Talk:Amalek/Archive 1

Archive 1

(random heading)

(inserted for readability Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC))

Amalekites were a tribe, predating Amalek the son of Eliphaz, who existed in the Roman province Arabia Petraea[1] as early as the time of Abraham (Gen. 14:7) This is why it's so hard to square real history with Bible history. There is no way to edit this. Where would you begin? In what way does a tribe predate its eponym? What does 'date' mean in such a context, anyway? What does the 'time' of Abraham mean? How about 'in the time of Theseus...' How about Abraham in the Roman province of Arabia Petraea? Could one suggest perhaps that the m-l-k of Amelek is the root for 'king' not 'valley'? that Amelek is Amelech, a 'king' ...but I don't even read Hebrew... The confidence of this Sunday School stuff is just daunting Wetman 09:41, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If you knew some Hebrew you'd understand that it is not really Amalek, but AmaleQ, spelled with a Q not a K, these are two very different phonemes in Hebrew, so if this did come from a root it would be m-l-q... which doesn't bring anything to mind at least for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.54.115 (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Bible history and real history are one. The bible is a book of tremendous historical signifigance, and is known for its striking accuracy. The time line is pretty clear, to me. Maybe the tribe of amalek was known by some other name, and later was given the name of amalek. Your conjectures would require alot of evidence before being included. Also, I'm very certain that your wrong about the definition of Amalek, its extremely well documented as "valley dweller" Jack 10:07, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If someone would document these perfect certainties about the significance of Amalech's name in the entry, that would be a start, for those of us who lack certainty. The Bible is actually a library, not a 'book,' and indeed of tremendous historical significance. To return to the entry: In Babylonian inscriptions they are called Sute, in Egyptian Sittiu, and the Amarna tablets refer to them as Khabbati, or "plunderers. (cribbed here at this entry, word for word from http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary ) Now, what connects the Sute, Sittiu, and Khabbati in inscriptions with these people? That would be helpful too. "However, modern scholarship does not accept as proven the identification of the Amalekites with any group known from extra-Biblical sources and the majority opinion is that they are mythological." I just found this sensible statement at http://www.tutorgig.com/encyclopedia What do you suppose it is based on? Nothing that would convert the ignorant, we can agree. It does seem curious that the "Khabbati" reference on Amarna tablets only appears at websites run by religionists, any not on websites run by specialists in the Amarna period of Egyptology. Why is that, one wonders? A link would help here too. Wetman 10:49, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I didn't like that sentance either actually. Now its gone, along w any references to any non-Amalek names for the Amalekites (unless you count "atheism" that is ;) Jack 11:10, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I removed this sentence: "This last is particularly popular within modern right-wing Zionist groups." It is factually incorrect, and even if there are some extremists who make the identification, it is certainly not popular. In fact, I have seen America called Amaleka more than I have seen Arabs identified as such. As for the Romans, they are identified with Edom (Esau) in Talmudic and post-Talmudic literature, though not specifically with Amalek.Danny 11:22, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Danny, I got the Amalek-Rome identification from the Jewish Encyclopedia [1]. --Zero 11:47, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got references out the wazoo these as well. Cripes, I came opon the concept of Amalek in reference to the palistinians. Anyways, I agree with rewording what you took out, but it needs to go back, in one form or another. Jack 12:24, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've heard of Amalekites being associated with Germans, too, thanks to the Holocaust. But of course that was probably mostly figurative. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Wetman's proposed additions

Yes, now we're getting to sound material. I'm adding what I've been working on while Danny was working here. Please, take whatever is good and correct, and work it into the entry. Then erase this.

I merged all of it, and added sections, etc... Lets hear what you think. Jack 03:08, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Re ". . . the commandment of killing out the nation of Amalek requires the Jewish people to peacefully request of them to accept . . ." I would like to suggest the word "peacefully" be deleted. 75.57.133.102 (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Danny's edits, thoughts

First of all, the etymologies suggested above are incorrect. It cannot come from either king or valley dweller: neither term shares the same root. In fact, Amalek is problematic in that it does not have a distinguishable three letter root, indicating that it is probably some loan word. I am not very happy with the Jewish Encyclopedia article either, in terms of the identification with Rome. I am pretty convinced that the one case it cited is metaphorical--I can cite several others that identify Rome with Edom (Esau). Danny 03:13, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree with your recent edits (other than the spelling correction of course!). I have always heard it translated as "dweller in the valley". And IMO you did a diservice to the portion about Arabs and nazis and so forth, reducing clarity and installing POV. Lets try to back things up with citations, and leave our own personal positions out of the article. BTW, if anybody would like to know what I really think, feel free to IM me, and you'll get a jackhammer of POV ;) Jack 03:30, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree. Hebrew and other related Semitic languages are based on roots. There are rules for how these roots can be manipulated into new words. Amalek is spelled עמלק while the word valley is עמק. While they are similar, the relationship you are suggesting would have to account for the insertion of the ל into the word. That just cannot be done, indicating that the word Amalek is not from the word עמק. As for the disservice and supposed POV insertion, I have spent a lot of time living with and studying the Israeli far right. The statement made it seem as if the far right identifies the Arabs/Palestinians as Amalek (or the Nazis, for that matter). Yes, in the sense that they are using the term as a metaphor. If it were anything else whatsoever, there would be distinct halachic ramifications. For example, if the Nazis (i.e., the Germans) were Amalek, it would be incumbent on them to kill them all. No exceptions would be made (see I Samuel 15). It would certainly be forbidden to enter into any kind of negotiations with them, purchase goods from them, speak to any of them, or even spare their pets. While the command to exterminate them would be lifted because of practical reasons, until the coming of the Messiah (see Maimonides, Laws of Kings, chap. 10), all contact with anyone or even anything German would have to be avoided. There is no one in Israel who says that. Furthermore, on the far right of Israeli politics there is, as yet, no one who calls for the extermination of the Arabs because they are Amalek. Kahane never said it (and I spoke with him several times when he was alive), Yisrael Ariel never said it (in fact, I have heard him say specifically that it is not a mitzvah to kill Arabs), nor did Michael Ben Horin (I have heard him state explicitly that Arabs are Ishmael. Dov Lior said the same thing many times. Baruch Marzel is a student of Kahane and Ariel and would not contradict them (he was also there in the room when Ariel said there is no mitzvah to kill Arabs). This accounts for the most extreme leadership of the far right in Israel (I have never heard Yehudah Etzion on the topic, but I can assume, based on his writings, that it would not be different). If they did identify Arabs with Amalek, they would not have been able to make the statement that a) Arabs should not be killed; or b) that Arabs are Ishmael. Sorry. Danny 03:54, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure as to the need for an apology. You might well be right about the actual meaning of Amalek, I'm no expert on hebrew. I do know that it is overwhelmingly interpreted as that however on the references I have viewed (I'll compile a few later on). As far as this israeli far right stuff, all I can say is what I know. I have a Jewish friend who is a far right extremist, who makes statements like "everytime an arab dies, a rose grows in his place" and so forth. Also, in conversations with the Rabbi's on askmoses.com I have been told that while the Jewish community at large disagrees with the use of Amalek to refer to any current racial group, and disagrees that the Palistinians are the remainder of the amalekites, some do indeed hold that view. The view that Hitler was amalek is much more commonly held, and even more so the view of it as symbolicalism for atheism. I actually find your comments and edits informative and a benificial part of the process, even if I do not agree with the changes being the final result. Thank you, Jack 05:57, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that mentioning the Israeli govt. or Israeli politics is useful at all in this article in regards to use of the term Amalek. I don't know of them doing it, and the reference I made was based primarilly on an american friend of mine who was quite extreme in his views and actions (he told me of fistfights with neonazi's he had confronted) as well as various websites I have read [2] [3] [4](just google "amalek" and read a few). Jack 06:58, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am not going to get into an edit war over this, however, I would like to see some of the etymological sources of this interpretation of Amalek. Based on the comments above, it is clearly not Semitic (and I am somewhat of an expert on Hebrew). I did look up some Akkadian roots and came up with emugu, meaning power or army, and malku meaning prince. While these meanings would seem a lot closer, emugu also does not account for the medial lamed (l) and malku does not account for the initial ayin (a guttural consonant), so I am very suspect, but I am no expert on Akkadian. As for "valley dwellers," exactly which valley. i checked a popular source, Reader's Digest Almanac of the Bible (1991, ed. Geoffrey Wigoder), which says "An ancient nomadic tribe that roamed the northern Sinai desert and the Negeb." Not a great source, but there was considerable research put into that article (I know, because I was the one who wrote it). That is not an area known for its valleys--in fact, it is rather flat. As for those sites you bring, it is important to understand how rhetoric plays in halachic speech. I'll start with the Baal Shem Tov because that is easiest. While he could certainly have made the statement, it could not be used to override the halachic position of Maimonides as stated in Laws of Kings. It is not a denial of the commandment to eradicate the people of Amalek, but rather a recognition that in these days it is impossible, so here is something folksy and cute that people can do instead (a tad cynical, admittedly, but essentially that is what it is). Similarly, since there are no more sacrifices, he would also say that the table at which three or more Jews eat is like an altar, and the meal at which words of Torah are spoken is like a sacrifice. Very sweet, but it does not override the rules of sacrifice, which are inactive because the format with which to offer sacrifice does not exist. As for your friend, sure, he made some crazy statements. I've heard plenty. But the "rose" bit does not lead to identification with Amalek. I am convinced that when pressed on the issues from a halachic perspective (the determining factor in far-right Judaism), these people you quote would admit that these identifications are not Amalek. For example, if a Palestinian willingly leaves the land of Israel and recognizes Jewish sovereignty there, would it still be necessary to kill him and his entire family? Would you have to kill a three-year-old whose great-grandfather was a Nazi? If they were halachically Amalek then yes. I wonder whether they would say that. I know of no halachic source that would. In other words, their statements reflect the hyperbole of Jewish speech within certain communities and little more. One last, interesting source is Kook's small work, Mussar Avicha, in which he claims that the eradication of Amalek must be done out of love. If you hate Amalek, you cannot kill them, because killing them is a correction for their soul. Obviously, a very bizarre piece, and one that is little known at that, but Kook is regarded as authoritative by the far right. Try quoting it with your friend. Well, gotta run to work. I am meeting with the former Chief Rabbi of Israel today. I can try and ask him. Danny 12:50, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Fascinating. I was clearly right to compliment your involvement in this article. To be honest the primary reason why I edit at the wikipedia is to learn from the process. This is not going to be an easy edit tho, because the points you bring up are subtle, and providing the distiction in a NPOV manner is not going to be easy, especially if we are striving for "prose" :). Trust me that I am not interested in excessive emotionalism, but rather what is best for accuracy in the article. The way to avoid an edit war is to discuss things in talk, and to provide a different (even if only subtley) edit each time, rather than reverting. I have found this to be a vital peice of policy and diplomacy here at the wikipedia. Cheers, Jack 22:20, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jack. I would suggest that you find some source for the etymology or remove it until you have one. The one thing I came up with is that it may be a contraction of two words: am, meaning people, and the Assyrian ilku, meaning corvee. It would then imply that the Amalekites were a band of nomadic mercenaries, wholly in keeping with the text. The problem is that I have not been able to verify whether it is ilku or ilqu (k and q are two different sounds in Semitic languages, even though they are not currently distinguished in contemporary spoken Hebrew), which would imply a different root. Amalek is more properly 'Amaleq. I can ask an Assyriologist I work with tomorrow--my own Akkadian dictionary is rather limited and often inaccurate. It was fun to get back into it though. Shuma awilum awilam ubbir ... (the opening line of the Code of Hammurabi). Danny 23:35, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In terms of the history and etymology, Danny is totally correct. In terms of the issue of whether or not some right-wing Israeli zealots identify Palestinians as Amalek, he is somewhat correct, but in another way he is incorrect. As regards the specific individuals that Danny mentions, yes, they do not claim that all Palestinians should literally be regarded as Amalek; they do not want to exterminate the Palestinians. As regards most Israeli right-wingers (both religious and secular), they too do not not claim that all Palestinians should literally be regarded as Amalek; they do not want to exterminate the Palestinians. Thus, we are in 9o% agreement. But there is a small minority of right-wingers who repeatedly do refer to Palestinians as Amalek; they are not claiming that this is a biological fact, and they may not even be claiming that this is a halakhically valid identification. However, they use the word, and they approve of violence. To be fair, they do not advocate extermination or genocide; looking at their worls most of them appear to be asking for the right to self-defense, even if it means pre-emptive attacks that will kill. But enough right-wingers who use the term exist to merit a breif discussion. (And of course, one must also note that this would be the few of the small minority at best, and that this is view is totally rejected by the Israeli majority, both religious and secular.)

Here are some references I have found:

The Ascendance of Israel's Radical Right, Ehud Sprinzak, Oxford Univ. Press 1991 p.117-123,and p.267-270

ush Emunim: The Politics of Zionist Fundamentalism in Israel, Ehud Sprinzak, American Jewish Congress, 1986,p.12

Rabi Israel Hess, "The Geonocide Ruling of the Torah" Bat Kol (the Bar Illan students' paper) Feb. 26, 1980

David Rosentzveig A Time to Break Conventions, Nekuda, No.75, July 1984

Haim Tzuria The Right to Hate Nekuda No.15, August 1980

Israel Ariel Things As They Really Are, Tzfia I, 1985

For the Land and the Lord: Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, Ian S. Lustick, Council on Foreigh Relations, NY,1988

Uriel Tal Foundations of a Political Messianic Trend in Israel, Jerusalem Post, no. 35, Spring 1985

Also, we need to realize that a mainstream strand within rabbinic Judaism holds that Amalek is not a people, in the narrow sense that Danny and others are using. Other Jewish points of view exist. For instance, Rabbi Moshe Amiel 1883-1946) ruled that one should not understand Amalek as being a particular ethnic group. Rather, he viewed Amalek as the symbol of armed might. In Rabbi Amiel's view, a permanent war prevails between the sword and the book, and "one can only be built on the ruins of the other". [Derashot el Ami, 3.132, 3 volume set, Tel-Aviv, 1964.] This is also the view of many non-Orthodox Jewish rabbis. So we cannot just claim that "Jews today do not identify the Palestinians as Amalek". Some Jews do make this identification. This does not mean that they are making a biological identification, nor does it mean that they are advocating genocide. (They certainly are not.) The term has ideological uses beyond the literal meanings of the word. RK 00:12, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, when it comes to the far right of the Israeli political spectrum, I basically do know everybody, some of them quite well, but that's a long story. I do not deny that the term is used metaphorically. I think that overall we agree, but I reject the notion that there is a halachic equation being made. Paradoxically, just because people are called Amalek doesn't mean that they are believed to be Amalek, with all the implications such a statement would contain. From what you said above, I think you agree with me on this point too. Essentially, the term Amalek has been neutered to some degree in popular discourse to mean "the epitome of evil." Compare, for example, with the statement by the Besht above. I do not know it, but assuming it is accurate, does that mean that the Baal Shem Tov held that all atheists and their descendants should be killed. Similarly, I admit that the far right uses it as hyperbole, but not as halachah (and I don't want to get into a discussion of the ramifications of violating one of the Sheva Mitzvot Bnei Noach, which is an entirely different story that does not relate to Amalek per se, nor do the mitzvot associated with Kibush Ha'Aretz). One of the sources you quote, for example, is Ariel, who I do happen to know very well (he was a neighbor of mine, and I served with his son in the army--I also studied under him and his brothers Yaakov and Yigal). In a semi-private conversation with him, I heard him say distinctly Ein mitzvah laharog Aravim, with a caveat that I will not repeat here. (Interestingly, that same night he was arrested). As for Amiel, he will have to answer the Rambam (see Hilchot Melachim, 10:1). Again, Amiel is using metaphor, as did the Besht, but there are strict halachic considerations that he is not addressing, such as Lo tichayun. Danny 00:21, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

First of all about the meaning of the word: the references given for "valley dweller" are not adequate. They have just copied the theory from somewhere else, probably an earlier compendium which is no better. What is needed is citation of a named respected scholar. After asking a few people who know about stuff like this, I'm pretty sure that the scholarly consensus is "foreign word of unknown meaning". As for traditional imaginative "translations", there are several. As an example, in Midrash Tanhuma, portions Yitro and Ki Tetze, there is the claim that Amalek comes from am leq "the licking people," with the explanation that the Amalekites were called so because "they came to lick the Israelites' blood like dogs." Such doubtful speculations are taken seriously by very few, but the very fact they exist is proof that there was no generally accepted translation. --Zero 14:01, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Regarding modern groups called Amalek: Sometimes it is hard to tell whether a particular identification is intended to be taken literally or not. However, my contacts agree with Danny that a literal identification of a modern group with Amalek is halakically almost impossible. Special mention was made of the statement in the Talmud (Berakhot 26a) that the gentile peoples of the Torah were mixed together beyond recognition, and (critically from a practical point of view) the complete lack of an identification of Arabs with Amalek by any of the traditional authorities. On the other hand, there have been examples where a metaphorical identification with Amalek has been used to excuse violence (by supposing that the mitzvah of extermination refers to Amalek in a metaphorical sense). Examples involving Arabs include some supporters of Baruch Goldstein and a former rabbi of Bar-Ilan University named Israel Hess. --Zero 14:32, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Example of a metaphorical identification: "And Jewish self-respect and honor must be resurrected with an end to the humiliating obscenity of carefree political relations with the Amalek of our times, Germany." (Meir Kahane, Uncomfortable questions for comfortable Jews, 1987) --Zero 14:32, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This is for Danny [5] I didn't want to put a million links in here, but he asked where I was getting this idea about "valley dweller" from. Oh, and BTW, I think it would be more than fine if you guys would like to place a differing view of what the word means, maybe even a whole paragraph regarding it. But it is clearly important that some regard it to mean "valley dweller" even if it is innaccurate to translate it that way. Jack 06:19, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Amalek, father of the Amalekites???

Gen. xiv. 7 refers to Amalekites existing at the time of Abraham, so it is problematic to identify them as descendants of Amalek who lived later. This used to be mentioned but its gone now. --Zero 01:35, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think its mentioned, but strangely. It could actually do with a good deal more discussion, and maybe a whole section devoted to it. I'm really not an expert (or even terribly interested) in this portion of the meaning however, so I doubt I will be doing that (this in no way should be taken to mean that it shouldn't be done ;). Jack 18:39, 24 Jan 2004 (PST)

Amalekites or Amelekites?

Both spellings occur in the article. I don't know anything about the subject so I'm hesitant to make a change, though I assume that the correct spelling is "Amalekites" (or are there two groups with very similar names? If so, I'm completely confused!). Mariko 03:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Amalekites in the days of Abraham

Firstly the Bible does not mention any Amalekites in the days of Abraham. When discussing the invasion of Chederlaomer in the days of Abraham it talks about the "land of the Amalekites". Bearing in mind that the description of this battle is written not earlier than Moses even from the point of view of Biblical literalists, there is no mystery here. Its like saying that Julius Caesar traveled as far as York in England even though it wasn't called York or England in the time of Caesar. Its called England and York now and it was called "land of the Amalekites" at the time the Bible was written.

A Jewish tradition recorded by Nachmanides claims that Amalekites did exist before Amalek the grandson of Esau. The tradition states that Amalek the grandson of Esau was named after an Amalek who had been the founder of the Amalekites. Arab traditions claim that the Amalekites originated in Arabia. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of information from Arab history about the Amalekites that I am reading up on and will add to the article. The Arab sources relate things not found in Jewish traditions but which sheds light on some odd references to Amalekites in connection with Egypt in Jewish sources. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:43, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

According to Friedman's The Bible with Sources Revealed, Genesis 14 is an independent source document (not belonging to J,E,P, or D), and hence could simply represent a variant tradition of the Amalekites' origins.--Rob117 04:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

According to the rules of logic, the use of different names for an individual in a single document does not logically entail that the document was woven together from separate sources each of which only used one name. One need only look at a Star Trek episode in which the same individual is addressed as "Captain", "Kirk", "Jim" and "James". (Documentary Hypothesis proponents presumeably feel that such an episode must be a combination of separate C, K, Ji and Ja scripts that were woven together.) In fact no known instance of a document using several names for individuals having originated in such a manner is known. Nor has a J, E, P or D document ever been uncovered by archaeologists. So yeah, ok for completeness the Documentary Hypothesis view should be mentioned but please people, think. There is a reason this Documentary Hypothesis stuff is taught in Humanities faculties and not Science faculties at universities. Sorry, having a bad co-worker day :P Kuratowski's Ghost 09:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Timna and Timnah

I have removed the comment about the Edomite chief of Timnah which attempts to imply a connection with Timna. The names while looking similar in Bible English transliteration are unrelated in the original Hebrew. Timna from the root m-n-` with a gutteral ayin at the end means "restraint", Timnah on the other hand means either "land towards the south" from the the root t-m-n or "alloted portion / gift" from the root m-n-h.

Do we know the philology of the name of a woman belonging to the group of non-Edomite people associated with "Seir"? How do we know that they spoke a cognate of Hebrew? (PeacePeace (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC))

Split

Shouldn't this article be split into Amalek and Amalekites, or even just renamed to Amalekites? Currently its jsut the other way around, Amalekites redirects to Amalek. --Pjacobi 16:40, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Does "Amalek" have an existence separate from Amalekites, or is he just an eponym? How would the reader be served? Is the article so long? These are the three questions you'd ask yourself. --Wetman 19:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

There is a tendency on en.wikipedia, that every biblical name deserves a separate article (heck, as every Pokemon charcter and every King of Numenor is considered worthy, who cares). But IMHO, just swapping redirect and article title would be best (the article is much more about the Amalekites than about Amalek. --Pjacobi 20:06, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed move/swap, however, it should be moved to the singular version, Amalekite and redirects for the plurals can point there as well. Any objections? Unfocused 17:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Extermination or Genocide?

Is there a reason we use "extermination" rather than "genocide" to describe the genocide committed on this group? It seems to me that extermination is a sanitized version of what occurred, as extermination is what you do to insects, not humans. I think extermination, in this case, is being used as a weasel word that favors one groups' POV and should be changed. If there's a valid reason reason to use extermination rather than genocide, I'd be very interested in hearing it. Unfocused 02:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It looks like a quote: "As the Jewish Encyclopedia put it, 'David waged a sacred war of extermination against the Amalekites.'" SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:56, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

That explains the quoted text, but I don't think it covers the section header, where genocide would be more accurate and less POV. Unfocused 04:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Genocide is not less POV its clearly more POV, its portraying the extermination of a group of bandits as a racist destruction of a true ethnic group which is clearly not what the Biblical tradition is about. Kuratowski's Ghost 10:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The from infant unto suckling part would fit most definitions of genocide. --Pjacobi 12:12, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Pjacobi is exactly right. If this were any less than genocide, they would have spared the innocent. This is the kind of thing that is occurring in various regions of Africa; idividual tribes and ethnic groups are attempting to eliminate another. It's called genocide by the whole world. There's nothing "sacred" about a war of extermination, Jewish doctrine aside. It's genocide no matter who commits it. The Jews of history do not have some special right to exterminate a people and then have it defined by a different noun than every other such act in history. Calling it anything other than genocide is POV.

"Biblical tradition" is to glorify the surviving group and to advance their own POV, so is non-encyclopedic. In an encyclopedic view, we have to review the evidence and refer to actions by their contemporary definitions and apply modern meanings. This is an encyclopedia, not a "bible review." The fact that the available evidence comes from the bible does not restrict our definition of events to the POV definitions contained within. Unfocused 12:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The use of the term "genocide" is an anachronism, and seems mostly a response to an unsatisfactory exchange on wikien-l. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. My review of this article was prompted by a discussion on that list, however the appropriate use of the term genocide is merely a correction to this article and a factual improvement. Why you would make such a claim is beyond me, especially considering that your username appears nowhere in the edit history of this article or talk page until you just now made this strange accusation in clear violation of assume good faith. What you fail to realize is that in the discussion on the mailing list, I have expressed my opinion completely and to my satisfaction, and I have no lingering feelings regarding that discussion. Let it go already. Unfocused 22:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

There are two issues here. One is whether the events satisfy some definition of "genocide", and the other is whether that word should be used here. On the first issue, I think it is completely obvious that the events described in the Bible would be judged as genocide by an international court sitting today. Statements like "The Lord will be at war against the Amalekites from generation to generation" and references to the "seed of Amalek" were taken as commandments to eliminate the biological descendants of the Amalekites for all time. There is no "unless they start to behave themselves" qualification to be found. More euphemistic interpretations are a modern development. As to whether the term "Amalekites" referred to a racial group, it rather refered to a tribe in a time period when the whole of humanity was regarded as being divided into tribes. The second issue is whether it is necessary to use the word "genocide" here. I was content with "extermination", which is literal and does not seem to me at all euphemistic. Somehow the word "genocide" feels like it is intended to make a point that isn't openly stated and I'm not even sure what the point is. So I prefer "extermination". --Zero 02:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Whereas en.wikipedia generally is not shy using real life terms to fictional events (see Endorian Holocaust for a bad example); I agree to some point with Zero's reasoning.

• The to make a point that isn't openly stated caveat, while true, should be used only with extreme precaution to decide an article's wording. If some term is the most exact, it should be used.
• If happened in historical times and verifiable by the standards of the historical science, there would be no way around using genocide in the article.
• But the historical evidence is meager, and so the article should just concentrate more on the point, why this story is told and what it may transport. The German article de:Amalekieter tries to follow this path, but I'm not competent to judge, whether it succeeds.

Pjacobi 08:08, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

• First; there is no doubt that the events satisfy every reasonable definition of genocide.
• Second; genocide is clearly the "most exact" term available for the events as described by the records of those who committed the act.
• Third; whether is is a true tale or not doesn't matter. Historical verifiability is completely irrelevant; if the events belong here, the events deserve to be described as accurately as possible. If it is true history, it is historical genocide; if it is fiction, it is a fictional account of genocide. The historical accuracy may be debated for years, but won't change the very definition of what the account describes.
• Fourth; encyclopedia articles should describe things in the most accurate terms available, bar none. Whatever it is worth to the Jewish and Christian communities as a moral tale is only tangentally relevant to the value here as an encyclopedia article. Depicting this in gentler terms is use of weasel words to advance a sympathetic POV. Since this is an encyclopedia and not a biblical text, if someone searches for the term "genocide", this article should appear somewhere in the results. If there is a "Category:Genocides" on Wikipedia, then this article should be classified there as well. The article shouldn't be hidden or obscured by using less accurate terms and failing to classify it properly.
• Fifth; the article doesn't have to concentrate on the genocide, it could concentrate on the rest of the information we have, and the lesson meant to be taught by the retelling. However, not describing the fate of the Amalekites as victims of genocide somewhere in the article would be a grave error of omission. If the section header was changed to "Fate of the Amalekites" and the content clearly described them as "victims of genocide", I would not object.
• Sixth; use of the word "extermination" dehumanizes the victims, as if they're nothing more than bothersome insects worthy being crushed and nothing else. It is a euphamism that has been used numerous times in history to excuse genocidal conduct. "Extermination" is the biblical POV, but the POV of an encyclopedic article should be independent of the source texts it draws upon in order to remain neutral.
• Finally; I'm not trying to make a some sinister hidden point, I'm trying to make an accurate, NPOV encyclopedia.  ;) My reasons for making this change are outlined here. Instead, is there a point being made by trying to avoid the most accurate term for the events? Unfocused 09:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The way I see it the word "exterminate" carries no connotation and is objective, I don't see how it dehumanizes. "Genocide" on the other carries connotations of modern day international law and standards not applicable to the setting of the narrative regardless of whether it is historically accurate or not. As Jayg says, its an anachronism. Kuratowski's Ghost 10:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I will argue only one point of Unfocused's list: This should never be included in Category:Genocides if this category is ever unwisely created (Yeah, it exists. Fine. Always fear for the worst regarding categories on en.wikipedia). I don't want fictional entries in non-fictional categories. Heck, is was hard enough, to kick Adamantium out of Category:Superhard materials. --Pjacobi 10:57, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I look forward to discussing this under its own section header at a later date. Unfocused 13:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Use of the word genocide in this article is merely the application of modern language to historical events. The word itself was created in 1944 (or 1943, depending on what source you trust). Certainly we cannot limit its use to events following that date, as it was specifically created to most accurately describe events such as these that had already occurred. We wouldn't even translate old texts if not for the need to put things in modern language that the people of today understand, so application of modern language to historical events is clearly the normal and proper thing to do.

I really didn't want to Godwin the talk page, but here goes. The Nazis chose to use words such as "exterminate" very carefully and deliberately in order to dehumanize their victims and make it easier for their less dedicated and enthusiastic operatives to follow their orders. Nazi propaganda and Hitler's own writings referred to Jews as a "human virus" to be exterminated, denying them the diginity and value of their humanity. They didn't refer to the killing of Jews as "murder" and they wouldn't have used the word "genocide" either, because those words would confirm the humanity of the victims and underscore the unjustness of their fate. (Certainly we all knew that, right?) Exclusive use of the word "extermination" in this case, when "genocide" is clearly the more accurate term, does the same injustice to the Amalekites. Genocide should not replace every instance of every other similar word that appears, but it most certainly should appear prominently. (Technically I didn't Godwin the talk page, but I really didn't want to bring up the comparison.)

I believe KG and Jayjg are using the word "anachronism" incorrectly. An ananchronistic event would be one appearing in the modern age that was common in a bygone era, such as a segregated picnic, and unfortunately, genocides are about as current as ever. Unfocused 13:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Let me see if I can summarize the above?

• Yeah, its totally genocide if it actually happened as might be suggested by someone trying to read a non-Hebrew perspective into this.
• But since anyone with an objective, fact-based perspective knows the Old Testament/whatever is nothing short of wrong when it comes to a neutral, fact-based description of any historic event, its allowable to continue to use the term "extermination" in this context because what matters here is to understand the fable rather than learn it as a history.

Is this the long-story-short of why the term "genocide" isn't applied in this sense? Zaphraud (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no fable involved. A fable is an illustrative story that deals with fantastic situations, like animals talking. There are 2 or 3 fables in the Bible actually where someone utters a fable to illustrate some point, like "The thistle of Lebanon said to the cedar of Lebanon," clearly presented as fables, but this genre is rare in the Bible. (PeacePeace (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC))

Another POV concern: hatred mutual?

The article now states: "The Biblical relationship between the Hebrew and Amalekite tribes was one of unmitigated enmity." and goes on to describe Jewish hatred of the Amalekites, but gives no example or even suggestion of Amalekite hatred of Jews. I don't find anything to suggest the hatred was mutual.

Shouldn't we rephrase this sentence to reflect the true meaning of the cited texts until we can find and cite an example of Amalekite hatred of Hebrew tribes? As it's written now, it looks like a justification, or worse, an excuse for the genocide. I'm sure that's not what we want. Unfocused 05:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no account of hatred of the Jews as such, the Biblical account describes how the Amalekites attacked the Jews without provocation and had attacked the weakest in particular i.e. just plain banditry and a general contempt for mankind. The Midrash also describes Amalekite contempt for God: Amalek cut off the penises of the Jews and threw them in the air to shove them up the nose of God. Kuratowski's Ghost 13:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Can we get some citations of such; otherwise the article appears to have POV bias. I'm not arguing that they didn't hate each other, but an empty claim is just that. Unfocused 13:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that it was indeed not a mutual hatred - the Amalekites didn't hate the Jews in particular, they were bandits with a general contempt for human life and ethics. Kuratowski's Ghost 14:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with KG that "extermination" is better than "genocide" and I don't understand Unfocused's argument on that. As for the other issue, it should be made more clear that there is no information whatever about the Amalekites except what the Hebrew Bible says. History outside the Bible does not record them at all, and most historians regard them as myth. So all we know of their nature is through the eyes of their bitter enemies. They attacked the Israelites, but it isn't true they weren't provoked (the Israelites had entered their territory). --Zero 11:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Not what the account says, the only Amalekite territory ever mentioned was one encampment called the city of Amalek. Kuratowski's Ghost 11:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Genesis 14:7 refers to "the whole territory of the Amalekites" and in any case if they had a city they were not mere nomads. The Amalekites first attacked the Israelites at Rephardim when the latter were travelling from place to place, so the implication is that the Israelites had encroached on Amalekite territory. Of course it doesn't say that explicitly, but it doesn't say the opposite either. There is no clear statement that the Amalekites were bandits or were any less ethical than anyone else. Any such claim in the article should make it clear that this is an allegation made by (who? tradition?). --Zero 12:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Well the area is part of what the Israelites viewed as rightfully Israelite territory so it depends whose views on land ownership you ascribe to. Its certainly a case of being grossly inhospitable :P Kuratowski's Ghost 17:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The extermination versus genocide discussion is in the section above. Merriam-Webster definition of genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group (Emphasis mine). The Amaleks were, if not a racial group, a political or cultural group, as they did have a King. Having a King is a clear sign of being an individual, distinct and separate political group. Unfocused 12:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Every prison and street gang has a Chief or Captain or Leader or "King" even. Kuratowski's Ghost 17:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

This isn't Amalekite-sympathetic material we're using; it is the record of their enemy. Since the available records recognize Agag as a King, I don't think we have the option to do any less. We would not equate Saul or Samuel with a mere street gang leader, so to remain NPOV, Agag must also be recognized as well. Unfocused 17:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

You raised a good question as to mutual hatred. How would you describe the attitude of a group of people who cowardly look for weak victims to pounce on then they are vulnerable? Opportunistic slime balls? Heartless scoundrels? The victims would likely hate the scoundrels, but the scoundrels might just be opportunistic business men who are narcissistic and lack conscience. (PeacePeace (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC))

Biblical relationship needs clarification -- please help rewrite this sentence

The article now states: "The Biblical relationship between the Hebrew and Amalekite tribes was that the Hebrew tribes hated the Amalekites, primarily due to banditry committed by the Amalekites." however, I'm not at all satisfied with this.

In discussion above, I had made the point that there isn't any evidence of mutual hatred between the Hebrews and Amalekites, and KG suggested that Amalekite banditry and disregard for Hebrew cultural sensibilities were the primary reasons for the hate. However, there is evidence of other battles between them, and other possible reasons for the fights; specifically that the Jewish tribes may have been attacked while passing through the territory of the Amalekites.

Although I wrote the sentence as it currently appears in the article, I'm not comfortable with it, and would appreciate any edits to it that further expand and explain the reasons for the animosity between the two groups. Unfocused 16:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The hatred stemmed from having the weak and ill attacked from behind. This is from the Bible. I can't believe the hostility being expressed toward contemporary Jews for a Bible story about the ancient Israelites. There were 11 other tribes, go pick on them too! And let's bash the Italians for ancient Rome, and, and... 64.231.208.136 03:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The article, as it stands, vilifies the Israelites and sympathizes far too much with the Amalekites. Completely unprovoked, the Amalekites left their territory to attack the weak of Israel that were already exhausted (Ex. 17:8-15; Deut. 25:17-18). There was no reason to do this, as Israel was not even going to settle in Amalek's "territory." Canaan was north of Amalek, and they would not have been affected. Nonetheless, the Amalekites left their territory to attack an exhausted non-threat.

Once Israel had settled in Canaan, Amalek allied itself with Moab and Ammon to place Israel under subjection for 18 years (Jg. 3:12-14). Later, the Amalekites swept into Israel to ravage and plunder the land, leaving the Israelites impoverished (Jg. 6). When Saul campaigned against the Amalekites, it was not out of vengeance, but a response to the new atrocities against Israel they had comitted - the "plundering" of 1 Sam. 14:48 could very well have been recent, and Samuel, before slaying Agag, mentions "[Y]our sword has made women childless..." (1 Sam. 15:33) Samuel indicates that Agag himself had attacked and killed Israelites in his time - in fact, in killing Agag, Samuel did not once mention the past relationship between Amalek and Israel.

In the times of David, the Amalekites still persisted in their evil ways - "Now the Amalekites had raided the Negev and Ziklag. They had attacked Ziklag and burned it, and had taken captive the women and all who were in it, both young and old." (1 Sam. 30:1-2) These raids were likely regular in Amalekite society - no doubt, they lived off captured goods from Israel and other lands (like Philistia). Psalm 83 includes Amalek among the list of Israel's enemies who say, "Come, let us destroy them [Israel] as a nation, that the name of Israel be remembered no more." (Ps. 83:4,7)

(When David lived among the Philistines during Saul's reign, he did raid the Amalekites at times, but he did so as a servant of Achish the king of Gath, and so it does not count as Israel attacking the Amalekites)

There is only one other occassion when Israel attacked the Amalekites. This is 1 Chr. 4:41-43, where 500 Simeonites (in the times of Hezekiah, even) invaded the hill country of Seir, killing the remaining Amalekites in the process. This was not, however, out of vengeful hatred for Amalek, but for the purpose of re-claiming their territory (the Simeonites actually attacked several ethnic groups in this battle - Hamites, Meunites, and Amalekites - in other words, Simeon attacked the inhabitants of the land irregardless of their ethnicity). Considering that Simeon borders the Amalekite territory, this was probably brought about by those tribes invading Simeon, as by the time of Hezekiah, the tribal borders were well-established.

Unlike in Israel, the Amalekites abused their slaves. In pursuing a raiding party, David's men find an Egyptian slave who, upon becoming ill, was abandoned by his Amalekite owner and left to starve to death (1 Sam 30:11-15). As an aside, this slave was probably among the captured from a raid in Egypt. Unfortunately, we know little else about the practices of these people.

Further, Amalek was hated by Israel as a national entity, not in a racist way. Israel even accepted Amalekites as immigrants, as indicated by an Amalekite being a soldier in Saul's army in 2 Sam. 1. Obviously, this Amalekite had not been killed just for being ethnically Amalekite.

I would also like to point out that Haman was likely not an Amalekite - Agag is actually a district in Persia, and in all likelihood it is a coincidence that Agag was also the name of a famous Amalekite (see the entry for Agagite).

Now, Is this really an unjustified hatred? Is fighting against such an oppressive enemy genocide? Each time Israel attacked the Amalekites, it was in self-defense, except for possibly one exception (when Simeon attacked Amalek in Hezekiah's times), but we aren't given enough information about the attack to know if it was justified or not. Given Amalek's history, they probably raided Israel and other lands to their last. This was not genocide but defending against raiders. THAT is why Israel "hated Amalek."

Quite simply, a "War of Extermination" is genocide, regardless of reason, regardless of whether it's justified or not. It is simply a genocide. It is up to the reader to decide whether genocide was a just act or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.221.13.5 (talk) 07:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Genocide is a a term relating to international law under the League of Nations and United Nation, stop the smart-assed changing of the sourced term "war of extermination" to "genocide", there was no league of nations or united nations at that time. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The English language didn't exist when these events occurred. Does that mean we have to go back and rewrite the rest of the article in an ancient language to be logically consistent with your view? No. Wikipedia is modern. It's language is modern. Genocide is the most accurate term. Don't use weasel words to absolve our ancestors. People killed each other a lot more in those days. It's a simple fact. But a systematic destruction, a deliberate extermination, is genocide, no less.

We don't insert the term "genocide" into all the other articles on ancient wars, for good reason; it's an anachronistic concept; and that's even assuming the material in the Bible is historically accurate. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Request "repair" of unexplained blind link inline with the text

In the article, there is a sentence See Wipe Out Amalek for a current rabbinical teaching on the matter. which, in itself is valid material for the article, but it is an unexplained blind link contained inline with the text. In other words, the reader of the article has to go offsite to have an idea of what knowledge the link provides.

We should not require a reader to do external research to reach full understanding of a subject we cover. I suggest that we either summarize the teachings included in the article cited in the link, so that the link has full context, or move it to the bottom of the article.

I do not want to be the one to attempt to summarize the link, as I'm sure I will get some of it wrong (and perhaps some of it very wrong) because I don't agree with the teachings contained there¹. I ask that someone who is familiar with these teachings provide more context for the link, or move it to the bottom of the article in the "external links" section.

I don't object to the link being present, in fact, I think it may provide a better understanding of the topic for some readers. But placement is always very important, and I think that inline links should always have some kind of summary of what is being cited. After all, that is the normal reason for using inline citations; that you've just quoted or summarized an opinion available elsewhere, and want to provide reference to the original for the reader.

¹(Although I believe in using force for defense, even in defense of a foreign nation being attacked by a third party, I'm generally too much of a pacifist to understand the treatment of the Amalekites as stemming from the values of "compassion and kindness" as the Yeshiva article states.) Unfocused 02:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I Samuel 30

I'm wondering why Saul's disfavor with God is mentioned (I Samuel 28) but not David's favor and ultimate victory (I Samuel 30). Both leaders consulted seers and learned of their fates in battle, according to the Old Testament text. But since David led the successful battle that destroyed the Amalekites, why isn't his story told, either instead of Saul's or accompanied by Saul's? The only mention of Chapter 30 is in a listing at the bottom of the article. --Pat 04:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Amaleqs

(Arabic: عماليق, Amaleq)

This section needs help. It sounds like the first paragraph of the article comes out of Muslim tradition, but my own online search of the Qu'ran contains no mention of Amaleq or Amaliq or Amalek. I am by no means an expert; could someone who knows about these things please advise? Additionally, perhaps this section could be better integrated into the rest of the piece? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.47.20 (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Amaleq ancient Arab tribe lineage to Iram son of Shem son of Noah ,their language was not language of Quraysh which call to day 'the arabic language because like all arab tribes every tribe have their own language like Sabaean ,Minaean, Qatabanian, Hadhramautic, Mehri ...

they rule Egypt 108 years.

At that time Fifteenth Dynasty ruled over Egypt, whose rulers are known in history as the Hyksos kings. They belonged to the Arab race, but had migrated from Palestine and Syria to Egypt in or about 2000 B. C. and taken possession of the country. The Arab historians and the commentators of the Quran have given them the name of Amaliq (the Amalekites:عماليق), and this has been corroborated by the recent researches made by the Egyptologists. They were foreign invaders who had got the opportunity of establishing their kingdom because of the internal feuds in the country. We also learn from the history of Egypt that the "Hyksos kings" did not acknowledge the gods of Egypt and, therefore, had imported their own religion from Syria, with a view to spreading their own religion in Egypt. This is the reason why the Quran has not called the king who was the contemporary of Prophet Joseph by the title of "Pharaoh," because this title was associated with the religion of the original people of Egypt and the Amaleqs did not believe in it, but the Bible erroneously calls him "Pharaoh". It appears that the editors of the Bible had the misunderstanding that all the kings of Egypt were "Pharaohs." Egyptians called these kings "shepherd kings," translated in Egyptian as "hega-khase". Greek authors later rendered this as "Hyksos,"

Ethnic Arabs?

What makes these people ethnically Arab in the year 2000 B.C.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.185.205 (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Amalek were not ethnic Arabs -- and I changed it. As far as anyone knows, they were closely related to Edom. So, while Semites (like the Cannanites and the Hebrews), they were not Arabs. The old article's former identification of Amalek with the Hyksos is totally spurious.

العماليق or العمالقة

The Amaleqs are large Ancient Arabian tribe according to The Arab historians like Ali ibn al-Athir at his book ' The Complete History ' and Ibn Khaldun at his book 'the History of Ibn Khaldun '. and it also say that the Canaanites and Amorites Belonging to The Amaleqs and that The Amaleqs ruled Dhofar and Yemen, Egypt, Syria, Oman, Bahrain

and also say that iraqi king occupied the cities of The Amaleqs in Arabia which are Khaybar, Midian, Tayma, Didan, Fadk, Yathreb and he killed all The Amaleqs (except one tribe which are Banu AlArqam (بنو الأرقم) ) and replacing them with the Khazars Jews

Banu Alarqam was stil exist in Yathreb at time of Prophet Muhammad.

and ibn al-Athir says in at his book the Prophet Ibrahim Belonging to The Amaleqs/ '

Ancient Sources and the Hyksos/Amorites/Arabs/Amalekites

Is there any reference preserved in the old Jewish sources that would hint at the Hyksos invasion of Egypt immediately after the departure of Israel?

"He [the Lord] cast [sent forth] among them fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them." Psalm 78:49

What does it mean `sending evil angels among them'? There is no plague known as the `visit of evil angels' while most of the other Ten Plagues are mentioned in this chapter. When the first born were slain in the tenth plague it was the angel of the Lord according to the Bible, Exodus 12:29. Could this be a corrupted text? The presumed Hebrew wording for `sending of evil angels' would be "mishlakhat malakhei-roim". But the Hebrew for `invasion of king-sheperds' is "mishlakhat malkhei-roim." The only difference in spelling is one silent letter aleph in the first case. When the copyist or editor of the sentence could find no sense in king-shepherds, he changed the word to evil angels. The first reading is not only unusual Hebrew, but it is also contrary to the grammatical structure of the language.

If roim (evil, plural) was used as an adjective here, the preceding word could not take a shortened form; `roim' must therefore be a noun. But if `roim' were a noun, it would be in the singular and not the plural; and finally, the correct plural of "evil" is not `roim' but `raoth'. "Evil angel" in correct Hebrew would be `malakhim roim'; "evil angels" would be `malakhei raoth'.

Not only the sense but the grammatical form as well speaks for the reading, "invasion of king-shepherds." The verse should read then:

"The Lord sent forth upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, invasion of king-shepherds." Psalm 78:49

An old Hebrew legend throws a sidelight on the same theme. "Amalek fetched from Egypt the table of descent of the Jews [Israelites] ...these lists lay in the Egyptian archives. Amalek appeared before the Jewish camp, and calling the people by name, he invited them to leave the camp and come out to him." [10]

This legend implies knowledge on the part of the Israelites on the fact that the Amalekites came to Egypt and became rulers of the land. In what other way could they have come into possession of the census lists in the Egyptian archives?

In Papyrus Ipuwer it is said:

"Forsooth, public offices are opened and the census-lists are taken away. Serfs become lords of serfs[?]" [20]

We can say therefore, that the Hebrew legend and the above line from the papyrus Ipuwer corroberate each other.

The most famous of the Hyksos kings was Apop. They ruled Egypt from their fortress of Auaris and according to Manetho-Josephus maintained garrisons throughout the country. They also had a garrison in Ephraim:

"Out of Ephraim their root is in Amalek." Judges 5:14

Obviously their root refers to the Canaanites, and to Jabin, king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor, and to his captain Sisera, who commanded 900 chariots of iron. They oppressed Israel. The Israelites under Deborah and Barak temporarely broke the yoke Amalek put on them. The verse seems to mean that the strength of the Canaanites was based upon the support they received from the Amalekite citadel in the land of Ephraim.

"Pirathon in the land of Ephraim, in the mount of the Amalekites." Judges 12:15

It was the habit of the Amalekites to destroy the flora of a country by driving their numerous cattle and camels before them. That is the reason they were called the king-shepherds, Judges 6:3-6; 7:12. They waited until the people of the land had sown, then shortly before the harvest they would invade the country side and carry off the produce.

The Egyptian document describing the defeat of the Hyksos/Amu/Amalekites is the Sallier Papyrus. [30]

It parallels the biblical account very closely also placing Auaris in a riverbed. When the Amalekites vanquished Egypt, they may have looked upon themselves as the legatees of the former Egyptian Empire with its colonies. In their wars with the Israelites in the succeeding centuries they might have argued that the Israelites had deserted their bondage in Egypt. Finally, to make the despoilers of Egypt equal with the Israelites is unwarranted and presents major problems in attempting to synchronize subsequent events.

The Amorites: Hejaz to the Levant 2500BC-1200BC

Tracing the Amorites migration from Hejaz to the Levant.

The West Arabian Amorites sprung out Arabia in waves of tribal federations roaming the desert/semidesert region between the Euphrates in the west and the Mediterrianean sea in the East. They were restricted from Mesopotamia by their Eastern Arabian kinsmen, the Akkadians. The Amorites of the Nroth will settle the highlands and later fall under Hittie influence, after the fall of the Hittites they will emerge as the highlanders (Armeans). The Amorites of Western Canaan will establish the coastal Canaanite towns that will later evolve into Phoenicia and Philistia. The third group of the Amorites were the East Cannanites (lowlanders) concentrated along the Euphrates, mainly following the water and pasture in the midwest Euphrates region. The Meso-Akkadians regarded the Amorites as an uncivilized unproductive group because they didn't have a harvest they can loot or a town to sack to supply their growing empire. To them the Amorites were troublesome Nomadic shepherds a people with no submission and no house in a lifetime! The Amorites viewed the Akkadians as the oppressive imperial power that controlled their only source for survival; the Euphrates water and the needed pasture for their livestock. This Mesopotamian animosity between the Akkadians and Amorites will give birth to the Zodiac as we know it. THe Amorites marked their age with the fall of the Akkadian empire 2160BC (the Akkadian Bull) and the start of the Shepherds age (The Ram). At this point The Zodiac was still two ages and will later become divided into 12 astrological ages once the Amorites enter Babylon. By the 20th Century BC the Amoires were already established in mid-Mesopotamia and started sacking the Neo-Sumerian towns; eventually conquering Babylon, making it their capital in 1959BC. UR survived another 9 years, until it was taken by the Elamites. The Amorites established their authority as he absolute Arabian/Semitic dynasty by crushing the Elamites, starting the Old Babylonian Kingdom. Hammurabi receiving he laws from the sun god. With the death of Hammurabi The Kingdom disintegrated into smaller city states ruled by weak kings. Babylon proper survived for another 100 years. In 1659BC the technologically advanced Hitties conquered Babylon. 1659BC - 1648BC: After the fall of Babylon, the Amorite dialect disappeared from Babylon and was replaced by an Assyro-Akkadian dialect interrupting the gap between Old and Neo-Babylonian and clearly shows that the East-Canaanites disappeared from Mesopotamia. 1649BC: The Amorites conquered Egypt, starting the 15th dynasty. The Amorites will control Egypt for 108 years as the elite class in Egypt. The Amorite Hyksos ruled Egypt for 108 years. However, the Egyptian-born Amorites lacked what their Nomadic ancestors had three generations earlier. By the 1540s BC the East Canaanite Amorites (Hyksos) lost control of Egypt and sensed the danger of remaining in Egypt after the atrocities the first generation commited in Egypt, so they escaped to Sinai fleeing the angry Egyptians. The Hykso escape from Egypt is very similar to the later Judean biblical folkore (the Exodus). In Against Apion, the 1st century historian Josephus simply equates the ProtoHebrews with the Hyksos. In the three centuries between the Exodus and the appearance of the Hebrews. The Egyptians documented raids by Semitic tribes into Canaan. The Egyptians knew them as the HABIRU this group included the remains of the Hyksos and the Pre-Hyksos East Canaanites who remained in Souther Canaan. The Egyptian and Hittite Imperial powers will clash in Kadesh 1274BC The treaty of Kadesh was the beginning of the end of the Imperial influence in Canaan. The power vacuum of the 1200s in Canaan allowed the Phoenician and Philistinian Arabian/Semitic cultures to flourish on their own. Taking advantage of the Egyptian absence, the Hebrews moved into Central Canaan pushing into the Egyptian protected Philistia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDfG4Hz8QI0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.242.113 (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Symbolism of the Amalekites

In this section of the article, the following statement appears: "The term has been used metaphorically to refer to enemies of Judaism throughout history, including the Left, Nazis {i.e. Adolf Hitler}, and controversially, by some to refer to the Arabs." My question is in regard to "the Left." This statement is ambiguous, although presumably it refers to people on the left politically (liberals or progressives).

Are there any references that can be cited for this assertion? It seems sloppy to me, and it tends to imply that the Left is an enemy of Judaism. This, of course, is absurd. Many Jews are politically oriented to the Left, and many members of the Left are incredibly supportive of Judaism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KidBohemia (talk • contribs) 21:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Lack of Dates

The articles does not provide any dates such as date of Establishing and date of fall . i really need this information for other topics.  A M M A R  02:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ibn Khaldun

Historian and scholar, Ibn Khaldun also mentions the Amalek several times in his great universal history al-Kitābu l-ʕibār ("Book of Evidence"), but only in passing, seldom giving much information.

Some examples from the Muqaddimah ("Introduction"):

This can be illustrated by what happened among the nations. When the royal authority of 'Ad was wiped out, their brethren, the Thamud, took over. They were succeeded, in turn, by their brethren, the Amalekites. The Amalekites were succeeded by their brethren, the Himyar. The Himyar were succeeded by their brethren, the Tubba's, who belonged to the Himyar. They, likewise, were succeeded, by the Adhwa'. Then, the Mudar came to power.

— Muqaddimah Ch. 2.21

The Yemen, al-Bahrayn, Oman, and the Jazirah have long been in Arab possession, but for thousands of years, the rule of these areas has belonged to different (Arab) nations in succession. They also founded cities and towns (there) and promoted the development of sedentary culture and luxury to the highest degree. Among such nations were the 'Ad and the Thamud, the Amalekites and the Himyar after them, the Tubbas, and the other South Arabian rulers (Adhwa) . There was a long period of royal authority and sedentary culture. The coloring of (sedentary culture) established itself firmly. The crafts became abundant and firmly rooted. They were not wiped out simultaneously with (each ruling) dynasty, as we have stated. They have remained and have always renewed themselves down to this time, and they have become the specialty of that area. Such (special Yemenite) crafts are embroidered fabrics, striped cloth, and finely woven garments and silks.

— Muqaddimah Ch. 5.20

References

Five Amaleks who died near Jewish Holidays

• Mussolini {d.April 28,1945} and Parashat Emor 1945 at [[6]]
• Hitler and La"g b'Omer 1945 at [[7]]
• Streicher and Purim 1946 at [[8]]
• Stalin and Purim 1953 at [[9]]
• Saddam Hussein (d.30 December 2006} and Parashat Vayigash at [[10]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.209 (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What was the point of this? Doesn't the Old Testament say the "Amalekites" were supposedly destroyed; including even their women, children, and donkeys being exterminated? As for when the unrelated people, on the list of the relatively modern historical figures you mentioned, died what does that have do with anything? And I fail to see any supposed "pattern" or anything as that seems to be what this section was trying to imply or something I assume. Also there are many Jewish holidays that span the calendar so different historical figures, who are obviously going to die anyway, are quite unsurprisingly and uneventfully going to die "close" (a relative term as it is) to any of these many possibilities on different calendars.Historylover4 (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

This article by a Mr. Ephraim Rubin (responding to the claims and assertions of people like the person who first posted in this section) seems to be something that analyzes the claims of people in this "code" searching group [11]. The day Julius Streicher was executed October 16, 1946 was not the day of Purim (in the Jewish calendar), the whole attempts at ridiculous postdiction looking for alleged "codes" (Nostradamus like or something [12]) is something some modern groups have started doing fairly recently. Many of the groups that advance this also seem to be people who advance the whole debunked Bible Code claim as well, that was thoroughly analyzed and refuted by academics (in particular Professor Brendan McKay) [13]. All this reminds me of people who today also look for these type of "codes" or coincidences in all sorts of other random places as well [14].Historylover4 (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Öuch!!

I hit my toe! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Arab , Perishing Arabs or semitic

Amalek are Perishing Arabs and Ancient Arabian tribe

The general consensus among Arabic genealogists is that Arabs are of three kinds: Perishing Arabs: These are the ancients of whose history little is known. They include ‘Aad, Thamud, Tasm, Jadis, Imlaq and others. Jadis and Tasm perished because of genocide. 'Aad and Thamud perished because of their decadence, as recorded in the Qur'an. Archaeologists have recently uncovered inscriptions that contain references to 'Iram, which was a major city of the 'Aad. Imlaq is the singular form of 'Amaleeq and is probably synonymous to the biblical Amalek.Mewoone (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"Symbolism" section title?

I renamed the "Symbolism" section to "Amalekites in post-biblical era", but Im not sure that is better. The Armenian connection is not really symbolic, but the Atheism and Nazis references are probably symbolic. "Metaphor" may be okay, but still doesnt include the Armenian case. Any suggestions for a better section title (or a re-org of the sections to make the ambiguity go away) would be appreciated. --Noleander (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Is not really symbolic? How can you prove this? --92slim (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Amalekites in post-biblical era

This material is well-sourced and highly relevant to this article. Are there any specific concerns about the sources? Numerous additional sources are available. --Noleander (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a concern. The article alleges that Israelis are teaching children that Palestinian Arabs are Amalekites. I gave it a google go and all I could find is one single allegation that this is true, the op ed article published in counterpunch by a left wing Israel known for many anti-religious and anti-Israel statements.

I cannot find any evidence for such an incendiary claim and it is pretty beyond the pale for orthodox Judaism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.28.151 (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This sort of thing is commonplace in Haredi schools. But you are right that good sources are required for such a claim. Zero^talk 12:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a file on this I've never used, but more to do with the recent use of the equation Amalek=Palestinian in West Bank circles, rather than strictly speaking Haredi schools. There are plenty of solid sources.in Nur Masalha: Louis Feldman, Bekkenkamp and Sherwood; Horowitz passim, with an interesting series of notes, like a rabbinical designation of the Greeks of Corfu as descendants of Amalek in 1875 etc. Horowitz cites alo p.3 a declaration made by 200 rabbis of Pikuach Nefesh after Arafat's death asserting that the anniversary of the death of this Amalek of our generation should be celebrated as 'a day of rejoicing'; Eisen idem; Jacobson; 'Amalek is best represented by the vicious society of the Palestinian Arabs' in Sper; For the equation in certain religious schools seeGeaves -'In settler circles, the Palestinians are likely to be identified with the Amalekites ' and he cites a campus rabbi from Bar-Ilan University in a pamphlet on The Commandment of Genocide in the Torah to the effect that:'The day is not far away when we shall all be called to this holy, call, this commandment of the annihilation of Amalek. The message is passed on through the religious schools: 'These boys are taught that the Arab is Amalek. .' etc. One could make an article out of it, following the settler-rabbinical interpretations of the halakhic duty to blot Amalek out. There's a very good discussion of Maimonides on this at Josef Stern, 'Maimonides on Amalek,' in Judaism and Modernity: The Religious Philosophy of David Hartman, Ashgate Publishing, 2004 pp.359ff. The Haredi are being quite consistent, since the Bible invented genocide, and, under fundamentalist rabbinical readings, there's little room for denying that piety requires whoever is identified as an Amalek to be annihilated. Nishidani (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

My phrase "in Haredi schools" was too sweeping, since there are many types of them and not all believe things like this. But there are some that do. Others have other beliefs, even that Zionists are Amalek. It is a general purpose damnatory label that can be applied as desired. Zero^talk 14:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd hazard a guess that it's less a Haredi problem than a settler theological turn. Still, I'll try and find my notes on this.Nishidani (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Zionists as Amalek (typical Satmar rhetoric) Zero^talk 13:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Commentary on the Torah verses

The only verse clearly commanding to destroy the Amalekites is in 1 Samuel 15. This is a command allegedly by God to Saul to do this. However, there is nothing in the verse saying it is a command for all Israelites or Jews to destroy all Amalekites. So a modern view of this teaching can be that the verse is being arrapently misapplied when it is taken as a Torah command to each person for all time to practically commit genocide. :( Rakovsky (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It ain't a 'modern' view. You'd better whip up an email to the shade of Moses Maimonides and tell him his halakha 597 (from memory):'Wipe out the descendants of Amalek', based on Deuteronomy 25:19, is invalid. I don't think he'll issue a fatwa, so don't worry.Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Extinct

I was never one who accepted this Amalekite stuff when referring to the Palestinians. I view that as a heresy. I have always believed that the Amalekites were extinct. There are no Amalekites today. That does not mean that people have acted like Amalekites in the past. I believe one good example today is the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Anonymous173.57.44.147 (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu exchanged 1,027 terrorists for one Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit <Jerusalem Post 18 October 2011> your belief does not seem to be borne out by facts. BlueSeamedStocking (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Wide-spread Stereotyping

Amalekites of the Bible are Not the same Amaleeq who were mentioned in Arabic sources, Biblical Amalekites are the descendants of Esau, while the Amaleeq mentioned in the Arabic sources are the descendants of Aram the son of Shem, I hope someone will notice this. Omar amross (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Physical evidence of these people

Is there any evidence at all these people ever really existed? As I read the article it is all but a given these were a real group of people but without physical evidence that is not a given and should be in some way reflected in the article. Alatari (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no mention of the name Amalek anywhere except the Bible. Zero^talk 11:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

(no mention of the name Amalek anywhere ) Except in the Bible and in the standard rabbinical commentaries, and in midrash (e.g. Mekilta Amalek, and in writers like Philo (who etymologizes the name, among other things, as meaning people who 'lick up' (though were it semitic 'mlq' suggests 'nipping' etc.)Nishidani (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

None of that is physical evidence. Is there any archaeological evidence for these people? Alatari (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No. Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

So then I can assign a non-zero probability to the case there may exist scholars that doubt their very existence? Have you a source of scholars that doubt they existed? Alatari (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The article does not clearly state that evidence for these people is only found in literature and there is no physical evidence, no pottery, no burials, no writing, nothing. Alatari (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Twice Amalek seems to be mentioned as occupying central Palestine (Judg. v. 14, xii. 15), but the passages are textually uncertain. The name is celebrated in Arabian tradition, but the statements regarding them are confused and conflicting, and for historical purposes are practically worthless, as has been proved by Theodor Nöldeke (Ueber die Amalekiter, Göttingen, 1864). On the biblical data, see also E. Meyer, Die Israeliten (Index, s.v.). (S. A. C.)[15]. Alatari (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• A doubter: Winckler's view ("Gesch. Israels," p. 211) stands rather isolated. He considers, for example, Judges, iii. 13 as impossible (because the Amalekites did not touch upon Moabitish territory), and regards most passages quoting Amalek as parts of mythological or mythical stories (including even the larger part of the lives of Saul and David). Thus he comes to the conclusion that "probably the nation of Amalek rests on a mythological idea." Alatari (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Scholarship is about hypotheses, not the truth. It's not for us to state or conclude anything about whether Amalek is myth or history, since we are copyists here, and aspire only to report the state of the art on research. We have Biblical legends and mythistory, and where there is no 'physical evidence', one can either wait for more archaeological and epigraphic evidence, or speculate. I might personally think it is myth, but that is neither here nor there. Agag, the founder, after all, is associated with the sanctuary at Gilgal,- a scene of death- the word agagu in Akkadian means 'rage', and the Biblical word me'ôdanît describing his approach to Saul means 'to shuffle, totter', all elements suggesting infernal enmities in a mythical legend associated with that area. These elements are suggestive of a world-wide folk tradition about the traits of the horde of the underworld (the devil is cloven-footed). There is a beautiful analysis of this tradition in Carlo Ginzburg's Storia notturna: Una decifrazione del Sabba, 1989, though I can't provide you with the page numbers because my niece fell in love with it, and has my copy on permanent loan.Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

What about this Winckler and his view they are completely mythical? I think this book, page 211, is his commentary but I don't read German[16]. I'm not sure what his credentials are but he was important enough to be mentioned in the Jewish Encyclopedia entry (under critical views)[17]. Alatari (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source Hugo Winckler stating the Amaleks are probably myth

• There were other scholars who took the more radical viewpoint and asserted the Amalekites never existed. They based their conclusion on the assumption that the Amalek tribes was never mentioned in Egyptian inscriptions. - From the Exodus to King Akhnaton- By Immanuel Velikovsky[18] using the source Hugo Winckler (the guy that uncovered Hattusa) "Geschichte Israels" (Liepzig 1895) p.212 "The nation of Amalek probably rests on a mythological idea" his page in original German here:[19].
• A critique of the passages by Winckler, Wellhausen and Driver in an Expository Times issue[20].
• Interesting article from The Nation (1915) but not supportive in this article[21]. Alatari (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. My internet connection went down as I was checking your first link yesterday and has only been restored a few hours ago. Hugo Winckler,Theodor Nöldeke, Eduard Meyer etc., were very fine sources in their day, but can't be used because they predate contemporary scholarship by more than a century. You can use them if you make a section surveying theories about their existence or not, though. Velikovsky reports most sources like this accurately (in my experience) but he is not RS. The bible refracts ancient legends coming from multiethnic traditions into an 'historical' narrative written in terms of theological patterns of thought. So even the verifiably historical elements are caught up in moralizing reworking (as is true of much ancient historiography and much modern journalism, for that matter). We cannot know whether the traditions re the Amalekites reflects a historical people or league of tribes: we can guess from the topology that they imbricate over the areas later associated with the Bedouin and, generally, Arabs. As the Arabs gain some ascendency (6th cent. BCE) the Amalekites disappear, and the authors who refer to the latter do so in mythifying terms, to create an image of an eternally inimical people. As such, we are there in the realm of theological myth, since no external testimonies are available to restore the lineaments of the Amalek tale to some form of recognizable historical reality.Nishidani (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

What would the section title be and where would I locate it in the article? I understand they are over a century old but Winckler was translating from the oldest translation he had. If no physical evidence nor any additional literature about the Amalek's have been found since his time then his interpretation could still be relevant. ...(pause for search) ... It looks like the Dead Sea Scrolls have information pertaining to the Amalek that he didn't have access to they may have changed his interpretation. I need to search for more modern scholars that discuss Winckler's ideas. I would think there would be an abundance since the debate around their symbolism is a province of warring between atheists and Christian apologists. Alatari (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Question: Nishidani: we are there in the realm of theological myth, - you sound very sure about this but I assume it's your personal opinion. But if I am wrong and your opinion is based on solid opinion of scholars then who are they?Alatari (talk) 08:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Every modern biblical scholar save fundamentalists knows that the bible is written according to a theologization of myth, legend and history. The Amalekites are not an exception: we do not know who, or know almost nothing (from exernal sources) about Hivites,Anakim,Avvim,Nephilim,Geshurites, Giblites,Emim,Maachathites,Jebusites, Rephaim,Perizzites and so on, to name but a few. So to make an exception of the Amalekites is odd. Whoever these people, tribes or clans were, they exist as names in narratives that are based on the legendary material of the several tribes who coalesced to form theivri or Hebrews. Why of all of these, the Amalek were picked on and figured in later tradition and halacha as the objects of extermination is unknown to us. What is relevant is only the fact that those later traditions use the name (as Edom became a code word for Babylon, Rome, etc.) to identify any group that was thought to be either an eternal enemy or a heretic, whose enmity was to be fought to the bitter end.Nishidani (talk) 11:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

OR in post-Biblical-era section

I added the {{Section OR}} template to this section, as some parts seemed like OR to me. The 'Hypothesis: Armenians as Amalekites' section is poorly written, does not provide a single source, and doesn't even seem to make sense. And it even comes right out and says "hypothesis"! The Neturei Karta section only has a single ref, which doesn't even mention Amalek. It says how their leaders met Ahmadinejad, but nothing about any Amalek connection. Scimonster (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I've dealt with both sections and removed a blog. If there is anything else that seems wobbly or OR tell us, and it will be either sourced or removed. If not, then the WP:OR can, I guess, go down. Thanks for drawing our attention to this.Nishidani (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. It seems well and sourced now, so i took down the template. Scimonster (talk) 12:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Armenians as Amalekites - bias in favour of Holocaust deniers

I have noticed a massive amount of antisemitism in this article, which I can confirm is based on a certain book of an unknown Holocaust denier online, who claims that Armenians were murdered by "crypto-Jews" (in the book they are mentioned as followers of Shabbatai Zvi, a self-declared messiah who was shunned by the wider Jewish community for converting to Islam at the end of his life). There is therefore a massive distortion and dinformation online, including pieces of history which are not based on factual information, and I have worked on this article to indicate the context of the sources included to justificate these allegations. I urge the Wikipedian community to investigate these serious allegations. --92slim (talk) 06:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It might be easier to evaluate your words if you didn't write in riddles. What "certain book of an unknown Holocaust denier" are you talking about? Incidentally you aren't allowed to add sentences like "It is remarkable to note as well that the famous mention was omitted from the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1906." Your opinion on what is remarkable is original research and forbidden by policy. You have to find a reliable source arguing that it is remarkable. Zero^talk 06:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Well, a pdf named The Jewish Genocide of the Armenian Christians, a carefully chosen title by Christopher Jon Bjerknes, who happens to be the author of Albert Einstein: The Incorregible Plagiarist. As you can see, that's revisionism, and I have just deleted the aforemented source which you mentioned, for which I thank you for noticing. I urge you to research first about this Jon Bjerknes, he is a known denier of the Holocaust. --92slim (talk) 07:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I cannot find any mention of Bjerknes or his work in any version of this article. So I don't know what you are talking about. Zero^talk 08:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

If you are interested in Holocaust denial, then look at his work, and please don't be so pedantic. These are serious allegations which people take in as true when they read Wikipedia. Read his books and research this throughly please. Unless you are this Bjerknes, I suggest you to do a quick Google search. I understand you don't see it in the article, the reason being is the article section of the Armenians was written before with the sole purpose of justifying these ideas.

PDFs (by him):

The Jewish Genocide of the Armenian Christians Christopher Jon Bjerknes, 2006

http://www.jrbooksonline.com/pdf_books/jewishgenocide.pdf

Quick search showing more results of this: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92slim (talk • contribs) 09:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/search?q=bjerknes&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=bjerknes+christopher+jon+pdf+genocide

Published books:

Albert Einstein: The Incorregible Plagiarist Christopher Jon Bjerknes, 2002, ISBN 978-0971962989

http://www.amazon.com/Albert-Einstein-Incorrigible-Christopher-Bjerknes/dp/0971962987/

Review proving he is a Holocaust and Genocide deniers

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2ELIKAPNWE9CQ/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0971962987#wasThisHelpful

I hope you take this into consideration. --92slim (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Added proof of this from this PDF, where he slips an error, therefore denying (I call it fail) both the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust, regardless of the title of this booklet.

Page 191 of his "The Jewish Genocide of the Armenian Christians" "Turkish Moslems were not responsible for the Armenian massacres. Crypto-Jewish Dönmeh were principally responsible, and a few Armenians betrayed the rest of the Armenian population in hopes of profit and an inpendent Republic of Armenia."

Then he goes on to quote Lord Bryce in 1915 saying something which was something along the lines of "Islam wasn't the reason of the Genocide": “There was no Moslem passion against the Armenian Christians. All was done not by the will of the Government, and done not from any religious fanaticism, but simply because they wished, for reasons purely political, to get rid of a non-Moslem element which impaired the homogeneity of the Empire, and constituted an element that might not always submit to oppression..."

As if that justifies denial of both Genocides, while simultaneously blaming the Jews. Typical denialism.

--92slim (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

You have given no reason to your revert, and I consider this to be Wikipedia:Assume bad faith. Can you give an exact reason to consider my edits not an improvement? And don't do that again, thank you. --92slim (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I gave you an opportunity to explain your edits, but you just wanted to go on and on about a person who is not mentioned who wrote some works also not mentioned. You also added material ("It is this same kind of indifference...") with a fake citation. This article is not about the Armenian genocide and who is or isn't responsible for it. You should find a different outlet (outside Wikipedia) for posting your opinions. Zero^talk 00:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

What's the title of the section? Armenians as Amalekites. There is no fake citation. It was included already in the article. The source in question is The Banality of Indifference by Ya'ir Oron, quite a remarkable name. Which, by the way, is about the Armenian Genocide and the role of Zionists in not taking measures to prevent it. The author is a Open University expert in Holocaust and Genocide studies, and the point is that, if you made even the slightest attempt at searching through about this Bjerknes person (who is currently recruting people on Stormfront to support his ridiculous and unsourced ideas), you would realise the importance of undermining the goals of Holocaust deniers such as Bjerknes who blame absolutely everything in life on the Jews using historical revisionism, basing themselves on a myriad of fake citations like you described, which mine is not as it only describes the contents of the book already included in this article in a concise manner. I just cannot accept anti-intellectual attempts at censorship by other users. Therefore, provide your own sources and valid claims to disprove the claims in the book, or read the book yourself before making any further disruptive edits. --92slim (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way, the Armenian Genocide section and the Hitler quote are relevant, and mentioned in the book, on page 7, 23, 307, 351 and 357.

https://books.google.es/books?id=nnUR4hSTb8gC&printsec=frontcover&dq=banality+of+indifference+auron&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qojqVLWoCoKzUbWIgvAE&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=hitler&f=false --92slim (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You added your opinion to the article and put on it a citation that does not have it. Talk pages are for discussing article improvement, not for conducting personal activism. Go away. Zero^talk 02:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I will be kind to remind you that personal attacks are banned in Wikipedia. Can you prove that I am doing personal activism? I am only working to remove the parts that deem the article unfit in terms of users placing antisemitic remarks on several sections. The process of resolving this dispute is supposed to achieve a mediation between the parties, which you are refusing to take place in and for which I take that you are not interested to contribute. --92slim (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, the argument really is only based on one book "Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence (Jews, Christians, and Muslims from the Ancient to the Modern World)" by Elliot S. Horowitz. Not mentioned absolutely anywhere else. Is this not worrying to you, that the case is connected to an incident in Jerusalem in 2004, in which the a Yeshiva student who spat at the Armenian priest apologized afterwards? These things happen. This does not mean it's an incident serious enough to mention here, as it comes only from a single source which is not cross-examined. I pretty much find this is historical revisionism. --92slim (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It is a bad idea to lecture someone about personal attacks when just above you libelled all the editors of this article with your "massive amount of antisemitism in this article" comment. Perhaps you would like to withdraw that. About Elliot S. Horowitz's book, he is a lecturer at Bar Ilan University and co-editor of Jewish Quarterly Review, and his book was published by an eminent academic press. I've also read his book and noted that he meticulously cites his claims to primary sources and earlier scholarly sources. You are simply wrong about "Not mentioned absolutely anywhere else". Finally, your mention of a 2004 spitting incident that is not in this article, nor in Horowitz's book, is simply mystifying. There is no such incident of more than peripheral importance to this topic. Zero^talk 04:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The 2004 incident was mentioned on page 10 - http://books.google.com.au/books?id=_kBJF9ks-2sC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10#v=onepage&q&f=false - of the Horowitz book. I do apologize, I meant that it should be neutral. Not accusing you or other editors of antisemitism personally, this is not the case. Anti-semitism applies towards Palestinians as well, and Arabs as they speak Semitic languages. I am talking about historical revisionism, sorry if I sounded completely out of place. --92slim (talk) 04:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I missed that mention in the book. But Horowitz treats it only as an introductory anecdote and not as evidence for his historical analysis. I agree that the incident does not belong here, but it isn't here so what's the problem? Or did I miss that too? Zero^talk 04:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Well no, of course I am not justifying those actions by the Yeshiva student either. But my argument is that even though Wikipedia is not be censored, the article painted Armenians as the archetypal enemies of Jews when this was never the case in practical terms (not many fights were attested apart from single incidents at the end of the 19th Century) - as per mainstream sources. Even if some fringe Jewish sectors did during any time in history any kind of damage towards the Armenian people (which I am not aware of), I don't find it objectionable to structure the section in a way that pictures both sides. It's not attested that Jews and Armenians were ever confronted as the way it was painted, apart from this book, which I am sure has a broader public and is not attacking anyone. So "certain Yiddish individuals" or in this case "the Haredi Jews in Jerusalem" ascribed etc. (maybe it's better not to paint the whole nation as such, when no real harm was ever done between each other) --92slim (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You just don't get it, sorry. Your claim "the article painted Armenians as the archetypal enemies of Jews" is 100% false. The article did not ever do that, not even a little bit. Since it did not ever make that claim, your wish to refute it has no basis. Zero^talk 08:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I received a request over the weekend by private message asking for an independent administrator review of this discussion. I was busy with a volunteer event for the entire weekend and was not able to look right away. I know very little about the subject of this article, so it will take me some time to read through the details and edit history. Slambo (Speak) 20:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Referring to Baron, Social, index; A.N. Poliak, Kazaryah (Heb., 1951), index; J. Neusner, in: JAOS, 84 (1964), 230–40, Jewish Virtual Library: A Project of AICE (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/armenia) unambiguously states that "Armenia is also sometimes called Amalek in some sources, and Jews often referred to Armenians as Amalekites." 98.231.157.169 (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Davidian

Added more sources

I have added 4+ different sources related to the subject of Armenians being named 'Amalekites', namely disproving the claims that they were the archetypal enemy of the Jews, and in fact that the Jews of the Ottoman Empire were mostly indifferent to them. If you can find any more, please do add them. --92slim (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like add a conciliatory note, that this particular section of the article is properly referenced and each source is to be provided page by page, so if anyone has claims to prove otherwise, it would have to be discussed in this talk page first, as this is a delicate matter which should not be taken lightly, just as any other genocidal claims. --92slim (talk) 08:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

What you added will be deleted, for a very simple reason. This article is about Amalek, not about the Armenian genocide. None of what you added even mentions Amalek, so it is off-topic, and your attempt to refute something that is not asserted is not allowed. Incidently, you also need to read WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, since we both know that you didn't just rush over to the Central Zionist Archives, or the archives of the Hebrew newspaper Daor Hayom, and dig up exactly the same documents that appear in Oren's book (except that you mis-copied the CZA reference). Zero^talk 08:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, how about use Oren as a source? He includes sources from the Central Zionist Archive. I am pretty sure the Central Zionist Archive is not closed to the public, regardless of that, I want to know - Why are constantly reverting my edits? This article IS NOT about the Armenian Genocide. For Christ sake, delete that part, but do not revert it again! --92slim (talk) 09:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, I would like to know what is your point on this issue, since it seems that you have: 1.Not brought any significant points 2.Not made any significant contributions to this article 3.Have only been reverting edits the whole time. --92slim (talk) 09:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem is the misuse of the context in which Oren used his affirmations. This article is about Amalek, therefore the context must be provided. I don't understand what the problem is, seemingly the will to blame Jews and Armenians for not hating each other in real life? I guess deleting valuable information helps to further your rather strange argument. --92slim (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because some of them are not on the article topic and some violate this or that Wikipedia rule. Since I've been an administrator here for over 10 years, I happen to have a fairly good grasp of the rules. A Wikipedia article is not like a public forum where people can put things to argue for or against their own viewpoints. If you want the article to say that there is no Jewish tradition about Armenians being Amalekites, you have to bring a reliable source that explicitly says that there is no such tradition. If you want the article to say that the tradition is wrong (even though the article has never said that the tradition is right) you have to bring a reliable source that addresses the tradition and argues that it is wrong. You simply are not allowed to build up a case against the tradition by bringing sources that don't even mention it. That's what the rules require of you. Zero^talk 09:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I rest my case. I think there has been quite a misunderstanding during this discussion. Thank you for your time, and sorry if I happened to be disruptive. --92slim (talk) 09:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Why was the "Palestinians as Amalek" section removed but "Zionists as Amalek" kept?

The revision comment given then states "This section is POV from Jewish fundamentalism and is not within the historicity scope of this article." My question is, how does that reasoning not apply to the anti-Zionist fundamentalism? Scimonster (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Why is "fundamentalism" injected into such a discussion? Is someone trying to win an editorial decision based on using a derisive slur word? Fundamentalism properly refers to the system of belief which insists that be a Christian one must at least believe a small set of basics (fundamentals) like Jesus Christ is both God and man, that the Bible is the Word of God, and the Trinity. The term was used in the classical conflict between those who insisted on some basic beliefs vs modernists who denied anything and everything historically connected with Christianity. The transfer of this term to imply fanaticism or to some other religion (like Judaism or Islam) makes an untenable connection between other religions and those who believe the basics of Christianity. Perhaps the debaters would do better to speak of orthodox Jews and anti-semites. What actually happened to the Amalekites and whether they have a presence in the world today as some anti-Jew or anti-Israeli entity is a very interesting question, having nothing to do with fundamentalism. (PeacePeace (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC))

Are the place names accurate?

The article seems to say that the Negev was a part of Canaan. What is the basis for that claim? (PeacePeace (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC))

I am hereby officially associating Wikipedia editors who fail to follow WP:NPOV with Amalekites. :)

I recently WP:BOLDLY edited our page on Amalek[16] and was, as I expected, reverted.[17] -- by a 7-day-old account with 21 edits, most of them simply adding spaces in an obvious attempt to raise the edit count.

Here are some of my NPOV-based problems with the Amalek page:

First we have a 19th century rabbi claiming that the Germans are descended from the ancient Amalekites, with the further claim that the Hebrew Bible says that Hitler may be seen as a result of the failure of the Israelites to kill Agag.

Next we have an editorial in an Israeli newspaper as a source for the quote "The Armenians are not Jews, and according to folk tradition the Armenians are nothing more than Amaleks! Amaleks? We would give them help? To whom? To Amaleks? Heaven forbid!".

Then we have an anti-Zionist rabbi quoted as saying "The Zionists came from the seed of Amalek".

And, of course, we then have a Jewish ultra-nationalis claiming that "Amalek" refers to the hostile Gentiles who are to be revenged for the near annihilation of Jews and their God.

Not to be outdone, this is closely followed by claims that Arabs are Amalekites, that Irananins (who are Persians, not Arabs) are Amalekites, and of course there is a claim that Muslims are Amalekites.

Finally we have some really biased external links such as:

• Wipe Out Amalek, Today? chabad.org
• Amalek, Based on the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe
• Remember Amalek: A lesson in Divine Providence

None of this is allowed under our NPOV policy.

Further attempts to re-insert POV material without discussion will result in this issue being reported at WP:ANI. Also see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Amalek.. -- unsigned comment by User:Guy Macon.

I think you're absolutely right that the business about "which modern people can we tag as Amalekites" has gotten way out of proportion to the rest of the article. The article is supposed to be about the biblical Amalekites. However, I can't help but wonder if there's some way to save some of it. Given that there's obviously fairly serious coverage of all the different weird accusations about different people being Amalekites, I wonder if a Wikipedia article might be constructed that is just about the labelling of different people as Amalekites. It might be called "The Amalekite Label" or "People Labelled as Amalekites" or something. Alephb (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I have the same impression. I just wondered if this couldn't be part of a national or racial hate related category, portal or WikiProject and renamed as necessary. Most of the article is about labeling and hate, not the original context (although that may also have been of the same essence)... —PaleoNeonate - 03:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Amalek. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Amalekites were nomads

Consider the following diff: [22]. It involves the removal of any mention of nomadism on the part of the Amalekites. The edit summary reads follows:

"No. None of the biblical passages cited make any claim regarding Amalekites being nomads. Please find a reliable source before re-inserting, and stop claiming that the bible contains things that it doesn't contain."

Several parts of this argument strike me as odd, and I hope that once the dust settles whatever remains of the Amalek article will have some mention of nomadism. Let me explain. While the edit summary contains, "Please find a reliable source before re-inserting," there is a reliable source. That source is the Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, of which, according to the review of it published in the incredibly mainstream journal Vetus Testamentum, it is said that "The standard of scholarship is high and ensures that the information is up-to-date. The contributors draw on the latest scholarship and discoveries in archaeology, as well as insights from literary, historical and sociological approaches" (you can find this review here: [23]).

We read, "None of the biblical passages cited make any claim regarding Amalekites being nomads." Well, it may true that if you run a text search for "nomads" in an English Bible you won't find anything about Amalekites. But the Bible does provide enough information to indicate that its portrait of Amalekites presupposes that the Amalekites were nomadic or semi-nomadic. The reasoning behind this can be found by following the biblical references in the Eerdman's article -- the citation has been removed from the Wiki article but can be four here.

Firstly, Genesis 36:11-12 locate their origin in Edom, an area which a shortage of farmable land. In the ancient near east, you were either a dirt farmer or in animal husbandry. There were some priests and sailers and scribes here and there, but as a whole any large ethnic group's people would be employed in farming, or in pasturing livestock. If you were in a relatively arid area, you would move that livestock around. That's being a nomad. Outside of Edom, we find the Amalekites distributed fairly widely, "along the fringe of Canaan's agricultural zone" as Eerdmans puts it. That means the Negev, where you wouldn't do much farming (Numbers 13:29), in the hilly parts of Ephraim (Judges 12:15), from "Havilah" to "Shur" (a similarly arid area, 1 Samuel 15:7), and in the Negev again, engaging in the raiding parties that are well-known for occurring in traditionally nomadic cultures (1 Samuel 30:1-2).

Judges 6:5 places the Amalekites in tents, with huge numbers of camels, going on raids, which doesn't quite include the word "nomad" but might as well. Judges 7:12 mentions Amalekite camels again, and has them raiding with Midianites, another known nomadic people. Here's Eerdmans again, "All OT references to contacts with Amalekites and the Israelites describe hostile interaction; the same holds true for Israel's encounters with most of the nomadic peoples who inhabited regions beyond prime agricultural lands." There's more, but I've gone on long enough.

So, unless there's an outcry against the idea, I think I'll reinsert a little bit about the nomadic nature of Amalekite life once the dust settles again on User:Guy Macon's deletions. I won't simply revert the material Guy removed -- he's right that it's not clear enough on the biblical support for the Amalekites being nomads, but I'm confident a better wording can be found. Alephb (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I would have zero problem if you added the claim that they were nomads with a citation to Eerdmans (or any other reliable source that actually claims that they were nomads) I would hope that nobody will be foolish enought to try to re-insert the claims that "The Old Testament describes the Amalekites as a nomadic tribe" or "According to the Old Testament, the Amalekites were a nomadic, or seminomadic people" No. The Old Testament makes no such claim.

Concerning your reference to the book of Judges; here it is from the NIV:

Whenever the Israelites planted their crops, the Midianites, Amalekites and other eastern peoples invaded the country.

They camped on the land and ruined the crops all the way to Gaza and did not spare a living thing for Israel, neither sheep nor cattle nor donkeys.

They came up with their livestock and their tents like swarms of locusts. It was impossible to count the men and their camels; they invaded the land to ravage it.

The Romans invaded many countries, and their invading armies lived in tents. The same can be said for the Union Army during the civil war. Does that prove that the Romans and the Union were "nomadic people"? Again, I have no problem with the claim that they were nomads, but it must be accompanied by a source that says that. The Old Testament simply does not say what you claim it says.

Re: "If you were in a relatively arid area, you would move that livestock around. That's being a nomad." That is pure Original Research: "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." --Guy Macon (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The claim that the Bible describes the Amalekites as nomads is not original research. It's backed up by the Eerdman's reference, which says that the Amalekites were "nomadic (or seminomadic people)" and then goes on immediately afterward to state that "The Amalekites are not specifically mentioned outside the Bible." That's a pretty clear statement that it is the Bible itself which describes them as nomads. The article goes on to cite a variety of biblical verses which all point to a nomadic way of life for the Amalekites. It's clear that Eerdman's reads the biblical account that way. What's the alternative to this depiction pretty clearly spelling out a nomadic life? They worked as software developers, kept camels as racing animals, and engaged in large-scale raids for the heck of it?

If nearly every mention of the Union Armies or the Roman Empire had depicted them as people who were located in arid areas except when they were raiding agricultural areas, and if people noticed that they travelled with vast numbers of livestock and camels, then we'd have a closer analogy. Of course I don't intend to put the uncited claim "If you were in a relatively arid area, you would move that livestock around. That's being a nomad." into the article body itself. I was just explaining you why the reliable sources read the Bible the way they do. A variety of sources, using only the Bible as their source because there aren't any outside sources specifically about the Amalekites, come to the same conclusions.

For example, the Eerdmans Companion to the Bible ([24]) ([25]),

Mario Liverani ([26]), Richard Gabriel ([27]), Alan Millard (in the Oxford Companion to the Bible, article named "nomads"), John Van Seters ([28]), the well-regarded Jewish Study Bible edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler ([29]), Daniel Hillel ([30]), Karen Jobes ([31]), Philip R. Davies and John William Rogerson ([32]), Gordon J. Wenham ([33]), Martin Sicker ([34]), James K. Hoffmeier ([35]), Joyce Dalsheim ([36]), David F. Payne ([37]), John H. Hayes ([38]), Israel Eph'al ([39]), etc., etc., etc.

This isn't my interpretation of the biblical data. This is common knowledge within the field of academic biblical studies. The names above include everyone from biblical maximalists (like the conservative James Hoffmeier) to minimalists (like Philip Davies, way "left" of center). My question is, is there any serious biblical scholar who doesn't read the biblical accounts about the Amalekites as a description of a nomadic or seminomadic people?

If there's some fascinating maverick out there, with the credentials to publish in peer-reviewed sources, who reads the biblical account as anything other than a straightforward description of nomads, I would be fascinated to see what that argument looks like. Alephb (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. From WP:OR:

"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research.... This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."

Thus you can say that Eerdmans Companion to the Bible, the Oxford Companion to the Bible, etc. say that the Amalekites were nomads. You can even say that Eerdmans Companion to the Bible, the Oxford Companion to the Bible, etc. say that the Old Testament says that the Amalekites were nomads. The reason you can say that is because you can point to direct quotes from those sources that directly support that particular claim. You cannot say that the Old Testament says that the Amalekites were nomads, because you cannot point to a direct quote from the Old Testament that directly supports that particular claim. You can split hairs all you want, but WP:OR is a Wikipedia policy, and any edits that violate it will be removed. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Let me see if I'm understanding your argument here. I do not hear you disputing the claim that the Amalekites were nomads. I do not hear you disputing the claim that the Bible is the only source that anyone can use to determine whether the Amalekites were nomads. I do not hear you disputing that every single reliable source mentioned so far in this discussion relating to the "are Amalekites nomads" question reads the Bible as saying that the Amalekites were nomads. But it would be original research for me to pass on the unanimous opinion of these biblical scholars without a caveat saying it's just their opinion. I need that caveat because you personally do not think that the biblical account is as clear as the scholars believe it is. Is that about where we're at in this conversation? Isn't the entire point of the Wikipedia WP:OR policy to say that we need to rely on the consensus of reliable sources rather than holding Wikipedia articles hostage to our own personal opinions about what the Bible does or does not say? I think we might be reaching a bit of an impasse here on what constitutes original research. Given that you've already reached out over at WP:BIBLE, WP:ANI, and that notices have been put up at WP:CHRISTIANITY and WP:JUDAISM, hopefully we can get someone else here to chime in and offer an opinion on whether or not it constitutes original research to say that the Bible depicts Amalekites as nomads.Alephb (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

What part of "...that directly support the material being presented" are you having trouble understanding? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

What we seem to disagree on would be what kinds of citations constitute "direct" enough support. All right. So we do seem to be at the impasse I thought we were at. If I understand your position correctly, you will delete any material that I add saying that the Bible describes the Amalekites as nomadic or seminomadic.

Since I would rather not insert material that I've already been told will be deleted, I think now might be a good time to wait for further comment by people other than ourselves.

As material for them to work with in figuring out whether there are citations that directly support the claim I would like to add to the article, I'll leave a few quotes here from the sources I'm working with, so that other people can quickly see what we're disagreeing about.

From Eerdman's Bible Dictionary ([40]), "Amalek, Amalekites" — "A nomadic (or seminomadic) people, descendants of Amalek, a grandson of Esau (Gen. 36:11-12). The Amalekites are not specifically mentioned outside the Bible . . ." The source goes on to describe the biblical passages which Eerdman's reads as support for the idea that Amalekites were nomads.

From Philip R. Davies and John William Rogerson ([41]), The Old Testament World, page 48, "The territory covered by the Amalekites seems extensive. The geographically scattered references, if accurate, suggest a nomadic or semi-nomadic lifestyle. We have no extra-biblical data about them. . . ." Here Davies and Rogerson make clear that, while they do not necessarily trust the biblical account, the biblical account does indeed depict Amalekites as nomadic.

Joy Dalsheim's Producing Spoilers, published by Oxford University Press, straightforwardly says, "The Amalekites are depicted in the Bible as a tribe of nomadic people who attacked the Israelites during the exodus from Egypt (Exodus 17:8-17)."

Seems clear and direct to me. Every scholar who comments on the Bible's depiction of Amalekites sees this as a depiction of nomads, and scholars routinely treat "Amalekites are nomads" as common knowledge based only on the biblical references. You don't see this in the biblical text, but they do. I await anyone else chiming in, because we do seem to have hit a wall here. Alephb (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

So, it appears that the word "direct" is what you don't understand. You keep posting indirect evidence. Where does the Old Testament directly say that the Amalekites were nomads? "Every scholar who comments on the Bible" is not the same a "The Old Testament". We are not at an impasse. You want to violate Wikipedia policy. I want to enforce Wikipedia policy. The wording of WP:OR is crystal clear. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Guy Macon, why don't you want to have the Amalekites described as nomads? Just curious. PiCo (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Why are you telling lies about me? I have repeatedly stated that I have no problem with Amalekites being described as nomads. My objection is to any attempt to use a source for that claim that does not directly describe the Amalekites as nomads, as is required by WP:V and WP:OR. Go ahead. edit the article and describe the Amalekites as nomads, followed by a citation to any source that directly says that the Amalekites were nomads. Nobody will complain if you do that. Try to do it using a source that doesn't directly say that the Amalekites were nomads. and your edit will be removed per WP:V and WP:OR. These are the rules that Wikipedia runs under. If you don't like them, go start your own encyclopedia that allows original research and claims that fail verification. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Guy Macon is 100% correct about the rules here. You cannot make your own indirect inference from a source, even if other sources make that inference. You have to cite a source making that inference. It is WP:V 101. Zero^talk 12:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Zero0000, I'm well aware that I need to cite whatever sources I'm using.

I think I and Guy Macon are to some extent talking past each other. I started this thread immediately after he'd made yet another edit in his progressive deletion of most of the Amalek page. There were good reasons for trimming parts of the page. I started this discussion to support one simple idea, "I hope that once the dust settles whatever remains of the Amalek article will have some mention of nomadism." Despite his edit summary, "None of the biblical passages cited make any claim regarding Amalekites being nomads. Please find a reliable source before re-inserting, and stop claiming that the bible contains things that it doesn't contain." it is a fact, agreed to by every reliable source that comments on the issue, that the biblical account clearly pictures the Amalekites as nomads, although it doesn't use those words. I fully granted that the material he removed was badly worded. But I did think there was a clear enough, well-documented enough connection between the biblical description of Amalekites and their nomadic status that some form of the claim should be found in the article once the dust settled.

As it happened, his deletion train rolled to a stop about the time I started this thread, and Guy Macon either purposefully or accidentally left a pretty good description of how the Amalekites were nomads in the "Amalekites in the Hebrew Bible" section. Meanwhile, we got into a disagreement about whether or not a hypothetical edit that I hadn't made yet, and had only proposed in the vaguest of terms, would violate WP:OR. This is unfortunate, and as long as the remaining details about nomadism are left in the article, I don't see any need for me to add anything or to further discuss the finer points of the WP:OR policy. Especially given that I've already had to defend myself against mischaracterization at WP:ANI (here) and at WP:BIBLE ([42]), I'm mostly uninterested in discussing further. Alephb (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me of another claim that is not directly supported by the source provided. I have removed the unsourced claim. Feel free to re-insert the claim with a source that supports it.

---

Numbers 13:29 New International Version[43]

"The Amalekites live in the Negev; the Hittites, Jebusites and Amorites live in the hill country; and the Canaanites live near the sea and along the Jordan."

This source does not directly support the claim that "The Amalekites had a nomadic lifestyle", as required by WP:V and WP:OR.

---

Judges 12:15 New International Version[44]

"Then Abdon son of Hillel died and was buried at Pirathon in Ephraim, in the hill country of the Amalekites."

This source does not directly support the claim that "The Amalekites had a nomadic lifestyle", as required by WP:V and WP:OR.

---

1 Samuel 15:7 New International Version[45]

"Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, near the eastern border of Egypt.:

This source does not directly support the claim that "The Amalekites had a nomadic lifestyle", as required by WP:V and WP:OR.

---

1 Samuel 30:1-2 New International Version[46][47]

Three days later, when David and his men arrived home at their town of Ziklag, they found that the Amalekites had made a raid into the Negev and Ziklag; they had crushed Ziklag and burned it to the ground and had taken captive the women and everyone else in it, both young and old. They killed none of them, but carried them off as they went on their way.

This source does not directly support the claim that "The Amalekites had a nomadic lifestyle", as required by WP:V and WP:OR.

---

Your insistence that WP:OR doesn't apply to you and that WP:OR can be ignored when it says "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." is becoming disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

These are all primary sources. The article needs to avoid these (it's OR) and go to reliable secondary sources. Several are listed/quoted higher up in this thread. (Disclaimer: I don't actually give a damn). PiCo (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I've never insisted that WP:OR doesn't apply to me, or that WP:OR can be ignored. We simply disagree on whether the Bible is clear about describing Amalekites as nomads. But we can easily work around this disagreement, because there's plenty of other reliable sources to rely on. Since you're perfectly fine if the article claims that Amalekites are nomads so long as the article does not directly say that Bible says they are Amalekites, I'm sure I'll be able to add wording into the article in a manner that doesn't get me hauled off to WP:ANI again. It shouldn't be very difficult. For the record, none of the material about Amalekites as nomads that has been removed from the article so far was written by me. The precise way they were sourced was somebody else's call. When I put stuff in, I'll do it in a way that sticks closely to cited sources. Alephb (talk) 01:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Name of article

I'm not really familiar with this subject matter, but it looks like the article is about the "Amalekites" nation, and not really about the person "Amalek" or the land "Amalek". Would it not therefore be better to have this page located at "Amalekites" instead? Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to the move. I will say this, though. The Bible uses "Amalek" all the time to refer to the people. Alephb (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

For the latter reason, I am fine with keeping the name Amalek. Ar2332 (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Your point is invalid, the Bible also uses "Israel" (Jacob) to refer to the Israelites, and yet we have two separate articles for both. I am in favor of a split between the Amalekites and Amalek.--MuslimKnight786 (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The lead presents standalone information instead of summarizing the article

Rewrite it for a proper summary and move the assorted information into the article. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixed :) Ar2332 (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)