it might just be the influence of Hebrew, but who knows, maybe the meaning of "district" and the biblical phrase "Galilee of the nations", where Galilee also sounds like a common noun. People who set the rules in English language, especially for terms best known from the Bible, were educated and aware of the original meaning.
So if Zero, as a native English speaker, says the articled form is frequently used and therefore legit, I'll take his word for it. That question is sorted. It still bugs me not knowing where it comes from, but that's my problem. Arminden (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Arminden: does this help: [1]? Onceinawhile (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also Smith, G.A. (1895). The Historical Geography of the Holy Land: Especially in Relation to the History of Israel and of the Early Church. Jeannie Willis Memorial Fund. A. C. Armstrong and Son. p. 415. and Buth, R.; Notley, R.S. (2014). The Language Environment of First Century Judaea: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels—Volume Two. Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series. Brill. p. 136, footnote 117. ISBN 978-90-04-26441-0.Onceinawhile (talk)
As one of Once's sources suggests, modern English usage with "the" might come from New Testament translations that do it like that. Whether relevant or not I'm not sure, but modern Israeli usage is also הגליל not just גליל. That is how the Hebrew wiki writes it, and a friend who is a professor at HUJI just confirmed to me that Israelis usually write it with an article like that. Incidentally, one way to survey modern scholarly usage is Encyclopaedia Judaica, since many people contributed. The main article "Galilee" does not use "the", but in other places there is a mixture of "the" and no "the". Zerotalk 07:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The usage seems like a mixed bag, with if anything a slight preference for no 'the'. It is certainly not a "The Gambia" type situation. Ngrams shows a low overall frequency of "the Galilee" as a set phrase relative to overall usage of the name [2] - to which you can compared the quite different "The Gambia" example [3]. "Galilee" hits and citations [4] also superficially outweigh "the Galilee"-specific hits and citations [5] 6:1 on scholar, led by the likes of the 1995 Galilee: History, politics, people, 2002 The myth of a Gentile Galilee and the 2022 Galilee and gospel - demonstrating persistent and unrepentant usage without the 'the' by various specialists over the decades. Iskandar323 (talk) 23:26, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing that Israeli historians will tend to use "the" because they are accustomed to it in Hebrew. Also, Galilee is not unique in this matter. There are also "the Negev", "the Shephelah" and others which take the article in Hebrew. Zerotalk 01:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023

[edit]

It seems that both forms, "Galilee" and "the Galilee" are valid descriptions. It may also be that one form is used (or preferred) in some contexts, and the other form used (or preferred) in other contexts. If so, may I suggest:

  • we try to identify these name-and-context preferences
  • encapsulate them in some text in the body of the article, possibly section "Etymology"
  • article lead mentions both names briefly

(Or is the choice at any time or place or context really just quasi-random?)

Feline Hymnic (talk) 10:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

needs a map

[edit]

This is a place, a location. There is no better way to introduce you to that place than by telling where it is. This article needs a map at the top. I see that fine but old map down the article, but it's age makes it unclear in terms of telling the reader where Galilee was. The BEST way would be a modern map with Galilee drawn in boldly, but use what you got.

Loved the article, by the way. I thought Galilee was a town! Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

insert a graphic?

[edit]

A while back I complained about the lack of a map at the very beginning of this article. It's a place, and the first question I have about a place is "where is it?".

I found a fairly good map later, but now I don't know how to paste it into the article. The map is the first figure on the web page...

http://www.bible-history.com/maps/galilee_north_palestine.html

and it says "freely distributed", so no one minds if it is used. The problem with the graphic is that it has no modern reference points except the Sea of Galilee, so someone looking to travel to modern Galilee would be confused, though an ancient historian would be tickled.

Would someone tell me how to paste a graphic in, or where the Wiki help info for graphics is located? I'm eventually going to find a really good graphic, and I want to know how to handle it. I tried to figure it out from the pics already specified, but no luck. Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 04:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A brief statement "Freely distributed" is not the same as a formal license that would allow re-use under terms acceptable to Wikipedia. The file would need to be uploaded to be used in an article here, but if it was not uploaded with a suitable specified license, it would be quickly deleted... AnonMoos (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Galilee: up to Litani River

[edit]

This is a historical fact (ancient, as well as medieval Crusader use) and has nothing to do with modern borders or any kind of irredentism, of which there is none in this case as far as I know. I miss the Litani River on the map, and maybe a distinction between historical regions and modern state borders (and all states in the region are, in their current borders, colonial-era creations). Arminden (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Druze

[edit]

Almost all of the Israeli Druze live in the Galilee. This is unlike other Arab groups, but somewhat like the Bedouins, and this is why they should be mentioned the demography section. Right now they are no where in the article! I haven't looked for details and numbers, but suppose it's best to have a sentence breakdown the Arab pop. Into groups clearly. trespassers william (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That proposal's fine. It's just the way it's written made it seem like the Druze are a majority group among the Galilee Arabs. We can have the breakdown and then a note about how the Druze live almost exclusively in the Galilee. The Arab Christian population is similar, although they also have a presence in places like Jaffa, Haifa, Ramla and Lod. --Al Ameer (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

You are violating my rights by copying my wiki remove it or I will. JohnnyDab31353 (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the copyright of else. JohnnyDab31353 (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Galilee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Galilee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 June 2019

[edit]

Please change "centered around" to "located around."

"Centered around" is improper grammar. "Centered" should be followed by "on" or "upon."

Since multiple villages cannot be located "on" or "upon" the Sea of Galilee, the correct phrase is "located around."

Sorry to be a grammar nazi, but my mother was an English teacher (among other things) and before I was even ten years old she drummed it into my head that "centered around" is wholly improper grammar.

Thank you.

Anarchistbookshop (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC) Anarchistbookshop (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Such a request is very unusual for an Anarchist. ;-) Tri@l 09:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 August 2019

[edit]

Please remove the vertical pipe and space add the end of the link to Category:Historical regions (currently the last line on the source page) so that the page is sorted correctly within that category. Thank you. Quesotiotyo (talk) 04:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Melmann 14:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2019

[edit]

There is a section in the article that does not have a proper grammatical structure. The following is the change needed for correction: In the section 'Cuisine': 1st paragraph, 5th sentence, Change "In the eastern part of the Galilee, freshwater fish as much as meat (especially the tilapia that lives in the Sea of Galilee, Jordan river, and other streams in the region), fish filled with thyme and grilled with rosemary to flavor, or stuffed with oregano leaves, then topped with parsley and served with lemon to squash." TO "In the eastern part of the Galilee, there is freshwater fish as much as meat (especially the tilapia that lives in the Sea of Galilee, Jordan river, and other streams in the region), including fish filled with thyme and grilled with rosemary to flavor, or stuffed with oregano leaves, then topped with parsley and served with lemon to squash." Goman1 (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Tri@l 15:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Definition varies historically

[edit]

We have to keep that in mind. Subregions also massively overlap and are poorly defined. Therefore, careful with unqualified use of wikilinks. Arminden (talk) 07:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scope (S Lebanon section)

[edit]

This article says "Historically, the part of Southern Lebanon south of the east-west section of the Litani River also belonged to the region of Galilee, but the present article mainly deals with the Israeli part of the region". That is wrong - it is not historically, it is the present as well. The scope of this article should include the whole region. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile, hi. Nice in principle, but try to start linking places like Tibnin/Toron and all the others to this article and see what happens. Arminden (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Arminden I had in mind something like:
Onceinawhile (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is already an article Southern Lebanon covering that region. Although you are correct that "Galilee" in the historical context extended into Lebanon, only a fraction of modern sources use the word in that way. Including those whose focus is the ancient period. I can't imagine that Upper Galilee (Lebanon) would beat Southern Lebanon in a contest based on COMMONNAME, and I'm sure it would be strongly opposed. Zerotalk 00:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Southern Lebanon and Northern Israel topography
Hi @Zero0000: our article Southern Lebanon describes the area south of Sidon / the Awali river. An article on Upper Galilee (Lebanon) would cover the highland areas south of Tyre / the Litani. In other words, the non-coastal region of the southern half of “Southern Lebanon”. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile, I still see a problem with getting support from the "Lebanese militias", plus there's an Israeli internal one: since most of the Galilee is in Israel, there's a widely used new term, "Galilee Panhandle" (the literal Hebrew is "Galilee Finger", but in English the Texan faction won the day), and it makes good sense to treat it as a separate entity. With the Lebanese section included, it stops being a "panhandle", which is OK for the more remote periods, but not for the 20th and 21st centuries, all the way back to the 1920's; since then the panhandle character has been decisive in every respect. If you navigate carefully, both issues can be overcome, but please do keep them in mind. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked for views at WT:LEBANON. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And also pinging @RomanDeckert, Elie plus, and Huldra: who have all worked on articles in the region. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some comments and reorganised the subregions using what I believe to know better now than last time, and what the Hebrew article seems to say when forced through the Google Translate crusher. Won't look for sources now. Maybe it helps, nevertheless. Arminden (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point raised by Oncenawhile, but agree that Lebanese Galilee does not have much currency in modern usage. Where does Jabal Amil fit in this equation? I have been meaning to work on that page for a long while now. It is more specific than Southern Lebanon, of which it forms its southern part, i.e. the Tyre, Tibnin, Nabatieh area. It might also be the common name, and a very old one, for the region, at least in Lebanon itself, and possibly in scholarship as well. —Al Ameer (talk) 07:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Boundaries in The Times, 25 October 1920
Belad Besharah in the 1858 van de Velde maps
That is a very good point. Also Belad Bechara. Maybe these are all basically synonyms? Libois, C. (2009). La Compagnie de Jésus Au Levant: La Province Du Proche-Orient : Notices Historiques. Collection Hommes et sociétés du Proche-Orient (in French). Dar el-Machreq. p. 261. ISBN 978-2-7214-5038-8. La région des "Bilad Bechara", "Les pays de l'Annonciation", ou aussi: "Jabal Amel", à savoir le nord de la Galilée et l'extrême sud du Liban… Onceinawhile (talk) 07:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile: Reading a lot of stuff, I find no support for "Upper Galilee (Lebanon)" at all, not even in ancient times. Avi-Yonah, The Holy Land from the Persian to the Arab Conquests studies the meaning of "Upper Galilee" as given by Josephus and others. Nearly all of it is within Mandatory Palestine (the region north of Safed not extending as far north as Metula). Only in 19th century works like Guérin do I find "Galilee" applied to the region you indicate and that is likely just a convenience just as Samaria and Judea were defined conveniently for dividing into books. Zerotalk 11:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added The Times article from 1920 on the right, which shows Galilee crossing the new border. And van der Velde's 1858 map showing Belad Bechara, which covers much of modern Israel's "Upper Galilee". Also here is an excerpt of a letter from Wlodimir Ledóchowski in 1925: "Le Belad Bechara est cette partie septentrionale de la Terre promise qui fut le partage des tribus d’Azer et de Nephtali, et prit ensuite la nom de Haute Galilée."[6]. Also the title of this book: de Vaumas, E. (1954). Le Liban: montagne libanaise, Bekaa, Anti-Liban, Hermon, Haute Galilée libanaise. Étude de géographie physique (in French). Firmin-Didot.
I am partly influenced by the association of Qana with New Testament Cana, which was in Galilee. Whether or not one chooses to believe that particular identification of Cana, it shows that some scholars consider it credible to place Qana in Galilee.
But mostly I am influenced by the lack of any natural border between Northern Israel and Southern Lebanon. Per the Paulet–Newcombe Agreement, the relevant border here was defined by: "the watershed between the Wadis Farah-Houroun and Kerkera, which will remain in the territory under the British mandate, and the Wadis El Doubleh, El Aioun and Es Zerka, which will remain in the territory under the French mandate" This was surely not a natural border of Galilee.
Onceinawhile (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Without doing any extended research: the Harper Collins Bible Dictionary has the N limit on the Litani River. Essential like always: what are the parameters in our definition? A Bible dictionary has its criteria, a modern road atlas or ministry-issued map two totally different sets of criteria. So "Upper Galilee in S Lebanon" is a mix, as "Upper Galilee" in this sense refers back to Josephus' terminology, while "Lebanon" is a strictly 20th+21st c. term (modern state, distinct from ancient "Mt Lebanon"). This whole topic concerns only historical definitions, which seem to refer to the time mainly dealt with by Josephus (Late Hellenistic and Roman periods), and again in the Crusader period (the Principality of Galilee at first included the area around Toron/Tibnin and more). How much of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament times it covers, this must be researched. The same goes for the New Testament. Late Ottoman districts are irrelevant IMO, as Western scholars continued using classical and medieval terms, while politicians started discussing the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, where other criteria applied.
Even for the crucial historical periods, the boundaries must be clarified a bit. The Litani has a 90-degree bend, and from all I know, only the E-W segment is relevant as a northern boundary, but this needs a source (Harper Collins for instance doesn't go into this). This today would concern the Nabatiyeh area, whether it's in or out in "biblical" terms. Then judging by the NT, at that time at least the coast was not counted as part of Galilee - or maybe that was only based on political considerations, because Jesus fled from Herod Antipas, whose realm did include most of Galilee, but certainly not the coast around Tyre? So the historical context always matters, not to even touch on geological and geographical (hydrological etc.) criteria, where again other criteria apply. Mixing up eras and fields of study makes it all wrong and useless.
That said, Southern Lebanon has no bearing at all in this discussion. 1) It's a modern administrative term. Apples and oranges. 2) It covers at least twice the area we're talking about, as a bit more than half is situated N of the Litani. This even w/o going into the section between the N-S stretch of the Litani and the border with Israel. Plus the coastal strip, which I doubt was ever counted as "Galilee" even in the widest sense (Phoenicians, Hiram, all that). In concrete terms, of the main Southern Lebanon towns, Marjayoun is east of the N-S stretch of the Litani, so probably out; Sidon, Jezzine and Nabatiyeh are N of the Litani, so clearly out; Tyre is indeed S of the Litani, but a coastal city and probably out; leaves us with only minor sites whose glory lay in the past, i.e. Bint Jbeil and Tibnin, clearly in.
Sum-up: the "historical Galilee" that included parts of today's southern Lebanon must be defined and researched; we're probably talking OT, NT, and Crusader period, from an Israelite (?), Jewish, then Christian perspective, which was only very seldom reflected in a political-administrative reality on the ground. Arminden (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Paulet–Newcombe Agreement Sheet I

Adding here the detail of the border (image on right), from the actual map detailing the basis on which the border was defined. Suffice to say, there is no meaningful "natural border" here. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is having a natural border an important consideration? Only a fraction of borders are defined by natural features. Given that "Galilee" is a Hebrew name, it is more likely to relate to regions of Jewish settlement and control. One common definition is that it means the northern part of Eretz Israel. I have to go back to my original judgement that "Upper Galilee (Lebanon)" is not an acceptable article name because it fails COMMONNAME. Zerotalk 23:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A natural border would suggest a chance that historical Galilee could have ended at that point. Since there is no natural border there, we can be certain that defining Galilee as stopping at the northern border of modern Israel would be inconsistent with standard historical usage. Whilst only a fraction of modern political borders are defined by natural features, historically almost all "regions" were defined on the basis of natural borders).
Is there any evidence to confirm Galilee as a Hebrew name? I must say I had assumed it was a Canaanite name.
In my structure above I would be OK with "Upper Galilee" being an alternative bold name for a more common term. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The word "Galilee" is biblical and usually stated as derived from Hebrew. As with all ancient names it is hard to be definitive, but do we know of a very early use that isn't Jewish? I don't think using the current artificial northern border of Israel as a historical northern border of "Galilee" is correct, even though it is used as a boundary of convenience by modern scholarship (overwhelmingly, by my unsystematic search). I don't think there is a consistent historical northern border at all, just different perceptions at different times. This article should mention the variations. If Israel's border is irrelevant to the borders of Galilee (which I agree with) why is it ok to use the borders of Israel to split this article into pieces? I don't get it. Zerotalk 03:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hachlili, Ancient Synagogues—Archaeology and Art: New Discoveries and Current Research, p617: Qazion (Kh. Keisun, 200/272) is 9km northest of Safed. Z. Ilan, in Ilan and Damati (a Hebrew source of 1987) "suggests that the name Qazion קציון in Hebrew means קצה = 'the end' as the site is located at the northern end of upper Galilee." So there is one scholar who doesn't even place the "Galilee panhandle" in Galilee. Incidentally that is Josephus' description too. Zerotalk 05:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two high quality articles here, from just before the modern border was created: Ernest William Gurney Masterman, The Biblical World 32, “Lower Galilee” (no. 3 (1908): 159–67) and “Upper Galilee” (no. 4 (1908): 234–41): It would appear in the earliest references to have been small region around Kedesh… The ideal physical boundaries of this region are well defined - few small provinces have naturally so secure a frontier; yet these never appear in the whole course of Jewish history to have coincided with the political limits. On the south this division of Palestine is naturally bounded by the Great Plain of Esdraelon, from the northern edge of which the hills of Nazareth rise with remarkable abruptness. To the west the Mediterranean and to the east the Jordan and two lakes are nature's bounds. On the north modern custom has come to limit Palestine proper - and therefore Galilee - by the extraordinary gorge of the Kasimbyeh or Litany River. This deep canon runs from east to west across the greater part of the mountain range, leaving but a narrow strip of high land between it and the Jordan Valley. The cliffs of this ravine rise in places almost sheer for over a thousand feet, and it is only at a few spots that it can be crossed.

I find most interesting the reference to Kedesh (historically identified as a tel next to the now depopulated village of Qadas) as being the original core of Galilee. Qadas of course was right on the border with what became Lebanon, and is part of the same sub-region which includes today's Lebanese Marjeyoun District.

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All but the "modern custom" part (i.e. of 1908-ish) agrees with what I wrote since Qadas is only 7km from Qazion. Also, "Palestine..and therefore Galilee" indicates that he uses Galilee as a name for the northern portion of Palestine and not with an independent meaning. Zerotalk 11:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same source: "The central point of Upper Galilee is Jebal Jermak", which is incidentally 7km south of the border. Zerotalk 12:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Judaization of the Galilee

[edit]

So... where is this in this article? 2001:1C02:1910:D500:355E:61C:23C1:237E (talk) 11:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

[edit]

Most of what we have is from an edit by an anonymous contributor made on 21 February 2011. There were several changes made since then, all of them unsourced, which I felt free to remove. The problem is, the source is not available on Google Books, and the 2011 contributor is anonymous, so we need to take him by his word w/o knowing who he is. The style is very elaborate and academic, which might mean one of two things - that he is an excellent editor, or that he copied from the book. I guess it's an experienced editor who forgot to log in, but there's no way to know for sure. The source author is Adrian Room (1933-2010), who had a radically different opinion to Easton's, which is almost a century older. Room explains 'Ginosar' as a strictly Hebrew combined name made up from two parts, valley + either 'branch' or 'to guard', while Easton's sees both 'Ginosar' and 'Gennesareth' as just a couple of Graecised versions of 'Kinneret', i.e. with no proper meaning as such. I have no idea if more recent scholarship has reached any consensual conclusion. Arminden (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why this article has a section on the various names of the lake. There is a separate article on the lake. This article should cover the etymology of "Galilee" only and I'm inclined to remove the rest. As for the etymology of "Galilee", we can add variations from modern scholarship if they exist. I propose to start with Encyclopedia Judaica, which says "The name Galilee is derived from the Hebrew galil which comes from the root גלל ('to roll'), and thus means a circle." (Vol 7, p.345). Zerotalk 00:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
​Sure, go ahead. Just please make sure the material is recycled and used for both Kinneret (archaeological site) and Sea of Galilee. I had enough work separating the existing etymology section here into "Galilee" and "Sea of Galilee". W/o these new headings you probably wouldn't have noticed the mess, as nobody has for a full 10 years, me included. I've spent all the time I didn't actually have to clean up and attribute the initial material, which is sourced to a reliable author, from lots of unsourced modifications dropped in during this time. So please, don't leave it unused. It probably is more accurate than Easton's, which is now cited there. Arminden (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean to throw out the material sourced from Adrian Room's Placenames of the World, I wouldn't be happy about that. It looks like a very good source. In the recent past I have brought up the issue with books not accessible on Google Books and I had the impression that you or others didn't have a problem with citing them. The editor who brought in the material has no account, but the few edits credited to him all look very precise, even pedantic. In 2011 he did indicate a Google Books address (this), which doesn't lead anywhere now, but is proof that he did access the text. Arminden (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look at Adrian Room's publication list: [7] It just isn't possible for someone to personally be an expert on all those subjects. The only plausible possibility is that he has just collected material from multiple other places. I judge this as a tertiary source of doubtful reliability. Zerotalk 09:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I did. And then I looked at the etymologies he offered, which seem very sound. Easton's Bible Dictionary, Revised or not, is from the 1890s and I see little reason to prefer it over Room, who wasn't some journalist copying mindlessly, but an accomplished linguist (Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society & Cambridge modern languages professor), who understood very well how languages and specifically place-names work. Explaining a toponym from its apparent components rather than seeing it as a jumble of thoroughly modified sounds (Hebrew to Hellenistic Greek) is very legitimate. I am sure Easton had no proof for his theory, so it's probably the best guess of 1890 vs the best guess of 1980, some 90 years of study apart. Room is at least as quotable. I've looked up the publisher as well, hoping I can ignore it all, but no such luck, it's a very solid company. I'm saying this after buying the old version for many years, so now I need to rethink, it's the opposite of a "comfort zone" reaction. Anyway, what I wrote was "I have no idea if more recent scholarship has reached any consensual conclusion", and that's what we need. Another few recent sources. I expect at least some to say the same as Room. Arminden (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I checked the credentials of Room and agree he can be cited. Zerotalk 04:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks too. I did try to find quotable sources, but couldn't find any. Archaeologists and historians, who normally write articles for encyclopedias, dictionaries and atlases, only offer the chronological sequence of names and stay out of their etymology, or just throw in some vague remarks (A derived from B), without any real analysis. It's the specialty of linguists, and I don't know where to look for those; general Google searches aren't enough. Arminden (talk) 10:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just about one maybe irrelevant detail: I have removed the mention of Nazareth. The initial 2011 edit offered the reasonable remark that Gennesareth might be derived from ge, valley, and natsor ('to guard', 'to watch'), natsor being probably also the origin of the toponym Nazareth. Somebody transformed that to a totally made-up claim, unsourced of course, that the very name Gennesareth "may have been a reference to Nazareth". Gennesareth is a far older name than Nazareth, and no matter how much Christian archaeologists tried to date the scarce remains of that hamlet to the time of Jesus, there isn't any proof it existed before the second part of the 1st century. Kinneret/Gennesareth stopped being a city in the Iron Age, when it was quite a significant one, so its name being a reference to a hamlet that didn't yet exist, and only became important due to its connection to Jesus, not for any other intrinsic reason (trade hub, economic or strategic notability... anything) is silly at best. Given that the topic here is "Galilee", I removed the reference altogether. Arminden (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Arminden: For an antidote to your incorrect belief, I suggest Yardenna Alexandre's excavation report in 'Atiqot 98, 2020. For a more entertaining edition, her podcast on the subject is worth a listen. What is true is that the name "Nazareth" is not known to have been mentioned before the Christian scriptures, which is different from the village not existing. Zerotalk 11:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally the article Nazareth was once badly mauled by an amateur historian-cum-conspiracy theorist called René Salm and I'm not sure it has been properly restored. Archive 3 of the talk page has a long list of problems. Zerotalk 12:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
​ Zero, plenty of thanks for the article. I simply wasn't up to date with the archaeology there. I know very well the old "1st century house" from the Convent of the Sisters of Nazareth and I was aware of the 2009 press releases, but without reading Alexandre's actual article I was left with the impression that her discovery, which was indeed the first and only recognised residential house from the time discovered until 2009 (and I believe until this day), was too little to prove a village. One house makes a village not. But she presents a much wider picture, and I know about Ken Dark's project, which reexamined the Sisters of Nazareth ruins and confirmed a "probable" 1st-century date, which isn't much of an argument in itself, but adds to the general picture. Bagatti and all those who preceded Alexandre could only prove the existence of agricultural installations, nothing convincing in regard to a village. So a very weak collection of hints all until Alexandre's dig. I had copied Ken Dark's report written after the 2009 campaign, but had't read it, like it happens with so many articles. So, very valuable information, thanks again.
I've checked now, and Salm's stuff has been removed. Nazareth is a prime interest site, fringe theories don't survive for long in such places. Arminden (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to Gennesareth, nothing changes. Nazareth is the name of the village established sometime around 150 BCE. There had been a habitation gap there since the Assyrian destruction of the late 8th century BCE, so over 550 years. Place-names do sometimes survive such hiatuses, but there is no mention of the name Nazareth before the 1st century CE, and Alexandre also notes that it's "not known whether Nazareth was the ancient name of the Iron Age village" (p. 78). This beside the fact that nothing changes re. my statement that Kinneret was a significant Iron Age city, whose name could never be interpreted as a reference to a hamlet that had no importance whatsoever at the time and only became widely known over half a millennium later due to its connection to Jesus. A small village in the Iron Age, too unimportant to be mentioned anywhere, and an off-the-map hamlet in Jesus' time. Don't take my word for it, take Apostle Nathanael's: "What good can come from Nazareth/Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?" (John 1:46). And Nathanael is called by John a native of Cana, so somebody living just a few miles away. Arminden (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herod Antipas the son of Augustus?

[edit]

The article states "After the death of Herod the Great that same year, the Roman emperor Augustus appointed his son Herod Antipas as tetrarch of Galilee," but is Herod Antipas the son of Augustus? NikolaihTELNikolaih/guestbook 21:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Herod Antipas was the son of Herod the Great. Some languages have different reflexive vs. non-reflexive pronoun forms which would make the reference clear... AnonMoos (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 January 2023

[edit]

It should be noted that Galilee is in occupied Palestine. 77.69.136.115 (talk) 08:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. That will definitely be a contentious change. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
77.69.136.115 -- It was on the Israeli side of the 1949-1967 armistice lines, and even in the 1947 UN partition plan, there was a Galilee "quadripoint", and the Jewish state would have gotten the east and west sectors, while the Arab state would have gotten the north and south sectors. Saying ALL of the Galilee is "occupied Palestine" basically means that you want to wipe Israel off the map, and has very little to do with actual history since 1947... AnonMoos (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AnonMoos: Hmm, AGF no? Maybe they just made a mistake. No real need to weigh in on an already answered extended confirmed edit request just to lay on the hyperbole/vitriol. It is possible to explain things and be polite. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was a definite need to supplement ScottishFinnishRadish's reply, which did not offer any explanation or facts as to why the requested edit was factually wrong (but just talked about general process). It's possible that 77.69.136.115 was ignorant, but it's difficult to believer that he was innocently ignorant, since he used a sloganeering propaganda phrase, one of whose purposes is to blur the distinctions between 1947 vs. 1949 vs. 1967. If 77.69.136.115 wanted everything to be discussed with exquisite decorum and Marquess of Queensberry tea-drinking with pinkie finger raised, then he should not have tried to get a sloganeering propaganda phrase added to the article (not in a quote, but in Wikipedia's own voice). I was just pointing out the implications, not trying to be rude... AnonMoos (talk) 06:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't assume they necessarily meant all of Galilee. I didn't have much time to check it when I saw it, but I noted that based on the 1967 borders the claim seemed bogus. Maybe, as you say, they were thinking 1947. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 February 2023

[edit]

By the end of the “borders and geography” section, change the phrase “Ramot Naftali mountains” to “Naftali Heights” as a more accurate translation to the local Israeli name of the region, and redirect the link in “[Ramot Naftali]” to the “Naftali Mountains” page (which is about the geographic region instead of the “Ramot Naftali” page, which is about a moshav there by the same name - “ramot” in Hebrew means heights or mountains). 2A0D:6FC2:61B0:7800:D961:A73F:A437:F2CD (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: "Mountains" is used in the article about the mountains, and this article is consistent with that. small jars tc 11:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 August 2023

[edit]

You are writing B.C.E. and C.E. Youleave Christ our Lord out of it when he's very much a part of it ALL. B.C. (Before CHRIST). A.D. After his death. You know, the one he died for ALL on tne cross. Please correct or I'll be looking to a Christian version of Wikipedia. You're suppose to give accurate info so just thought I'd pass the correct information on to you. 2600:1700:5EB1:1DE0:32C:71EF:1413:4429 (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Check out MOS:BCE for our guidelines - both Anno Domino and Common Era conventions are considered "correct" for Wikipedia. If you want to find a Christian Wikipedia, go for it. Cannolis (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2023

[edit]

In the third paragraph of the 'Roman Period' section we have the following line:

'After the death of Herod the Great that same year, the Roman emperor Augustus appointed his son Herod Antipas as tetrarch of Galilee, which remained a Roman client state.'

This reads as if Herod Antipas was Augustus' son. I suggest that the line be reworded as follows:

'After the death of Herod the Great that same year, his son Herod Antipas was appointed as tetrarch of Galilee by the Roman emperor Augustus. Galilee remained a Roman client State, and Antipas....' Buuvfohjiqdjv (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- Tri@l (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Galilee&oldid=1253408054"