Talk:Al-Majdal, Tiberias

Clarification on Aramaic versus Hebrew

There are many similarities between Hebrew & Aramaic, and many Talmudic phrases in Aramaic are used as idioms in modern Hebrew. Having said that, Nunaya is the plural for fish (nun) in Aramaic. In Hebrew it would be "dagim." Tzabaya is the Aramaic plural for dyers. It Hebrew it would be tsabai'im. Migdal is Hebrew for "tower." --Gilabrand (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gaba

The link Gaba used near the end of the article goes nowhere useful. Zerotalk 01:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hajar al-namla,

I just wondered; could the "hajar al-namla" that Khalidi writes about (and notice that it figures on the 1880-map!) ...could it be the same as the old lighthouse, seen in 1991? --Just a speculation.... Huldra (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing after reading it. I'm quite sure it is; however, for us to say so would be OR. Let's let the readers make their own connections. Cool too that the lighthouse base (for which the place is named) was found (even if only momentarily), no? Tiamuttalk 09:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oh, I had no plan of adding it, as you say; just plain speculations. (Would have been nice with a picture, though;)) I find it facinating that old local myths often have a base in something very specific, -which might have become completely twisted over the ages. Btw, www.biblewalks.com/sites/magdala.html has some nice pictures (from the air), but it is spam-blocked. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Old myths and legends are my favourite too. I was really not made for this time. Would have been much much happier in an age when people co-existed with gnomes, fairies and elves. I admit that I still look for traces of them in the forests, but I think they are long gone now. Capitalism either killed them all or scared them away. Imagine if they did stick around, they would probably end up being enslaved and marketed as house helpers and babysitters for our kids. But I digress ... very far ... ;) Tiamuttalk 11:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, well, I saw the last Harry Potter-movie last week-end, and in "preparation" I (partially!) rewatched some of the earlier ones; I know *all* about house -elves ;)
-Slightly more "seriously", an example: in older days, when there was a ship-wreck along the coast here in the winter-time (and there were many, many)--if dead sailors drifted ashore, often the locals often had to bury them where they were found: bad storms (which were when the ships were wrecked-) meant that they would get killed if they tried to get them to the nearest church-yard. For the locals, this was a terrible, unholy necessity.
-Now, when they started collecting local myths around here, in the 19th and early 20th century: they reported several placed along the coast that were "haunted", filled with ghosts --according to locals. It has turned out, more than once, that this is exactly where there was a big ship-wreck --and perhaps 10-20-100 people were buried there 3-4-500 years back. Long forgotten dead ship-wrecked have been transformed into "ghosts". There are divers who search out such "haunted" shores, and goes diving just outside ...... -With ghostly greetings, Huldra (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About house elves, you have them too? :)
Amazing story about the shipwreck. I've been reading about presentiment and other energy based sensing faculties that we to have and until recently, the scientific community was in denial of. It only makes sense that the community would be attuned to the energies left by that disaster: time isn't linear (I think its all present, all the time) and energy as matter is something very palpable. Anyway, thanks for sharing. Its too bad we have such strict sourcing requirements at Wiki and we can't have pages that can reflect some of this content. Maybe a folk Wiki is called for? Tiamuttalk 13:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Changing name of article to Magdala

The village in quesiton is documented as existing for most of the last two thousand years, it was Jewish, then Christian then Muslim. As a Muslim village, it was known as Al-Majdal, but it was a small and non-notable place. It ceased to be inhabited in 1948. As Magdala it is a famous place, the destination of Christian pilgrims for many centuries. Therefore, the article ought to be named Magdala.WmTyndale (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page Magdala already exists and discusses the dispute over the biblical site's location. This page discusses the modern Muslim village, and its antecedents as recorded in reliable sources. I don't see how changing this page's name is appropriate. Tiamuttalk 19:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The page Magdala is a disambiguation page. This page is about the history of a village that has existed for a very long time, and as is usual on Wikipedia, discusses the history of the village going back to ancient times.WmTyndale (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact this village, as a Muslim settlement, has existed only since the 1830s when it was planted with Egyptian fellahin from the Nile Delta. See Jane Schaberg, The Resurrection of Mary Magdalene, page 50. Therefore this village has next to no Muslim or Arab history worthy of mention. (talk) 00:12 13 November 2013 (UTC)

In fact, that is demonstrably false. There are multiple descriptions of the Muslim village earlier than the 1830s already in the article, starting at 1807 and I will shortly add more back to 1799. Also, the source you give does not say what you claim. It says "This village had been settled in the nineteenth century by several Egyptian fellahin"; nothing about the 1830s and nothing about the Nile Delta. Given that the village was described repeatedly from one end of the 19th century to the other by multiple sources (none that I know of mentioning Egyptians and I have looked at at least 30), it is hard to know what can be made of a vague statement like "in the nineteenth century". Nevertheless, this claim is mentioned in the History section of the article. Using it as a summary at the start is simply preposterous. Zerotalk 11:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
19th century researchers (like Robinson, SWP) would mostly note it if some of the inhabitants came from other places ..even if the place had been continuously inhabited (see eg Alma, Palestine ). Also: those of Egyptian origin who did settle in Palestine (after the 1834 Arab revolt in Palestine) that I know of, come along the Med. coast. I would to know the original source of the above statements about Egyptian fellahin in Al-Majdal? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. This seems to be much more than a move request, and there is no consensus to move anyway. Lynch7 14:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The village in quesiton is documented as existing for most of the last two thousand years, it was Jewish, then Christian then Muslim. As a Muslim village, it was known as Al-Majdal, it ceased to be inhabited in 1948. As Magdala it is a famous place, the destination of Christian pilgrims for many centuries. Therefore, the article ought to be named Magdala.

My original page move was to Magdala (village), my error in this request. Please consider moving to [[Magdala (village)WmTyndale (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The village in quesiton is documented as existing for most of the last two thousand years, it was Jewish, then Christian then Muslim. As a Muslim village, it was known as Al-Majdal, it ceased to be inhabited in 1948. As Magdala it is a famous place, the destination of Christian pilgrims for many centuries. Therefore, the article ought to be named Magdala.} --WmTyndale (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose It was most recently a Palestinian Arab village and sources are not sure that this village was the same as the ancient Magdala. The already existing page of Magdala deals with the issue and should be the focus of discourse regarding its Biblical or Talmudic history. There are dozens of examples of separate articles on Biblical sites and contemporary sites that share the same relative location and this case should be no different. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a contemporary site. Your argument would apply to a village like Battir, which goes by the contemporary name because it is inhabited.WmTyndale (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose as very badly presented move request. Firstly, al Majdal is actually a redirect to Majdal which is a disambiguation page. The page which it is presumably proposed to move is Majdal, Tiberias, however we already have an article Magdala, merging them is not ruled out in principle but is a somewhat separate issue. PatGallacher (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Magdala (village) or something of the sort. Magdala is a very old village, and a notable one for Christians. The Ottoman village stood on top of the old village that was Christian. The article needs work, but it makes sense to have one article for one physical place (now uninhabited) and to call it by the name by which the place is world-famous.WmTyndale (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whatever its merits, that is a merge request, not a move request. PatGallacher (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Majdal,_Tiberias&oldid=1207779344"