Jump to content

Talk:Jews/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31→Archive 34

Forging a narrative

  • 'Jews originated as a national and religious group in the Middle East during the second millennium BCE,[18]'

Time and again, editors have been told not to use genetics papers for historical facts, particularly since they get things wrong. That is a copy.and-paste product of Atzmon et al, who refer to Biran A., Naveh J. An Aramaic stele fragment from Tel Dan' (Tel Dan Stele). N o page number is given, and the reader is left wondering how Naveh and Biran arrived at their remarkable conjecture from a foreign stele in Aramaic dated variously from 870-750 BCE. If you want to know about the formation of Israelitic then Jewish identity there are dozens of works specifically on this (none confirming these assertions). E.g.C.L. Crouch, The Making of Israel: Cultural Diversity in the Southern Levant and the Formation of Ethnic Identity in Deuteronomy, BRILL, 2014

National identity requires land, ethnic identity does not, and precedes the former, Israelitic national identity being formed anytime from the 7th century BCE to the post-exilic period (when Jewish identity begins to emerge). This is all a half a millennium after the period in our clumsy sentence.

This is totally unacceptable. People have started putting back government handouts as sources for ethnogenesis, sources that are laughable in their defiance of current scholarship or of sheer commonsense. Re the latter we have this remark:

  • while its observance varies from strict observance to complete nonobservance".
I.e., observance of Judaism can consist of non-observance.'

Nothing here is reliable, and most of it is programmatic WP:OR, like the definition at the outset which patches together Judge Brandeis (1915), Einstein (1921) and Edward Henry Palmer (1874) to obtain a WP:SYNTH definition. That has been demolished time and again on talk pages and is still defiantly reinserted.

The discovery of the Merneptah Stele confirms the existence of the people of Israel in Canaan as far back as the 13th century BCE.[disputed – discuss][20][21] Since then, while maintaining rule over their homeland during certain periods—such as under the Kingdom of Israel, the Kingdom of Judah, the Hasmonean Dynasty, and the Herodian Kingdom—Jews also suffered various exiles and occupations from their homeland—from Ancient Egyptian Occupation of the Levant, to Assyrian Captivity and Exile

  • The Merneptah stele locates a people of Israel in Canaan. The slip from a to the makes out that this obscure but intriguing group is identical to the later 'people of Israel' as described in later tradition. This is quite possible, indeed a link probably exists, but the theocratically defined 'people of Israel' is one thing, while a 'people of Israel' that the stele mentions in 1206 BCE is almost 2 centuries prior to the Davidian-Solomonic United Monarchy.
  • Since then, while maintaining rule over their homeland during certain periods

Since then in context means since 1,206 BCE, i.e, it backdates a concept of 'homeland' two centuries before the Davidic unification of Biblical report.

This is particularly outrageous, since it is asserting that 'Jews', let's say even 'Israelites' were exiled from their homeland in Canaan in the period between 1,600-1,100 BCE.
Everyone knows that the Ist exile occurred under Tiglathpileser 111, some 4-5 centuries after the waning of Egyptian suzerainty (not 'Occupation'!!) If you need a source for the obvious, see Dalit Rom-Shiloni, Exclusive Inclusivity: Identity Conflicts Between the Exiles and the People who Remained (6th-5th Centuries BCE), A&C Black, 2013 p.xv n.3
Precise scholars don't collectivize these stories. They speak of the exiles imposed on (some of) the people of Israel and the people of Judah. They speak of divisions, often hostile, at that early period between the diaspora and the homeland.
One persistent characteristic of this article, other than it being uneditable, is the consistent return to a fairy tale version of the past in its historical sections, and the refusal of editors to actually study history, rather than governmental or popular handouts. Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  1. "Forging a narrative" should be a section in the article Palestine!
  2. So what do you want to say, that "Jews originated as a national and religious group in the Middle East during the second millennium BCE" is not correct? Debresser (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I want the page to reflect the best contemporary scholarship. Very little there does. There are a huge number of mistakes or stupidities which stand there. I keep wondering if anyone who knows the topics reads this page, which is a disgrace to its subject. I've made a few edits to suggest how it should be reworked. No doubt, as in the past, this will be progressively erased with the clichés re-embedded.Nishidani (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I for one think you did a very good job, with very good sources. Please note that I restored the words "in the part of the Levant known as the Land of Israel" with its source, since I think that should not have been left out. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Debresser (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
The Jews trace their origins to the Levant, which means Lebanon-Western Syria, Transjordan etc. The Land of Israel is a political-religion term, which has either wider territorial reach, or narrower (Land of Israel is one vein of contemporary national discourse embraces Israel and the West Bank and perhaps the Golan, but not Lebanon) and is not appropriate to wiki's neutral voice. Just as you have a source for land of Israel, I could pull out numerous sources for the emergence of Israel in Canaan, where Canaan also embraces Lebanon, that contradict what modern readers understand by eretz Yisrael. Since Palestine, the default term for historians, is politically unacceptable to many editors, I took Land of Israel out but didn't replace it with Palestine. In any case, it's a loaded term, which also carries with it, since it was hijacked from religious texts, a geopolitically expansionist connotation.
This is not what worries me about the page though. The lead goes from the myth of the Roman-induced diaspora (total bullshit - there was a Jewish diaspora since at least the Babylonian exile, Jews were all over northern Africa and southern Europe before the end of the Second Temple, and, as their Greek works show, could, as could Babylonian Jews, return to Jerusalem at will for centuries. As one of the sources I cite shows at length, great tension between that diaspora and the stay at home or returnee group we see in Ezra and Nehemiah's recasting of history, one that reflects the tensions in the Tanakh between the northern Israelitic and Judah/Jerusalem centered Judean Jews (the Samaritans are caught up in that). The diaspora here was read as a lachrymose state of torment, as people torn from their homes languished under pogroms, tyranny, genocide etc., for millennia. The article suggests that the Jews didn't really have any history rather than that which began in 1,000 BCE down to the Jewish Wars against Rome, and reappear only with Zionism. Thus the extraordinary creativity of diverse communities for 3 millennia is erased, be it rabbinic schools, the flowering in medieval Spain, the careers within an Islamic world like that enjoyed by Maimonides, even perhaps the Khazars, the Haskalah - it means nothing to the article. I would like someone to explain the sentence:'while its (Judaism's) observance varies from strict observance to complete nonobservance". Nishidani (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
"Syria" is also a political term as well as Transjordan and Lebanon. So what ? Anyway, I agree with many things you write here, in particular regarding the Diaspora. Not your refusal to connect the obvious (like the Israel of the Merneptah Stele and the Israel of the Bible are two different entities living at the exact same place and with the same name, this is beyond ridiculous). Anyway regarding the sentence:
"while its (Judaism's) observance varies from strict observance to complete nonobservance"
This is just badly written. The idea is saying that Jewish identity encompass a vast array of relations to the Jewish religion, from strict observance to complete non-observance. Meaning you can be Jewish and an atheist. Benjil (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't "refuse" to admit evidence. Your statement that I refuse to 'connect the obvious' means you simply don't look at the evidence, namely, to cite just one position:-

Thomas L. Thompson, The early History of the Israelite People: From the Written & Archaeological Sources, BRILL, 2000 pp.275-276:'They (the 'people of Israel' of the Merneptah stele) are rather a very specific group among the population of Palestine which bears a name that occurs here for the first time that at a much later stage in Palestine's history bears a substantially different signification.'

I.e., the 'Israel' of the Merneptah stele, in Thompson's view, does not denote the same entity mentioned prolifically in the Bible, written some half a millennium later onwards. I wrote that with Thompson in mind. What scholar have you in mind in implying Thompson, unlike yourself, can't see the 'truth' (the 'obvious')?
If you familiarize yourself with the scholarship, you will see that extreme positions exist among competent specialists, ranging from a denial this is an ethnonym, to a questioning of whether the people are located in northern Canaan/Palestine. Does it refer to a people or a place? Are they nomadic pastoralists akin to the Shasu, or indigenous Canaanites? etc.etc. By using the word 'refusal' you are being offensive, as if I, as an editor obliged to write up what conflicted specialist sources variously state, had some covert personal conviction which blinds me to what is 'obvious'. There is nothing 'obvious' in ancient history. It is largely speculative, and the best one can do is read widely and look for a general consensus, which is what I did here.
Since everything here should be sourced, let me add that the above reply to you is grounded in the following book's remark that:

That the challenge to "win the social fact" is one that has not been risen to by biblical scholars is patently obvious in recent discussions of the significance of the name "Israel" within the Merneptah stele where the ease with which scholars slide back into ways of seeing things that are supported by every day, doxic understandings. their own or those of their informants- is all too apparent.'(Dermot Anthony Nestor,Cognitive Perspectives on Israelite Identity, Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2010 p.188.)

This meta-comment says it is obvious 'apparent' that much of this biblical controversy consists of an attempt to butrress what each scholar implicitly thinks to be 'obvious'.That is therefore addressed to the kind of comment you for one make about the 'obvious' (doxic).
If you agree that the sentence I objected to is 'badly written', fix it, with a source that confirms what you claim to be the intended meaning.Nishidani (talk) 10:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Let's start by the end. There is no need for a "source" about common and basic knowledge. Do you need a source about the fact that French people speak French ? Regarding Merneptah, there is a very strong ideological bias among some academics against anything Biblical and so they take extreme and illogical positions that they would never dare to present on any other issue. Your quote of Thompson is very interesting because he has no way of saying what he is saying. This is pure speculation based on more or less nothing. The Bible was not "written half a millenium later", at least many parts of it were not, they were written much earlier, and some scholars (like Kitchen, Hoffmeier or Berman) would even say that most of the Pentateuch was written very early and more or less when it claims to have been written. Benjil (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
The analogy is inappropriate (apart from the fact I know French people, i.e. with French nationality on their passports, who do not speak French). What Nestor is talking about is epistemological bias, as theorized from Karl Mannheim's classic study on the sociology of knowledge down to Pierre Bourdieu. That you are unfamiliar with this is shown by your partisan assertion:'there is a very strong ideological bias among some academics against anything Biblical'. That is undoubtedly true, if you emend 'strong ideological bias' to mean 'radical scepticism'. The converse is also true, as numerous studies in the field argue, i.e., that there is a 'strong ideological bias' to prove the basic tenability of the Biblical account. Modernity is wary of the imposition of archaic religious theories restating in their own terms the history of their origins. You are saying you know better than Thompson. I didn't cite only Thompson, I cited Sparks and Day, who disagree with Thompson and among themselves on many points.
You cite Kenneth Kitchen and James Hoffmeier: One source says that 'most current scholars' of the history of Israel exclude this Egyptian exodus matter (which is the gravamen of K an d H's theories)

A few scholars are keeping alive the discussion about the potentrial historicity . .although their arguments rarely elicit responses from historians of ancient Israel for whom this topic is generally no longer viable... Kitchen and others, notably the Egyptologist James Hoffmeier, ..contend that the stories of the escape itself and the subsequent wandering of the Israelites in the desert are reliable historical reports and not the inventions of a later author. Kitchen and Hoffmeier place the composition of the stories of the exodus and the law codes that Moses received at Sinai in the late second millennium.' Megan Bishop Moore, Brad E. Kelle, Biblical History and Israel S Past: The Changing Study of the Bible and History, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2011pp.87-91 p.89

These scholars, but this applies to everyone, also have a confirmation bias (They are both evangelical Christians, and Hoffmeier particularly is on his own in believing the central narratives of the Exodus were written in classical Hebrew 4-5 centuries before that idiom differentiated itself from the Canaanite version of Northwest Semitic. No linguist believes that possible). One of Kitchen's most remarkable statements is that since there is no evidence for the Passover and the Exodus, we should not expect any evidence (Kenton L. Sparks, God's Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship, Baker Academic, 2008 pp.156ff.,p.157.) This is a minority view, to which they are entitled, and which we register. The majoritarian view is (you can get an inadequate summary at Dating the Bible) is that the Pentateuch is post-exilic (Franz V. Greifenhagen Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map: Constructing Biblical Israel's Identity, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2003 p.212:'Clearly, on the basis of the extant manuscript evidence alone, 250BCE represents the terminus ad quem for the production of the final text of the Pentateuch'. You are in your right to identify with the minority view, but you are failing to understand that confirmation bias extends also to scholars like Kitchen and Hoffmeier. My own personal view, I repeat, is that we don't know anything for certain, and my 'confirmation bias' tends to see the contradictions in sources, whereas yours, I hazard to guess, looks for a vindication of what you believe to be the truth, which becomes a benchmark for calling those who disagree with scholars whose work you prefer, 'ideological'.Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Scholars have started dating stuff later. Still the authors did get some details about the destruction of Jericho right. Maybe they had sources who knows.
Nishidani seems to be confusing Greater Israel and Land of Israel one being associated with extreme Zionism and the second being a religious and cultural term. Used by all Jews even anti-Zionist Haredi.Jonney2000 (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Benjil on the Merneptah stele and with Jonney on Land of Israel. Also, Nishidani, didn't you say above you're not going to touch the lead "of course"? Why the change of heart? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think he is confusing them - the two concepts overlap. The prevalence of the term "Land of Israel" today owes much more to secular zionists than religious rabbis. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Profoundly incorrect. For example, there are many Mitzvot (in case you're unaware, those are laws in Judaism) that can only be performed in Israel, Jews have always prayed towards Israel, and prayed for a return to Israel as well for thousands of years. Much of Jewish prayer revolves around Eretz Yisrael ("The Land of Israel") as do a great percentage of commentaries on the Torah/Talmud/etc. The Land of Israel is and always has been of central important in Judaism. A small handful of examples: Sifrei 28: "settling the land of Israel is equated with all the mitzvot of the Torah." Maimonides: "the calculations which we use today to know when Rosh Chodesh and the holidays occur, may only be done in the land of Israel...I will give some additional explanation: let us assume, for example, that there would be no Jewish inhabitants in Eretz Yisroel (G‑d forbid such a thing, since He has already promised that he will never completely wipe out or uproot the Jewish nation); that there would be no Bais Din there, nor a Bais Din outside the land of Israel which had been ordained in the land of Israel. In such a case, our calculations would be totally futile, since we, who dwell outside the land of Israel, may not make the calculations, nor declare leap years nor establish the months without the conditions mentioned above,since, "For from Zion shall go forth the Torah, and the word of the L‑rd from Jerusalem." A person who fully understands the words of the Talmud in this subject will, upon meditation, undoubtedly agree with the abovementioned." Babylonian Talmud: "All who walk four amot in the Land of Israel are guaranteed to be in the World to Come." etc etc etc. It's ok to not know much about Judaism, but it's not ok to make things up about a religion you know very little about. Drsmoo (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
In reply to NMMGG's last point see here. It arose out of a note to young MM, who had just edited the page. But I'll stick to my principle. I dislike wasting time with a mechanical audience of reverters or automatic voters not known for having done anything significant to improve this pathetic page.
Dovid. The compromise I would have suggested has, to judge from the above, already been preemptively overruled. Just for the record I would have suggested:

in that part of the southern Levant known as Cisjordan (ref. Franz V. Greifenhagen Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map: Constructing Biblical Israel's Identity, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2003 pp.10-11:'In contrast to increasing archaeological evidence for a more or less indigenous origin for historical Israel in the Cis-and Transjordan, the Pentateuch generally attempts to distance Israel from anything Canaanite (i.e. indigenous) and insists on an origin in Mesopotamia. But why the detour through Egypt? . .Here is a hypothesis . .that the Egyptian detour is a means to include and absorb yet a third possible origin tradition that begins neither in the Cisjordan nor in Mesopotamia but in Egypt.’

I gather that this sudden showup of the usual majority means it is once more pointless my wasting further time here. So, with a closing immensely erudite allusion, 'Th-th-th-that's all folks!'Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Not the usual majority. I stayed aside. Debresser (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jews. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Greece

A forgotten letter: There is no similar public document of protest against Nazi occupiers by a high profile official during World War II that has come to light in any other European country.

The letter was presented to General Jürgen Stroop, the SS commandant in Greece who was a vicious Nazi leader who had previously been responsible for the death of tens of thousands of Jews in Warsaw and the complete destruction of the Warsaw ghetto after an uprising there.

Stroop was outraged at the Greek Archbishop’s defiance and threatened to shoot Damaskinos.

The archbishop bravely reminded the German authorities that “according to the traditions of the Greek Orthodox Church, our prelates are hung and not shot. Please respect our traditions!”

The Germans proceeded with the deportations. Damaskinos called the police chief of Athens, Angelos Evert, to his office and said, “I have spoken to God and my conscience tells me what we must do. The church will issue false baptismal certificates to any Jew who asks for them and you will issue false identification cards.”

Due to Damaskinos’s courageous stance, thousands of Greek Jews were spared.

In addition to this letter, Archbishop Damaskinos was pivotal in saving the lives of thousands of Jews in Athens. Together with the chief of police in Athens, Damaskinos ordered priests to give Jews Christian “baptismal certificates,” offering them Christian names and refuge from Nazi checkpoints and round ups.

For his efforts, Damaskinos was honored by Yad Vashem in Jerusalem as “Righteous among the nations,” an important designation given to non-Jews who risked their own lives to save Jews during the Holocaust. He is also recognized prominently in a permanent exhibition at the International Holocaust Museum in Washington DC.

The complete text of the letter, directed to the Nazi-imposed Greek prime minister follows:

To The Prime Minister Mr. K. Logothetopoulos ATHENS

Mr. Prime Minister

The Greek people were rightfully surprised and deeply grieved to learn that the German Occupation Authorities have already started to put into effect a program of gradual deportation of the Greek Jewish community of Salonika to places beyond our national borders, and that the first groups of deportees are already on their way to Poland. The grief of the Greek people is particularly deep because of the following:

According to the terms of the armistice, all Greek citizens, without distinction of race or religion, were to be treated equally by the Occupation Authorities.

The Greek Jews have proven themselves not only valuable contributors to the economic growth of the country but also law-abiding citizens who fully understand their duties as Greeks. They made sacrifices for the Greek country and were always on the front line in the struggles of the Greek nation to defend its inalienable historical rights.

The law-abiding nature of the Jewish community in Greece refutes a priori any charge that it may be involved in actions or acts that might even slightly endanger the safety of the Military Occupation Authorities.

In our national consciousness, all the children of Mother Greece are an inseparable unity: they are equal members of the national body irrespective of religion or dogmatic differences.

Our Holy Religion does not recognize superior or inferior qualities based on race or religion, as it is stated: ”There is neither Jew nor Greek” (Gal. 3:28) and thus condemns any attempt to discriminate or create racial or religious differences.

Our common fate, both in days of glory and in periods of national misfortune, forged inseparable bonds between all Greek citizens, without exemption, irrespective of race.

Certainly, we are not unaware of the deep conflict between the new Germany and the Jewish community, nor do we intend to become defenders or judges of world Jewry in the great sphere of world politics and economic affairs. Today we are interested in and deeply concerned with the fate of 60,000 of our fellow citizens, who are Jews. For a long time, we have lived together in both slavery and freedom, and we have come to appreciate their feelings, their brotherly attitude, their economic activity and, most important, their indefectible patriotism. Evidence of this patriotism is the great number of victims sacrificed by the Greek Jewish community without regret and without hesitation on the altar of duty when our country was in peril.

Mr. Prime Minister,

We are certain that the thoughts and feelings of the Government on this matter are in agreement with those of the rest of the Greek nation. We also trust that you have already taken the necessary steps and applied to the Occupation Authorities to rescind the grievous and futile measure to deport the members of the Jewish community of Greece.

We hope, indeed, that you have clarified to those in power that such harsh treatment of Jews of other nationalities in Greece makes the instituted measure even more unjustifiable and therefore morally unacceptable. If security reasons underlie it, we think it possible to suggest alternatives. Other measures can be taken, such as detaining the active male population (not including children and old people) in a specific place on Greek territory under the surveillance of the Occupation Authorities, thereby guaranteeing safety in face of any alleged danger and saving the Greek Jewish community from the impending deportation. Moreover, we would like to point out that, if asked, the rest of the Greek people will be willing to vouch for their brothers in need without hesitation.

We hope that the Occupation Authorities will realize in due time the futility of the persecution of Greek Jews, who are among the most peaceful and productive elements of the country.

If, however, they insist on this policy of deportation, we believe that the Government, as the bearer of whatever political authority is left in the country, should take a clear stance against these events and let the foreigners bear the full responsibility of committing this obvious injustice. Let no one forget that all actions done during these difficult times, even those actions that lie beyond our will and power, will be assessed some day by the nation and will be subjected to historical investigation. In that time of judgment, the responsibility of the leaders will weigh heavily upon the conscience of the nation if today the leaders fail to protest boldly in the name of the nation against such unjust measures as the deportation of the Greek Jews, which are an insult to our national unity and honor.

Respectfully, Damaskinos Archbishop of Athens and Greece

Following are the signatures of the heads of the major cultural institutions and organizations:

President of the Academy of Athens, Rector of the University of Athens, Rector of the Polytechnical School of Athens, Rector of the High School of Economic Studies, President of the Medical Association of Attica, President of the Roll of Barristers of Attica, President of the Union of Notaries of Athens and Aegean, President of the Journalists Union, President of the Association of Greek Authors, President of the Culture Association, President of the Piraeus Chamber of Commerce, President of the Athens Professional Chamber, President of the Greek Association of Chemists, President of the Athens Association of Pharmacists, President of the Dentists Association, President of the Athens Craftsman Chamber, President of the Piraeus Association of Pharmacists, President of the Greeks Actors, President of the Greek Association of Pharmacists, President of the Medical Association of Piraeus, President of the Athens Association of Commercants, President of the Athens Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Vice-President of the Greek Union of Theatrical and Musical Critics, President of the Medical Association of Callithea, Secretary General of the Panhellenic Association of Dentists, President of the Greek Industrialists Union, General Director of the Refugees Organization, General Director of Social Health Organization.58.165.112.104 (talk) 09:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting material. Must have been truly a man of God. Debresser (talk) 09:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Population of Jews in Switzerland is way way too high

I have been registered as an editor for many years but I've never been able to figure out how to do it on a technical level. I apologize In the Wikipedia app and now on the mobile site the population of Jews in Switzerland currently is listed at 238,000 people. When I looked up the article about the history of the Jews in Switzerland the current population is listed at 17,000. this seems to be the accurate figure and I would appreciate it if someone could assist me with the correction or perform it on my behalf.

Thank you. Jedherman 02:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Jed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedherman (talk • contribs)

There was some mistake.Cathry (talk) 02:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Good fix Cathry (talk). Made the pop. listing look bloody ridiculous! Irondome (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
thank you!!

Jedherman 03:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedherman (talk • contribs)

Same old synth problem again

Compare:

The Jews . .are an ethnoreligious group[12] originating from the Israelites, or Hebrews, of the Ancient Near East.[13][14] Jewish ethnicity, nationhood and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation

with the classic work by Gordon W. Allport

Many groups that are the object of prejudice cannot be classified exclusively as racial, ethnic, national, religious, or as any other single sociological type. The Jews are an excellent case in point.Gordon W. Allport, ,The Nature of Prejudice (1954) Doubleday Anchor 1958 p.116.

For Allport, none of these factors alone can define Jews: for our article, all of them, shoved together, can define the Jews. Nishidani (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani, I think you misunderstand the text of the article. It seems rather to agree with what Allport writes, that not one of them can define being Jewish. The article never claims that the four together do (define what Jewish is), just states that they are interrelated. Debresser (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, you are wrong. That is an outstanding patchwork of synth, even jamming up a congeries of what in statistics are called 'rare-zero differentials' to make a group portrait. Allport just states what most of what I read on the subject states - Jews are one of the hardest groups to define satisfactorily because of their diaspora cosmopolitanism: any one of those features might enter the equation as a defining quality to the exclusion of others, and religion has little to do historically with Ashkenazi identity over the last 2 centuries. The overwhelming consensus of European orthodoxy was that Jews did not constitute a nation, and all of a sudden, in 1948, this was dropped to assert the contrary, while the Haredim insisted to the contrary that Jewishness was religious, and not a matter of nationality.Nishidani (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
When I said that the article agrees with Allport, I meant in the fact that none of the four mentioned aspects defines being Jewish. The article then adds something else, that those four aspects are strongly interrelated in Jews. That is not sourced to him, and also not contradicted by him. Debresser (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
No, about 30% of American Jews don't feel attached to Israel (which embodies the notion of a Jewish nation), and a similar percent, among young Jews, are not religious. That is a substantial minority, almost a third, who fail 2 of the 4 elements. There is a distinct generational gap here, and what the article is asserting reflects a common sense of Jewishness among a majority of the old.
Fully 93% of Jews in the aging Greatest Generation identify as Jewish on the basis of religion (called “Jews by religion” in this report); just 7% describe themselves as having no religion (“Jews of no religion”). By contrast, among Jews in the youngest generation of U.S. adults – the Millennials – 68% identify as Jews by religion, while 32% describe themselves as having no religion and identify as Jewish on the basis of ancestry, ethnicity or culture.
About seven-in-ten American Jews (69%) say they are emotionally very attached (30%) or somewhat attached (39%) to Israel. (nationality)
41% of the Israeli population does not identify with Judaism in the religious sense.
It may just be my misfortune, but 99% of Jews I have been acquainted with don't fit that definition. Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
That is just fine. Which is why it says that being Jewish is some mix of those four.
By the way, what would you propose? Debresser (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I think being Jewish isn't a mix, but involves at least one of those several elements.
If I had to define the category, I would simply say (knowing full well it will never be adopted):

A Jew is a person of Jewish descent, self-identifying as such, or who has converted to Judaism'.

That 'self-identifying as such' covers extreme cases like Alain F. Corcos and Shlomo Sand etc. I can't think of an exception to this, as I can to any definition which demands a mixture of several elements.Nishidani (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Self-identifying as Jewish does not make one Jewish. But I personally have no problem with the rest. At the same time, I think it makes sense to have something to the effect that for Jewish people, their being Jewish is something which is a mix, to an individual degree of ethnicity, nation, religion and culture.
You misread. I wrote that as a qualifying clause meaning 'people of Jewish descent who perceive themselves as Jews'. Many people of Jewish descent (one or more forebears who are Jewish, aside from other ethnicities) don't think of themselves as Jewish. Alex Corcos was who I had in mind. He is of Jewish descent on both sides, but as a biologist, doesn't believe in race, or 'ethnicity' and says Jewish for him means subscribing for Judaism, which he doesn't. His brother is a Jew, defining himself thus on grounds of descent, and because he frequents the synagogue. I don't think asserting that for Jewish people you have to have a mix, is empirically true. Ethiopians or Inca Jews have only conversion, no mix. The secular law of return allows aliyah to people married to a Jew (no descent, no culture, no ethnicity). halakhic rules insist your mother must be Jewish, so there is a vast conflict in Israeli usage between Jews who fit halakhic definitions (religion) and Jews who fit a pattern of simple descent from one Jew, or marriage with a Jew. You know this - that halakhic definition excludes a mix of those four factors, and insists only only one - better than I, and the statement in the text on mixture is contrafactual.Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Even for people who did conversion, being Jewish is a mix of belonging to a nation, and a religion and a culture, and even an ethnicity, for their future generations.
The Law of Return doesn't say who is Jewish, only who has the right to become an Israeli citizen, and that specifically includes some relatives of non-Jews as well. Debresser (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
What are you saying? That we shouldn't call Jews any of those things because it's so complicated? Then we'd have "Jews are a group". That's not particularly informative. --Monochrome_Monitor 12:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hatnote

@Debresser: I couldn't find any consensus on why the Judaism hatnote should be there, at least a recent one. Most of readers are knowledgeable enough to distinguish between Jews and Judaism when searching. Judaism is already linked in the first lead paragraph anyway, so considering all that and WP:HAT which says "If at all possible, limit hatnotes to just one at the top of the page", I suggest removing that hatnote. That "this article is about the Jewish people" is rather self-evident. Brandmeistertalk 21:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

It is the second part that warrants the hatnote. It used to be more detailed. I remember the discussions very well, although I agree they weren't that recent. Debresser (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
See Talk:Jews/Archive_25#Edit and the discussion on the talkpage of Judaism it refers to here. Debresser (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

No longer disputed?

For the longest time there was a [dubious – discuss] tag following "The Merneptah Stele appears to confirm the existence of a people of Israel, associated with the god El, somewhere in Canaan as far back as the 13th century BCE." This was removed in a giant overhaul of the section here. While much of the section was subsequently restored, this tag was not. Note that I wasn't the one who put that tag there (can't seem to find who did either), but I do actually disagree somewhat with phrasing it in such a way at that particular spot in the lead. It clearly implies that our scope "Jews" and this particular "people of Israel" are the exact same people instead of a related group or part of said people. I prefer not to use ambiguity to create a certain image (here it may be meant to say that Israelis already lived in the land at least 4000 years ago, something particularly sensitive politically). The article Israelites says: "The prevailing academic opinion today is that the Israelites, who eventually evolved into the modern Jews and Samaritans, were an outgrowth of the indigenous Canaanites who had resided in the area since the 8th millennium BCE." This makes a clear distinction that could be better addressed. "Jews originated as a national and religious group in the Middle East during the second millennium BCE" is similar, but seems to be leniently based off of the other sentence.

Another thing I've noticed is that most of the sweeping changes occur in the lead of the article. As the lead is supposed to reflect the article (MOS:INTRO), this is problematic. The sentence in question is not addressed a whole lot in the article, with short mentions in the "Origins" section only. I won't do anything myself (at least for a good while), though if others deem it to be an issue an inline tag may again be needed. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistent Layout

There is no "history" section in this article, which is completely inconsistent with similar articles. Why is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.157.232 (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

What similar articles? Why is a "History" section needed in your opinion? Debresser (talk) 05:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Synonym to Jew

The Jews are also called Hebrews in certain countries (Like Russia, Евреи). Although not everywhere, the word Yid (Jew) would be used in a negative some areas. I think just for a small accuracy, it would helpful to just add "also known as Jewish People or Hebrews" or "The Jews, or Hebrews," and link it to the Hebrew article on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.171.88 (talk) 10:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hebrews is the name of the Israelite people prior to the establishment of the Kingdom of Israel. It is not quite relevent to an English wikipedia. The article itself says that the Jews originated from the Hebrews.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You just describe why this word is a synonym which basically supports what I wrote above. I am not discussing when it was first used, I am simply asking to add it as a commonly used synonym for the Jews for the reasons above. Yes, few lines later "Hebrews" will be mentioned again but for a different purpose. About the relevance to the Wikipedia article - I am not a registered user, nor I have any idea how things on Wikipedia work. Which is probably why I'd rather write in "talk" instead of creating a user and edit things by myself. I think it's relevant, especially since English is an international language. Additionally, I don't think 1-3 words can hurt that much, and they add accuracy. All the better. 84.108.171.88 (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed addition, on the grounds that this is the English Wikipedia, and in English "Hebrews" and "Israelis" and "Jew" are all different things. No need to consider the etymological connection in other languages or the derogatory meanings in other languages on the English Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

And how exactly are they different? Even in English, Hebrews and Jews are synonym while Israelites usually refers to the ancient Jews. So, you can refer to Jews as Hebrews even in English. 84.108.171.88 (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

In many languages, the word "Hebrews" is used as an equivalent for Jews, and the article discusses that. See Jews#Name and etymology. English isn't one of those languages, however. In English, the use of the word "Hebrew" to describe a Jew is archaic. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
"Hebrews" is not a synonym for "Jews".. How did you interpret that from my words? I said that "Hebrews" was the name (in the Hebrew version of the Old Testement) of the Israelite people (including the Jews) prior to the establishment of the Kingdom of Israel. When you say "Hebrews" in English you are generally refering to Israelites (sons of Israel). The "Jews" are Israelites from "Judea", at least according to tradition.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Murdered or killed

To be fair I am not really sure about this. Murder for me is a legal term and it worries me that saying jews were "murdered" implies it was done behind the back of the German state, surreptitiously so to speak, when it was the exact opposite. It was a state-sponsored genocide. I hope my position makes sense. I don't like "killed" either since it doesn't seem an adequate. Exterminated maybe? Asilah1981 (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I was just about to start the thread with the same title! My initial thoughts are that the Nazi state was declared an outlaw entity and its laws rendered null and void. Nuremberg trials should have something to say on this re sources. Also subsequent concepts of Genocide as perceived by international law. Theoretically the holocaust even under Nazi-written laws, could have been argued to have been murder. This opens out an interesting line of thought. It is very tricky indeed, and exterminated is a possibility. Maybe we can develop a consensus here. Irondome (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
What I've usually seen, the reasoning is that the Nazi government was not legitimate (or more broadly, that any genocide invalidates any government's claim to legitimacy at a minimum in the matter). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes frankly, I don't have an answer. More opinions welcome. :-)Asilah1981 (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity#Nuremberg trials Paragraph 6 (c) of the London Charter seems fairly uncompromising on the use of the term "murder" and "extermination". Irondome (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that Wikipedia is not a court of law. The word "murder" is widely used by reliable sources, as well as the layman, in relation to the Holocaust, so it can be used. In addition, it sounds more emotional than the detached "killed", and I think that is legitimate in this case, even on an encyclopedia. Debresser (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with the comments by Debresser and Ian above. The term murder is extensively used by RS. Irondome (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes I guess I do to... I agree killed sounded wrong in this case.Asilah1981 (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Debresser I think there may be a slight misunderstanding here. I thought you were satisified with the term murder or at least did not explicitly oppose it. I sense consensus is with "murder" at this point. It is, after all technically correct if the above points made by others are taken into account. I suggest we all refrain from further edits until an explicit agreed consensus is reached. Simon. Irondome (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The misunderstanding was me mixing up the revert with the undo. I meant to restore "murdered" and accidentally restored "killed". There is no disagreement between us and I thank Asilah1981 for reverting my mistake. Debresser (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that D. I am aware that you are having a few problems with a rogue IP at the moment, and stress like that can mix any editor up. Clarification much appreciated. Simon Irondome (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Murdered is better than killed because it transmits the additional sense of illegality / war crimes. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Just to clarify positions. I would prefer the term "murder" also. Irondome (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Judaism is not an ethnicity

According to a Rabbi I spoke with Judaism is a religion and not and ethnicity just like Christianity or Islam is a religion and not a ethnicity. I think ethnicity for Jews needs to be dropped. There is no cited article that specifically calls Judaism an ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.213.142.36 (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Did you look at footnote 12? There's an immense amount of literature on the ethno- part of "ethnoreligious group". Antandrus (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Judaism is not only an ethnicity, but it is also an ethnicity. Debresser (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I think this a confusion between Jews as adherents of the religion Judaism, and Jews as members of the Jewish ethnicity (which is normally not called Judaism, but the Jewish people, Jews, etc). Granted, almost all members of Judaism are also ethnic Jews, many ethnic Jews are also members of Judaism, and the religion and the ethnicity share the same origins. Ask the rabbi if the Jewish people are an ethnicity. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

My recent edits

I don't know why, but my contributions here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jews&diff=733728870&oldid=733714641) had been reverted twice. Only Malik provided an explanation as to why, and they made sense, so I'll leave that part alone. As for the rest, I'd like at least some sort of explanation.ChronoFrog (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I undid it because I think your changes are taking it in an unscholarly and confused direction.Jonney2000 (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with GF reversions providing article improvement and consensus ultimately result, and WP:BRD is adhered to as best practice ChronoFrog please can you provide a brief overview of your current thinking in terms of this entire topic? A few hundred words, don't worry about WP:TLDR on this. I need to know where you are coming from. I have read the Jewish Ethic slur discussion B.T.W. and I need to orientate myself with your thinking. It maybe useful to other colleagues as well. We are all in this together :) Simon. Irondome (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I will happily explain my concerns to you later, after I get out of class. Watch this space.ChronoFrog (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I also saw nothing good in any of those many changes included in your edit. You made things vague, confused, incorrect. Even where not, they were also not substantial improvements. Debresser (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I rearranged the wording of the article to make it more accurately reflect the ethnoreligious/national character of the Jews, because the way it is phrased now implies that Jews are only a religious group which somehow magically cropped up out of the ether in Europe, North Africa, etc, rather than it being the result of Israelite migration and settlement in these new territories. ChronoFrog (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

User: Irondome As for what my thinking entails, it is based in part on the way we (Jews, that is) have historically defined ourselves (as a nation/ethnic group), on the abundance of reliable sources (see WP:DUE) attesting to this that repeatedly went ignored in the RfC, on Deryck's page, and the AN discussion (note that many of the sources used in the Ethnic slurs RfC and subsequent discussions were pulled directly from this article), on UN/International World Bank/Martinez-Cobo's definition indigenous (according to which the Jewish diaspora and Samaritans are classified as an aboriginal population of the Levant, and rightly so), and after the recent AN discussion, a concern that A) Wikipedia policy is being flagrantly ignored in an effort to perpetuate/sanction false beliefs about Jews (see: WP:Systemic bias) and B) fear that it will validate the ongoing campaign to rewrite our history via mitigating our ethnic/ancestral/indigenous connections to Israel. I hope all of that makes sense. These are longstanding concerns that numerous Jewish editors (according to what they've said themselves on here; I can't speak for them obviously) have had about Wikipedia for a number of years, at least.ChronoFrog (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Somehow I knew this would go ignored. It always does.ChronoFrog (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It has not been ignored. I have only just noticed your post. Your ping did not work. I suggest using this format to get a colleague's attention, viz ChronoFrog. You should have got an alert on your userpage now. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Irondome Well, now that you're here, I outlined my thinking for you (since you asked). Needless to say, the events of the past week have left me feeling deeply concerned about Wikipedia.ChronoFrog (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I would in no way be discouraged. There were a few aspects of your edit I had no major trouble with, and a couple of points that I did. The main point here is that there are more nuanced POV's here among fellow Jewish Wikipedians, be they orthodox or atheist, but who identify as ethnically Jewish, than you could shake a stick at. At that of course includes our non-Jewish colleagues who support the gamut of POVs mentioned above. Just work at figuring out the vast spectrum of opinions on here that sometimes co-operate, sometimes clash, sometimes create temporary alliances, and the (superficially) surprising affections that form between those who should be tearing each others eyes out to the non -initiated. Keep going CF, you will be a valuable contributor I hope in the very long term. Simon. Irondome (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Irondome After what I just went through on AN, anyone would be discouraged. The way this site is run seems to be a good example of "tyranny of the majority". It encourages absolute know-nothings (or worse, raging bigots) to just swoop in, cast a vote, and have their voices (when in large enough quantity) count more than someone who is actually following policy, providing sources, and justifying his/her edits and proposals with reasoned, fact-based arguments. That is actually quite dangerous if you ask me, especially when the subject pertains to globally marginalized groups (i.e. Jews). The Ethnic slurs template RfC was an unmitigated disaster, and I developed an intense animosity for at least one of the editors involved.ChronoFrog (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Number of Jews by country

Hi, I just noticed that under the Ashkenazi Jews article, some countries (e.g. Russia and Argentina) have a higher Ashkenazi jewish population listed that that of the listed jewish population in this article. I don't know which one is correct, or if there's some way they can both be correct, but I thought I'd let someone know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.11.138 (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Percentage of world population

jews as percent of world population is 0.0019. the percentage is listed wrong on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Residentbel (talk • contribs) 12:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

When working with percentages, remember to multiply the numerical proportion by 100. This gives us 0.19 percent here, which matches the nearly 0.2% figure (based on one in 514) sourced in the article. Hertz1888 (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

People of Israel

Considering the fact that People of Israel is the actual name of the "Jewish" people, wouldn't it be better if we add it to the Hebrew pronunciation alongside "Yehudim"? Infantom (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Why do you say that People of Israel is the "actual name" of the Jewish people? Debresser (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Because it is. People of Israel is the original name of the Jewish people who are just Israelis from Judea. The term was used, in more later times, by non-Israelites to refer to Israelites after the name of the kingdom of Judah, but for Jews their actual name is still "Israel" ("Am Israel" and not "Am Yehuda") as it can be seen in Jewish literature and writings since the biblical era to modern times. There're also many examples for this: people of Israel, Land of Israel, Torah of Israel, State of Israel etc.. Infantom (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Now you say it is the "original name", which is not the same as the "actual name". There is a reason the name changed from something with "Israel" to "Yehudim". In short, I disagree with you. The main name nowadays, including per WP:COMMONNAME would be "Yehudim". Debresser (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
It is the original and actual name. The name has never been changed, Jews merely adopted the non-Jewish term in addition to their "real" name. That's why, for instance, in your siddur you won't find the word "Yehudi" in contract to "Israel", even though it was composed centuries after the term started to be in use. Anyway, you missed my point, i'm not suggesting to replace "Yehudim" but to add "Am Israel" alongside it. Infantom (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I did understand your point, but still disagree. I do not think that "People of Israel/Am Yisrael" is the original name of the Jewish people. Debresser (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
What you think (which is very odd) is not the issue, some of the sources in the article indicate that "Jews" are originally "Israelis":
  • "The Jewish people as a whole, initially called Hebrews (ʿIvrim), were known as Israelites (Yisreʾelim) from the time of their entrance into the Holy Land to the end of the Babylonian Exile (538 bc). Thereafter, the term Yĕhūdhī (Latin: Judaeus; French: Juif; German: Jude; and English: Jew) was used to signify all adherents of Judaism, because the survivors of the Exile (former inhabitants of the Kingdom of Judah) were the only Israelites who had retained their distinctive identity." ... "the term Jew is thus derived through the Latin Judaeus and the Greek Ioudaios from the Hebrew Yĕhūdhī. The latter term is an adjective occurring only in the later parts of the Old Testament and signifying a descendant of Yehudhah (Judah)" [1]
  • Thereafter, the name Israelite referred to those who were still distinctively Jewish, namely, descendants of the Kingdom of Judah. [2]
These are just the sources in the article, there are probably more, though i'm not sure i'll make the effort for a pretty minor issue like this. Infantom (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
"Israelites" is not the same as "Am Yisrael" or "People of Israel". Make up your mind! And even then, I am not sure these are the same. Either way, even if there were an original name, who says we have to mention that in the first line of the article. Guidelines like [WP:COMMONNAME]] are clear about using names that are in common and present use.
Sentences like "what you think is not the issue" are contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and violate WP:CIVIL to boost, because on Wikipedia, which is a community website, my opinion per definition matters. Debresser (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that you make up your own definitions based on nothing and that's the reason of your objection. What's the difference between Israelites and people of Israel? The source i cited explicitly says there isn't: "Israelites (Yisreʾelim)" Yisreʾelim = Israelis = people of Israel. Infantom (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Any source that says that "Israelites" and "Israelis" are the same is simply mistaken. "Israelites" are an ancient people, "Israelis" a modern people. Not my definition. Debresser (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Participants in this discussion might be interested in this article, which (1) attests to the antiquity of the name "Jewish", and (2) asserts that, in the Romance languages, Jews have always been called Jews and not "People of Israel". This is not to express an opinion one way or the other on the issue, just to add a little documentation. Ravpapa (talk) 05:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

...and also this. Ravpapa (talk) 05:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

...and here is an interesting Midrashic explanation of the name change from "Hebrew" to "Jew". Ravpapa (talk) 06:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Despite their small numbers, significantly

What does "despite their small numbers" have to do with the context in: "Despite their small percentage of the world's population, Jews have significantly influenced and contributed to human progress in many fields, including philosophy,[42] ethics,[43] literature, business, fine arts and architecture, music, theatre[44] and cinema, medicine,[45][46] as well as science and technology, both historically and in modern times."

For example, in an article about Greeks, people with similar numbers to the Jews, here's the way it's put:

"Greeks have greatly influenced and contributed to culture, arts, exploration, literature, philosophy, politics, architecture, music, mathematics, science and technology, business, cuisine, and sports, both historically and contemporarily."

The section about small numbers have no relation to the subject whatsoever (the number of Jews in fact isn't that small, it is similar to that of the Irish (about 20 mln in the UK and Ireland), or the aforementioned Greeks, or the Dutch (30 mln), who gave us Capitalism. In other words "despite their small numbers" here is an entirely unnecessary and rather biased statement.

And Debresser (talk) you're the one who's edit-warring obviously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PanKaycke (talk • contribs) 00:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding that last line, please review WP:BRD, which comes down to "if you want to change a consensus version, you have the burden of proof".
I even fail to see how "despite their small numbers" is not relevant and stresses the significance of the the fact that they have "significantly influenced and contributed to human progress in many fields". Obviously, the lesser a population, the more noteworthy it becomes that they have had influence.
The Jewish population is presently about 15 mln, which is significantly less than 20 or 30 mln.
I do agree that the small numbers are not the only reason their influence is all the more noteworthy. The Jewish diaspora and the historical persecutions also contribute to that.
Compare "Considering their small numbers, Jews have fared disproportionately well in lists of the world’s most powerful and richest people, as well as in Nobel Prizes."[3] Debresser (talk) 08:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
"Human progress" is a vague and nebulous term that promotes a linear understanding of history, something that most serious academics reject. I don't think that wording is appropriate for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.204.48 (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
You can't be serious. I mean, you may understand it the way you want, but it still develops second after second in linear progression; the claim that the term "human progress" promotes a linear understanding of history is not necessarily correct; to oppose the word combination "human progress" on the basis of the terrible crime of promoting a certain point of view is ridiculous; especially where that point of view just happens to be widely accepted academically; stating that the term "human progress" is not "appropriate" for whatever reason is ridiculous. Too much ink wasted on this. Debresser (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
They have also contributed to weapons technology and interrogation methods.Do these count as "human progress"? Keith McClary (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
@Keith McClary:Your comments seem to be largely irrelevant to the discussion in this section, which is about the phrase "despite their small numbers". If you want to discuss whether Jews have disproportionately "contributed to weapons technology and interrogation methods", please start a new section, and please provide some suggested reliable sources for your ideas. Sundayclose (talk) 01:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia say of other ethnic groups "Despite their large numbers they have made few contributions...". Keith McClary (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to check. Not that I think it maters much. Debresser (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the claim of Jewish superiority should be moved to the first sentence of the article and put in boldface capitals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith McClary (talk • contribs) 06:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Could the sentence be shortened to just fields which have sources? Sure. But you're really sounding like an antisemitic troll in this thread. The world's two largest religions claim the Jewish prophets as their predecessors (and aren't the only ones to do so), and the largest religion even worships a Jew. That is not Jews trying to promote some sort of supremacism, that is a simple fact and proof that they have had far more influence on human society than their numbers would suggest. Other fields of influence are or should be supported by the sources cited in the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the mention of "despite their small numbers", it might be better understood that this is a common Jewish refrain. The Bible (G-d?) states that Jews will always be a minority. Deuteronomy 7:7. "Not because you are more numerous than any people did the Lord delight in you and choose you, for you are the least of all the peoples." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.219.241.26 (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I always understood that verse as referring to inferiority, not to their demographic numbers. And in the 21st century, 17 million Jews is not a small ethnic group.

The entire population of Croatians is estimated to 8.5 million people, of Armenians 8 million, of Bulgarians 8 million, of Albanians 8 million, of Georgians 7 million, of Danes 6.9 million, of Finns 6.5 million, of Slovaks 6 million, of Sicilians 5 million, of Macedonians 5 million, of Bosniaks 4.5 million, of Lithuanians 4.1 million, of Afrikaners 3.5 million, of Moldovans 2.7 million, of Slovenes 2.5 million, of Basques 2.4 million, of Sardinians 1.7 million, of Latvians 1.6 million, of Frisians 1.5 million, of Estonians 1 million, of Maltese 0.7 million, of Icelanders 1.5 million.

In other words, the Jews currently outnumber several of the ethnic groups in Europe. Dimadick (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Originating from the Israelites

Why does this article say that jews originate from Israelites when not all jews are the same race, ethnicity, and there is no good evidence that anyone is descended from ancient Israelites? ScienceApe (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

For starters, because it is sourced. Your objections are correct on the level of any specific Jew, but as a nation the statement holds true. Debresser (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The sources in the article do not support this. It is also clearly not provable - there is simply no evidence. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I see the same sources as you do, and in my understanding they do support this. Why in the world it would be "not provable", I fail to understand. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The sources listed are from Encyclopedia Britanica, a tertiary source, not a secondary source. "Jew" is not a nation, nor is there a nation where its inhabitants are descended from ancient Israelites. ScienceApe (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a primary source. Debresser (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Nowhere does the article say, as ScienceApe claims, that "Jews originate from Israelites". What the article says is that the Jews, or the Jewish people, originated from the Israelites. That is hardly a controversial statement, and it is supported by a reliable source. If you don't like Britannica, many more sources could be cited.

The question is: what does ScienceApe object to in that statement? Does she/he think it somehow means that every Jew in the history of the world is descended from the Israelites? It doesn't say that, and it isn't true. The Jewish people has experienced growth through marriage and conversion. Only somebody who is willfully blind or driven by an agenda could believe that the article asserts every Jew is the descendant of Israelites. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 00:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

What's wrong with tertiary sources? according to wp:TERTIARY, there are allowed to be used. Your concern seems wrong and irrelevant. Race has nothing to do with the issue; as supported by at least 10(!) sources in the first paragraph, Jews are indeed the same ethnic group and are also a nation; the article doesn't even use the term "descended" (which the sources support as well). Infantom (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Infantom is absolutely right about the use of tertiary sources. I was ready to write that he was wrong about all Jews belonging to the same ethnic group until I read the lead section of Ethnic group, according to which:
Membership of an ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language or dialect, symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, art, and physical appearance.
I think that applies to Jews as physically and ritually dissimilar as a secular African-American Jew such as myself and a religious Mizrahi Jew on the other side of the world. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
"Nowhere does the article say, as ScienceApe claims, that "Jews originate from Israelites"" That's exactly what it says. It's stating that jews are descended from Israelites. There's no evidence for this. If that's not what it means then you need to rephrase the statement to be very clear on what it's supposed to mean, although I can't possibly fathom what it's supposed to mean other than that. There's no evidence that anyone is descended from ancient Israelites. Tertiary sources shouldn't be used when there's no evidence that what the tertiary source says is true. I never said all jews belong to the same ethnic group, nor do they. If jews are multi-ethnic and multi-racial (which they are), it makes no sense to say that they "originate from ancient Israelites", which directly implies that they are descended from them (again if that's not what it means, the statement has to be rephrased for clarity). Different jews of different races descended from different people, hence their origins are varied and the statement that they originate from ancient Israelites is totally wrong. ScienceApe (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

To summarize:

  • The article says "Jews... are an ethnoreligious group originating from the Israelites, or Hebrews..."
  • Britannica says: (a) "In the broader sense of the term, a Jew is any person belonging to the worldwide group that constitutes, through descent or conversion, a continuation of the ancient Jewish people, who were themselves descendants of the Hebrews of the Old Testament" and (b) "Hebrew, any member of an ancient northern Semitic people that were the ancestors of the Jews"

Britannica does not support our sentence - our sentence is synth because Britannica (a) refers to "descent or conversion" and its description is via the "ancient Jewish people", and (b) is ambiguous re whether it is referring to ancient or modern Jews. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

We also need to recognize that there is a structural reason for the continuous criticism which this sentence has garnered on this talk page over the years. Most other ethnic groups cannot be "converted in to". e.g. you cannot become a member of the Japanese ethnic group if you were not born into it, but you can become a member of the Jewish people - as an ethnoreligous group, the situation here is more complex. We shouldn't hide from this by clinging to an overly simplistic sentence. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
There is no synth, you don't have to copy word by word from the source. I would prefer another phrasing, however the sources support the current one. There's no ambiguity as well, first because Britannica refers directly to Jews while it could refer to ancient Jewish people as it did at the article about Jews, secondly because it doesn't really matter since Britannica says the Jews of today are a "continuation of the ancient Jewish people" anyway. You can assimilate into an ethnic group, each group has it's own ways (if it allows it, many are), but i can't see how it's relevant, no one ever claimed all Jews in the world are descended from Israelites, but that the Jewish people, as a nation and ethnic group(which doesn't necessarily involve blood relation), originated from them, if that's the your "structural reason" than you don't really have a case.
ScienceApe, it's like your'e discussing with yourself, all your arguments have been addressed and you just ignore them and keep telling the same thing. Your'e clueless about the topic and about what is a Jew, you refuse to read the sources and make up your own Wikipedia rules. This is unhelpful. Infantom (talk) 12:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
First of all, you're replying to Oncenawhile, but thinking it's me. That shows me that you aren't paying very close attention to what you are doing, so you're the last person to be calling anyone clueless. As for being clueless about what a Jew is, I think everyone is clueless about what a Jew is, since anyone can be a Jew. This article calls it an "ethnoreligious" group, but Jews can be different ethnicities and different religions, so it hardly makes sense in the first place. "continuation of the ancient Jewish people" is vague, what does that mean? If someone from India today identifies as an adherent to the ancient Norse religion, does that mean they are a continuation of ancient Nords? Assimilating into an ethnic group doesn't mean you are part of that ethnic group. "no one ever claimed all Jews in the world are descended from Israelites" The article directly implies this, if that's not what it means, then it must be rephrased because that's the meaning I'm getting from it. It's poorly phrased if that's not what you are trying to convey. "but that the Jewish people, as a nation and ethnic group(which doesn't necessarily involve blood relation), originated from them", again what does that mean? As far as I'm concerned that means they are descended from them. If that's not what it means, then you have to rephrase that statement so it's clear on what it's supposed to mean. ScienceApe (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I was replying to both of you, first paragraph addressed Oncenawhile and the second addressed you, that's why it mentions your user name at the beginning. Not only you're clueless and, as it seems, lack of basic reading comprehension you also misunderstand basic terms as ethnicity and ethnoreligious group which means "an ethnic group whose members are also unified by a common religious background" (read more at Ethnic religion), Jews cannot be of "different ethnicities and different religions", that's nonsense. Your comparison with an Indian adherent of Norse religion is irrelevant, because again, you're talking about an individual while the article talks about a collective. Jews as a people, a nation, and their cultural heritage, language, religion, mythology and rituals, territorial and national affinity are originated from the Israelites, no blood relation of any individual within the ethnic group is required, you simply make up your own definitions. Infantom (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Clueless and inability to read seem to be traits that you possess and are projecting on to others. Not all jews are jews, some are atheist, some are Buddhist, some are christian. So no, they are not unified by a common religious background, they can come from any religious background and be any religion. Jews can be of different ethnicities, simply asserting that they can not, is patently wrong. You can be Nordic and jewish, you can be Semitic and jewish, you can be Germanic and jewish, you can be Yiddish and jewish, you can be any ethnicity on the planet and simultaneously be jewish. No actually it's not irrelevant, there can be a group of Indian adherents of Norse religion, not merely an individual. "Jews as a people, a nation, and their cultural heritage, language, religion, mythology and rituals, territorial and national affinity are originated from the Israelites", that's not what the article says, the article says that JEWS are an ethnoreligious group originated from Israelites. This is vague and implies that jews descend from Israelites, of which there is no evidence for. Jews are NOT, "a nation, and their cultural heritage, language, religion, mythology and rituals, territorial and national affinity". You smuggled all that in there into your definition of a jew, which is incorrect nor is it even in the article. Your infantile remarks detract from your overall point and discredit any cogent point you are trying to make. ScienceApe (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
By "Infantile remarks" you mean telling you to follow Wikipedia guidelines and read more than 10 sources in the article that says "ethnic and religious group" and their origins, or that tertiary sources are allowed? that you are clueless because you make up your own definitions of what is a Jew in contract to any source; like "Jews can be of many religions", "Yiddish and jewish" (what is that even mean? it's a language!) and other nonsense? that you failed to understand the meaning of an ethnoreligious group (or ethnic group in general)? or that addressing multiple editors in the same comment doesn't make one "not paying attention"?
Look, to summarize, this discussion lost it's validity at the moment you haven't provided even one single source and refused to address the numerous that are in the article. I have wasted way more time than what it deserved, unless productive assertions are being made i'm done. Cheers. Infantom (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
No, by infantile remarks I mean your behavior and lack of maturity. You also project what you are guilty of, namely the inability to read. I never once made any claims that weren't patently obvious, nor did I ever try to define what a jew is. Unless you actually challenge that jews can be of different religions, if so then you lack even common sense and shouldn't be editing wikipedia in the first place, although feel free to read about Jews for jesus. You on the other hand are so juvenile that you think "jew" is a nation, which is laughably stupid to say the least. I'm assuming you are trying to refer to Israel, but this article is not about Israel, it's about jews, and no they are not the same thing and it is troublesome and disturbing that you appear to think they are. Do you even know what an ethnicity is? A person's language is closely tied to their ethnicity, hell yiddish people even redirects to Ashkenazi Jews which is indeed an ethnicity, but not all jews are ashkenazi, hence they are different ethnicities from non-ashkenazi jews. You don't even have a modicum of understanding of the topics you are attempting to discuss, which I find incredibly ironic given that you spend your time editing nothing but jewish related articles. You are identified by a single thing that you don't understand. Maybe take up a hobby and learn about it, because you don't know anything about jews. But I agree with you, you are wasting my time. Oh and cheers. ScienceApe (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

This hread is no going the way of personal insults. I think we should stick to the present consensus version, and end this discussion. I call upon the other editors in this discussion to not post any further comments. Debresser (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Take that up with infantom, he took shots at me first, I merely responded to said shots. But no, we shouldn't end a discussion just because you don't like it. The present wording of the lead is poor, misleading, and uses weasel words. It should be changed. ScienceApe (talk) 04:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
WP:DEADHORSE. Debresser (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Platitude. ScienceApe (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The original question somewhat self-righteously and certainly ignorantly implies that Jews are merely a religious group of many races (political construct) and ethnicities, (jewish itself is an ethnicity, you are looking for Jewish ethnic divisions) a notion tragically adopted from the late 19th and early 20th century European Jewish communities' desperation to assimilate. The truth is Jews have always considered themselves a nation in some sense, with the only exception being the time in (mostly German) Ashkenazi communities between Jewish emancipation (we will award all the rights to jews as individuals and none as a collective) and political zionism. Thus you have Jewish societies of 19th century france calling themselves "Israelite associations" (because Jew has negative connotations) and Jewish societies of 19th century Germany calling themselves "association of German citizens of the Jewish faith", a name they kept until they lost their german citizenship and were inevitably murdered. But I digress, obviously that implication is not worth touching upon more than I have already, but its more moderate form is worth a response: descent doesn't wholly mean of the same racial stock, it also refers to the inheritance of a civilization, and the continuation of an ethno-cultural community. Proving descent from anyone cannot be done, as Debresser says, for any particular Jew, but all who call themselves Jews (except the myriad nationalists appropriating jewish culture to glorify their "race") are heirs to Israelite civilization- those descending from the Israelite ethno-cultural group and those who adopted their ethnic religion alike.--Monochrome_Monitor 17:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


FYI

My edit cited the wrong archive. Sundayclose mentions the original archive. This was a consensus view.[4]--Monochrome_Monitor 07:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Ur.. irrelevant?

In this diff I added the underlined bits here: "According to the Hebrew Bible narrative, Jewish ancestry is traced back to the Biblical patriarchs such as Abraham, who was from Ur Kaśdim, his son Isaac, and Isaac's son Jacob" and this was reverted in this diff with edit note, "irrelevant".

How in the world is that irrelevant? Jytdog (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

What does it matter where he came from? A simple proof that it does not mater is that for Isaac and Jacob you did not write where they were born.
You underlined the words "his son" by mistake, because I never removed them. Debresser (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that you didn't remove "his son". Abraham's call, from his home in Ur to go to "the place that I will show you", and him heeding that call, is one of the founding myths of Judaism. Of course it is important! Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
It is not evidently relevant in that sentence, so we shouldn't have it. Of course it is important, but in the right place and the right context. Debresser (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
We don't agree, obviously. Let's see what others say. Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, Abraham's origin in Ur is significant—and it is mentioned at least once in the article, in the "Migrations" section. I question whether the best place for the phrase is in that sentence, as Jytdog added it, but perhaps as a second sentence in that paragraph we could describe the peripatetic nature of the patriarchs' and matriarchs' lives: that Abraham and Sarah were from Ur, sojourned in Egypt, and came to Canaan; that Rebecca traveled to Canaan to marry Isaac; and that Jacob labored in Haran for his wives. The next sentence says that Jacob took his family to Egypt at Joseph's invitation, but there's a lot of traveling in-between that's left out. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

With some more work, I would agree that it is relevant, but not if only the place of birth of one of them is mentioned. Debresser (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Referencing

This article has an awful lot of "citation needed" tags for a good article. Time for a reassessment? --NeilN talk to me 16:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes....I will help.--Moxy (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

What do others think of the change in tone? this edit--Moxy (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

"Modern archaeology has largely discarded the historicity of the Patriarchs and of the Exodus story,"(with source)

Changed to

"A large body of archaeological research of the Ancient Near East uses ancient Hebrew texts of the area as historically accurate accounts of geography, anthropology, and culture (needs source)" "For a thorough interpretation of the historicity of the Hebrew texts consistent with decades of archaeological research, (sourced to "Reliability of the Old Testament 2003")"

Wasn't this reverted? Debresser (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
This is not a "change in tone". This is a completely different statement. Debresser (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
yes that is a good revert; not a valid edit. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
It's a terrible edit. It appears to be sourced but there's no page numbers we can check. Pretty much pov original research. "More recently, some cultural and political criticism of the religious focus of archaeology has prospered an alternative interpretation" is clearly OR. And 'as discussed with Admins'? We can't make content decisions, and a quick look above suggests that some admins discussed it but didn't say go ahead. Doug Weller talk 13:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Origins: a false equivalency where there is none

Malik Shabazz [02:42, 12 February 2017‎] is not correct that the edits made by Wmark675 creates "a false equivalency where there is none." The edits suggested by Wmark675 are balanced, nuanced, and are supported by citation, and are certainly better than the existing article text, which is a blanket assertion supported by so-called negative evidence and lacking citation. The changes suggested by Wmark675 are much less controversial among specialists within the ancient Near Eastern academic community where the texts and evidence are viewed with more circumspection. The revert implemented by Malik Shabazz should be rolled back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidAFalk (talk • contribs) 17:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand the argument of the previous editor, but I too was a bit surprised by the removal a statement with two sources by MShabazz. Debresser (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

My edit cited the wrong archive. Sundayclose mentions the original archive. This was a consensus view.[5]--Monochrome_Monitor 07:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I had tried to edit the Jews page, specifically the origins section a few days ago. I am a scientist who has a project with NSF in several tells in Israel. I am familiar with at least two theories based on archaeological evidence for the origin of Jews. Having read the wikipedia article on this it is clear that it does not do justice either to the full body of peer reviewed research nor does it reflect the political and religious tension that is a huge part of the debate. Once my edits were deleted, I got in contact with several people who are either scholars in the debate itself or archaeologists with long standing research and academic standing in the field. Wmark675 tried to edit and you mentioned that his 'good faith' edits were removed and asked that he build a consensus for the revisions. Now the page is locked down, available only to autoconfirmed users. To be honest, we are a bit mystified at how we 'prove' that there is a consensus of opinion that is not the same as the section proffers. We seek to allow the public a more balanced, educated view. It happens that this involves the scholars who hold to a sojourn and exodus as the origin of the Jews, backed by numerous scholarly articles as well as the reputation of several archaeological academics. Additionally, Wmark675 included an actual archaeological artifact, the Merneptah Stele, currently in the Cairo museum, that provides an early date of 1208 BC for the people group of Israel. This is an important piece of archaeology, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_Stele. We have contacted at least 12 academics that favor the position we are trying to insure is included. As valuable a resource as Wikipedia is to the world, it should not be propagating information that indicates that 'modern archaeology' has made a determination at the exclusion of other researchers, especially when the information that is being offered is part of a huge and ongoing debate between the academics themselves.

Reference material [1] [2]

Siefert (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Jump up ^ , On the Reliability of the Old Testament, (Eerdmans 2006). Jump up ^ Israel in Egypt and Ancient Israel in Sinai, Hoffmeier Siefert (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Siefert (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

DavidAFalk, I believe you're mistaken. The edit did try to create a false equivalency between the view of "some" archaeologists who are described (in very poor English) as having abandoned the search for the historicity of the Patriarchs and consider the Bible a national myth and those "others" who are described (in English almost as poor) as "find[ing] the evidence consistent with the Hebrew Bible narrative."
First, no professional archaeologist looks for evidence to support the Biblical narrative. In the 19th century and maybe the early 20th century, it was common to describe archaeologists of the region as "digging with a spade in one hand the Bible in the other", but not in the 21st century or most of the 20th century.
Second, pitting as opponents those who do not seek evidence of the historical Patriarchs and those who find evidence consistent with the Biblical narrative is a false dichotomy. Most archaeologists of the region are probably in both groups. They are not looking for Abraham or Joseph or David, but nevertheless they find remains of cities mentioned in the Hebrew Bible.
I'm not arguing the article or its description of archaeology is ideal or even good. It's not. But what was suggested was worse, not an improvement.
Also, our WP:NPOV policy requires us to describe the mainstream archaeological view. We can, and should, describe significant minority views, but we should not make them appear to be as widely accepted if they are not. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Debresser, don't be so surprised. Not every sentence that has a source at the end of it is an accurate summary of that source. As I wrote, creating a false dichotomy is not necessarily an accurate summary of the source—which I have not read—nor is an edit with a summary of "Added both sides of debate" a guarantee that the edit accurately summarizes both positions in a debate. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Siefert, you left a copy of your message on my talk page as well. I believe you may have me confused with Jheald, the editor who reverted your edit. I reverted a different edit. Also, this article has been semi-protected to protect it from vandalism for nearly a decade. It isn't a new change. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Debresser, Malik Shabazz, based upon your logic and review, we should assume that you have read all of the references that are used in this section to verify they are summarized correctly? Because one for sure is not, the Dever's article is summarized incorrectly. The first thing we should all do is to remove that one. You agree I am sure. I would like to send you the references that represent the majority view of 21st century, active, publishing peer reviewed, Egyptologists. These contributors/users who are currently on this talk page are intimately familiar with them. It would not be good scholarship for anyone to make a judgement or try to add content without knowing what the research in peer reviewed journals actually says. Where can I send them to you?! And I assume that you also have reasons to negate the mentioned stele, that indeed has a wikipedia page stating that most scholars view it as evidence for Israel at 1200 BC. Should we delete that page so that it conforms with this badly written, badly sourced section? You do understand that I am pointing out the inconsistencies in your argument. While I appreciate your time, I am baffled by your position. Siefert (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

What baffles you? What does this article say about the stele that's so wrong? You do realize that this is an article about the Jews, not the ancient Israelites? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz Why Yes I do, Do you? You do know what the subtitle is under this section, correct? "See also: Origins of Judaism, Jewish history, Israelites, History of Ancient Israel and Judah, and Canaan" You realize the connection, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siefert (talk • contribs) 05:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz, would you please address my other concerns. If you don't, this talk exercise is pointless and we will not have accomplished what wikipedia seeks to do. 05:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Siefert (talk)

Malik Shabazz, please provide a reference that states your position that the current origin theory represents the majority consensus of archaeological scholars. I need to review it. Siefert (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz, as a reminder to us all "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."Siefert (talk) 05:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Now understand what MShabazz meant. I agree that the text as it stood created a false impression. On the other hand, removal is not the best way to solve this problem. If there is a significant deviant opinion, we should mention it. It would have sufficed to change the word "others" to "a notable minority" e.g. We can discuss the right words, but leaving this out is not right IMHO. Debresser (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I have made edits in order to accurately reflect the state of academic debate on the origins of the Jews. I have cited multiple academic sources and requested citations for statements that are made and unsupported. These edits actually comply more accurately with Wikipedia's stated policy to present a neutral point of view, especially when there is substantial published peer -reviewed research on multiple positions on a topic. Additionally, the clause, “while the Hebrew language<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language> is the last extant member of the Canaanite languages<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_languages>” was removed because it is irrelevant to the argument and misleading. Actually what the Wikipedia page states is that “they were spoken by the ancient peoples of the Canaan region, the Canaanites, broadly defined to include the Israelites, Phoenicians, Amorites, Ammonites, Moabites and Edomites…extinct as native languages by the early 1st millennium CE, although distinct forms of Hebrew remained in continuous literary and religious use among Jews and Samaritans, while Punic remained in use in the Mediterranean”. Siefert (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Siefert: Please read WP:CIRC. This is in no way acceptable for any article, let alone a good one. Also, please gain consensus before making major changes. --NeilN talk to me 14:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN I have no idea why you are saying the edits are unacceptable. WP:CIRC has nothing to do with the number of peer reviewed pubs and books that I cited. Siefert (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN ALso if you read the previous comments, we have gained consensus to make this major change.Siefert (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Siefert: You also cited Wikipedia articles as sources and managed to copy-paste(?) sentences from somewhere that have citation needed tags. Please, if you're going to work on a WP:GA, then do it carefully or ask for help on the talk page on how to incorporate significant changes. --NeilN talk to me 15:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN So then help me Neil. It seems to me that you are unhappy with my lack of skill on wikipedia. I understand that, But the actual content of what I am trying to change is very reference rich, correct, and fair. As a scientist, I very much want the public to get the right information. Siefert (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Siefert: I have no issue with you adding properly sourced content. Other editors more familiar with the topic may have comments. But again, whatever you add needs to be properly sourced. If you're adding content from other Wikipedia articles then the external references used to source the content must be added, not a link to the other Wikipedia article. --NeilN talk to me 15:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN So properly sourced material i believe I did on most of the edits. I will do them again. However, I have two questions: 1) so there are NEVER links from wikipedia pages to content in another page? (for instance the stele I mention has its own page with images). and 2) how do you insert the fact that a statement that has been made needs a citation? Siefert (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Siefert: 1) There are of course article wikilinks to other articles. Every blue link links to another page. But these links are not sources and can never be used as sources. 2) The proper tag for citation needed is {{cn}}. However I strongly urge you not to add any content requiring that tag to this article as it puts its good article status at risk. If you can't properly source content, leave it out. --NeilN talk to me 16:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The fact your using and referring Wikipedia pages over scholarly publications is a bit concerning. Are you aware of books in this field or is this a learn as you type thing--Moxy (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN To make certain, you did see the 15 or so sourced materiial I referenced that had nothing to do with wiki pages? Are you saying that I did those incorrectly? By the way, the DavidAFalk in the talk page is an Egyptologist and tried to explain to some of the other admins the necessity for these changes. Siefert (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Siefert: At a very superficial glance, those are fine. Others more familiar with the topic may have comments on the sources. --NeilN talk to me 16:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


@moxy Moxy, this is actually not a valid statement that I was using pages over references. I used wiki pages to point to the Torah and the Mernepta stele. I used over 15 other references citing peer reviewed books, specific pages in books and academic journal articles and 2 newspaper articles. What I don't understand is why no one seems to have seen those in my edits Siefert (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC).
@NeilN So I will take out any links to wiki pages. The only reason I had them in there was because they had images. So that brings up another question. Siefert (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it may be best to propse the text here on the talk page first. There seems to be some odd formating and wording that would need fixing for GA article.--Moxy (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN How do you add "citation needed" at the end of a statement?
Please see my answer above. --NeilN talk to me 16:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Neil Actually, all of my text has the proper references, its text that was already on the page that fails to cite. I don't know what support/references were intended for whoever wrote it. There is also a factually incorrect statement that I will delete. There is also an error in a formerly used reference that I will fix. It is also used incorrectly, it actually supports the alternative view that I have written, but I will not remove it, just fix the typo in it the reference.Siefert (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Siefert: No, as an example it's pretty obvious the very first change here did not have a proper reference. --NeilN talk to me 16:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Neil lol. well I can see why you didn't like that. I had cut and pasted from my text into the page and was in the process of referencing from my word list (those are my notations for which references and pages should be cited.) I had saved because I wasn't sure about losing. Obviously before I should have saved...Siefert (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Again best to post your changes here first as your insertion of text directly contradicts the norm in the article now. Going to need to convince many that the tides have turned.--Moxy (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Neil @Moxy So talk to me some more about this.. Honestly, this is the part I am struggling most with. It seems that whoever wrote the article first, stated their view and without much referencing or without a nod to literally decades of research that opposes that view. Who is right or wrong is insignificant to me. Two opposing views are how science works. But why is this single view considered by wikipedia as the correct one, with very little citing or referencing. it Certainly doesn't do justice to how the actual field is struggling with the research, ie the fact that there are 2 diametrically opposed interpretations in the academic world of Ancient middle eastern history. Siefert (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Moxy Moxy to be correct, the tides have not turned. The article as it was originally written did not attest to the complex research community that is involved in this. I quoted 6 different archaeologists who have worked and are currently working in the field that were not even included in the article. They collectively have published literally hundreds of papers and books on the topic. They have an alternative theory for the archaeology. This problem has been debated at conferences and meetings where the principals have all argued their points. Strangely enough, even one of the references that the original author has cited, refutes his/her argument, basically it was misquoted I guess. As the article stands, it would be just as incorrect if all of the minimalist theory was removed and only the maximalist view left for readers. (Rendsburg, 1998). Siefert (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

As I've suggested before, why not propose your changes here and wait for other interested editors (not me, I just wanted you to stop adding unsourced and incorrectly sourced content) to comment? --NeilN talk to me 17:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Siefert: Whatever you may put in the article, please follow WP:REFPUNC with regard to having the punctuation precede the <ref>s. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN @Moxy Okay.. So I do not know for sure how to do this, but here is the document that I have used with the references. This seems like an extremely messy way to show the issue.

A factual reconstruction for the origin of the Jews is a difficult and complex endeavor. It requires examining at least 3000 years of ancient human history using documents in vast quantities and variety written in at least ten near Eastern languages. As archaeological discovery relies upon researchers and scholars from diverse disciplines, the goal is to interpret all of the factual data, focusing on the most consistent theory. In this case, it is complicated by long standing politics and religious and cultural prejudices (8). A large body of archaeological research of the Ancient Near East uses ancient Hebrew texts of the area as historically accurate accounts of geography, anthropology, and culture. In the Hebrew Bible narrative, Jewish ancestry is traced back to the Biblical patriarchs such as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the Biblical matriarchs Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, and Rachel, who lived in Canaan around the 18th century BCE. Jacob and his family migrated to Ancient Egypt after being invited to live with Jacob's son Joseph by the Pharaoh himself. The patriarchs' descendants were later enslaved until the Exodus led by Moses, traditionally dated to the 13th century BCE, after which the Israelites conquered Canaan (9). For a thorough interpretation of the historicity of the Hebrew texts consistent with decades of archaeological research, see Kitchen (1), Hoffmeier (3), Gordon and Rendsburg (2), Rendsburg (8), and Hoffmeier (4). These scholars give a detailed and measured account of thousands of documents and artifacts, cross referenced to the ancient Hebrew documents, placed in chronological order. They detail the consistency of the Biblical narrative through cultural and phenomenal events such as philology (Ref 1 pp175-177), treaties and town lists (Ref 1 p181) local geography/ecology/geology (Ref 1 pp 265-274), trade routes, merchant, and trade activities (Ref 1 p 115), as well as political reigns and dynasties (Ref 1, pp 7 – 64; pp 97 -112; Ref 8). An example of a non-Biblical text for the Israelites as an ethnic or tribal or national entity by the late 13th century B.C.E., is found in three Egyptian papyri dated from the 1200 – 1194 BC (5). Ongoing discovery of artifacts such as the Merneptah Stele (6, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_Stele) dated at 1213 to 1203 BC provide early textual reference to “Israel,” as already living in Canaan. These support an early origin of the Jews consistent with ancient Hebrew texts. This perspective is often called a “maximalist” view for taking the maximal history out of the Biblical account, assuming the Bible’s assertions to be historical unless there is evidence to the contrary, i.e. “innocent until proven guilty.” More recently, some cultural and political criticism of the religious focus of archaeology has prospered an alternative interpretation that largely questions any historicity of the Patriarchs and of the Exodus story [53] on the grounds that the absence of direct evidence is evidence of absence. Often termed a “minimalist” view, this perspective minimizes any Biblical account of origins typically seeing it as a national myth narrative. This theory states that the Israelites and their culture did not overtake the region by force, but instead branched out of the Canaanite peoples (need ref) and culture through the development of a distinct monolatristic—and later monotheistic—religion centered on Yahweh,[54][55][56] one of the Ancient Canaanite deities (reference needed). The growth of Yahweh-centric belief, along with a number of cultic practices, gradually gave rise to a distinct Israelite ethnic group, setting them apart from other Canaanites (reference needed). The Canaanites themselves are archeologically attested in the Middle Bronze Age.[57] The main weakness to this approach is that there is no etiology for the national deity, Yahweh as a local Canaanite deity (8). The Biblical tradition that Yahweh originated in the Wilderness of Sinai accords well with the earliest apparent attestation of this name during the reign of Amenhotep III, (1390-1453 BC) (Ref 3, pp 242-243). The name YHWA is attached to Shasu/Bedouin from the Edom/Sinai area, the very area where the Israelites wandered as recorded in the book of Numbers (Ref 3, YHWA in Egyptian texts, see notes 38-40 on p. 321 and Ref 8.) Additionally, the prohibition of eating pork in OT Law can be connected to Israel's origin in the desert and not as indigenous people in Canaan (Ref 3 pp. 230-233 and Ref 1 pp229-230, Ref 8 p 18)

The clause, “while the Hebrew language<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language> is the last extant member of the Canaanite languages<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_languages>” was removed because it is irrelevant to the argument and misleading. Actually what the Wikipedia page states is that “they were spoken by the ancient peoples of the Canaan region, the Canaanites, broadly defined to include the Israelites, Phoenicians, Amorites, Ammonites, Moabites and Edomites…extinct as native languages by the early 1st millennium CE, although distinct forms of Hebrew remained in continuous literary and religious use among Jews and Samaritans, while Punic remained in use in the Mediterranean”. References: 1. Kitchen, K. A. , On the Reliability of the Old Testament, William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids Mich 2003 0802803962 2. Gordon and Rendsburg, The Bible and the Ancient Near East, W. W. Norton & Company, 1998 3. Hoffmeier, James K., Ancient Israel in the Sinai, The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition, Oxford University Press, 20035 4. Hoffmeier, James K., Archaeology of the Bible, Lion Hudson; 1st edition (January 29, 2008) 5. Papyrus Anastasi VI,1213 – 1203 B.C.E.; Papyrus Leiden 348; Papyrus Anastasi V, 1200 – 1194 B.C.E.) 6. Merneptah in Canaan," Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 11 (1981), pp. 171-172.) Gary Rendsburg [with Corrigenda printed as supplement to JSSEA 12 (1982)]. 7. Hoffmeier, James, K. Israel in Egypt, The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition, Oxford University Press; Revised edition, 1999. 8. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/06/israel-archaeology-findings-ideology-politics-moshe-dayan.html 9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah 10. Rendsberg, Gary (2008). "Israel without the Bible". In Frederick E. Greenspahn. The Hebrew Bible: New Insights and Scholarship. NYU Press. Siefert (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Neil I guess I am still not understanding what you are considering as unsourced material? Could you please give detail? Siefert (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Neil @Moxy Please, would one of you explain to me how the article as it stands, without references to its statements, is considered definitive? This seems to me to be strictly against Wikipedia's NPOV policy. A forum on the talk page, when I have clearly stated a number of references and articles that substantiate that this is an alternate view, should be allowed, seems like a waste of time a.. well I am not sure what it is.. Just unacceptable at this point. Siefert (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Neil @moxy Maybe this will help you, as I don't think either of you are archaeologists and probably aren't familiar with the field. Reference 54 in the current document, on amazon https://www.amazon.com/What-Biblical-Writers-Know-When/dp/080282126X, is quoted as being summarized in the folloiwng was=y: "For centuries the Hebrew Bible has been the fountainhead of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Today, however, the entire biblical tradition, including its historical veracity, is being challenged. Leading this assault is a group of scholars described as the "minimalist" or "revisionist" school of biblical studies, which charges that the Hebrew Bible is largely pious fiction, that its writers and editors invented "ancient Israel" as a piece of late Jewish propaganda in the Hellenistic era.

In this fascinating book noted Syro-Palestinian archaeologist William G. Dever attacks the minimalist position head-on, showing how modern archaeology brilliantly illuminates both life in ancient Palestine and the sacred scriptures as we have them today. Assembling a wealth of archaeological evidence, Dever builds the clearest, most complete picture yet of the real Israel that existed during the Iron Age of ancient Palestine (1200–600 B.C.).

Dever's exceptional reconstruction of this key period points up the minimalists' abuse of archaeology and reveals the weakness of their revisionist histories. Dever shows that ancient Israel, far from being an "invention," is a reality to be discovered. Equally important, his recovery of a reliable core history of ancient Israel provides a firm foundation from which to appreciate the aesthetic value and lofty moral aspirations of the Hebrew Bible."Siefert (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: jytdog, this has been discussed here for weeks. My edits present the field on this topic the way it currently stands. This has been discussed. Please see above.Siefert (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes you are exhausting everyone. This -- "A large body of archaeological research of the Ancient Near East uses ancient Hebrew texts of the area as historically accurate accounts of geography, anthropology, and culture." - is unsourced POV pushing and your edit POV pushes the view that the bible is history, which is rejected by mainstream scholarship in ANE history. Your edit gives WP:UNDUE weight to that view, and is also full of WP:SYN - the content you want to add to WP does not summarize the sources, but rather synthesizes them. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Question about DS

User:El_C. In the Palestinian-Israeli Arbcom case, the "finding of fact" here notes that this is broadly construed. Does content about when and if the Israelites were independent in the land in ancient historical times, fall under the DS? If you are not sure I can take this to a clarification request. Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, we did choose to apply it to Jewish diaspora, so I am open to applying Ds here, yes. Though I'm not seeing ARBPIA politics influencing this dispute El_C 17:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I thought about it for a second earlier and came down with a firm "no". --NeilN talk to me 17:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for replies from both of you. It is hard for me to understand why it is so important that any content about something as complex as independence per se be in that section (even if unsourced and disputed), much less that it should emphasize the independence, or edit warred in so fiercely, outside of the context of that dispute. Biblical claims about the ancient Israelite presence and independence in the region are also central in some arguments about why there should be for example settlements in places like the West Bank. See Israeli_settlement#Reasons_for_settlements fifth and sixth bullets for example. See also the history at AE. This seems to me to be the background that is making a fairly routine issue of moving content to talk that is unsourced and was tagged disputed for over a year so .... hotly and strangely contested. Application of DS could help manage the situation. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
There are still some who think that having applied Ds to Jewish diaspora was a grave mistake—the kind that had opened the floodgates for Ds to other Jewish-related topics. I can appreciate that position. But ARBPIA politics does have a tendency to sneak in there in ever unexpected ways. El_C 17:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't see the connection. That is, I can see how it could be connected, just that I never saw anybody connect it. I personally think that DS are already overstretched. Debresser (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Redux

Just starting a new section for clarity. Right; these are the two forms of words currently in dispute if I understand the situation correctly:

  • " Israelites enjoyed political independence twice in ancient history, first during the periods of the Biblical judges followed by the United Monarchy. After the fall of the United Monarchy..." -Jytdog's wording; and
  • "The Israelites were independent tribes during the time of the Judges,[63] and constituted an independent nation during the period of the United Monarchy.[64] After the fall of the United Monarchy..." -Debresser's wording.
So, what seems to be disputed here is the difference between a tribe having 'political independence' and being an 'independent tribe.' This seems to be the salient point; the stuff about whether the time of the judges etc, is ahistorical or not, doesn't seem particularly relevant, as both wordings above accept that there were such periods, even if, I assume, they are merely labels by which historians identify periods (Dark Ages, anyone?!). I have to say though, that right now, the distinction between the two phrasings is small. Of course, the one thing that does stand out in Debresser's version, is the phrase "and constituted an independent nation"; is it specifically this that is actually contentious, rather than the rest of the wording? Sorry if you've already gone over this, I just want to look at it from the beginning, being an 'outsider,' as it were, to the discussion. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 09:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

As I said in another section here, "By discussing a nation as such, the independence is implied. Sources would not often stress the fact of political independence of a nation as such." I think these are excellent sources for the statement in question. In any case definitely not "garbage sources", as Jytdog so rudely claimed[6] (without substantiating that claim). For that same reason I also hold that El_C should undo his removal of sourced statements, as I asked him to do in the section at the bottom of this page. Debresser (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

BTW, who are the four other editors I see mentioned elsewhere? — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 11:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
User:EyeTruth, User:Infantom, User:Flinders Petrie and Yours Truly. See Talk:Jews/Archive_26#1350_to_586_BCE. Debresser (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeeeeaas. Thanks for the link! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 13:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
In the mentioned discussion i was referring to the northern Kingdom of Israel and not the United Monarchy which it's historicity is indeed dubious. Infantom (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. Not a contradiction to the new source, however. Debresser (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

WT:JUDAISM

I notified WT:JUDAISM of this discussion, which so far has attracted surprisingly few visitors, perhaps because of the Passover Holiday. Debresser (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The "notification" is not neutral as it must be per WP:APPNOTE, but rather is CANVASSING. User:El_C I suggest you take that down since you are riding herd here. Jytdog (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
How about rewording it to something more neutral, Debresser? For example, telling editors to ignore the RfC represents your position, but not Jytdog's, so you can see why it can come across as partisan. El_C 16:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
It is not "my position" that RfCs are valid ways to solve content disputes. Telling people to ignore the RfC altogether is just bad. And what is written there asks people to bring sources supporting Debresser's position. I then re-instated it with sources, and your input and especially additional sources would be much appreciated. "Especially additional sources" (to the ones he added). Jytdog (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Ideally, "input and... additional sources" could mean any input and any additional sources, for or against his position. But I also do take your point. El_C 17:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Saying that the Rfc can be ignored is not making the notification less neutral, because 1. the notification is simply not about the Rfc. 2. ignoring the Rfc does not disfavor Jytdog's position, as incorrectly claimed. This is so, because I too agree that if the statement were unsourced, that it has to go. That is precisely why I said in my comment at WT:JUDAISM, that the Rfc was misconceived and stands or falls with the sources. If there are good sources, then the Rfc becomes redundant, if there aren't, then the information will surely have to go, and the Rfc is again redundant. Debresser (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jews/Archive_29&oldid=1026811600"