Talk:Jews/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 33

Cite grouping

In the lead paragraphs the numerous cites get disruptive. Yes, people deny Jewish descent from Israelites and need a firm reminder, but isn't there a way to group cites into one [x] box-type thing? --Monochrome_Monitor 14:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The first paragraph is one of the dumbest pieces of WP:SYNTH on Wikipedia, patching up a general definition out of several features each of which forms part of some Jewish identities. The last time I checked many of the sources, they also do not correspond, or are too dated. I won't touch this stuff of course, but some insider who has a grasp on how groups are defined would do this place a favour if they could work out an intelligent reformulation. There's a very substantial literature on Jewish definitions of Jews, and almost none of it is used here, I suspect because obtaining a 'Jewish' consensus is, thank goodness, all but impossible.Nishidani (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, those sources you mentioned have already been replaced by others. What kind of Jewish definitions are you referring to that are not used here? Infantom (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources that quite clearly state, and I could give dozens, that the definition itself (as with most historic groups) is very complex.I.e.,Nishidani (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Morris N. Kertzer What is a Jew?, Simon and Schuster, 1996 p.7 says fundamentally all Jews are Jews by choice and that the ‘ethnic definition is going the way of the dinosaur.
• Michael Greenstein The American Jew: A Contradiction in Terms, Gefen Publishing House Ltd, 1990 pp.1ff.
• Marc Lee Raphael, Judaism in America, Columbia University Press, 2012 pp.22
• Alain F. Corcos Who is a Jew? Thoughts of a Biologist : An Essay Dedicated to the Jewish and Non-Jewish Victims of the Nazi Holocaust, Wheatmark, 2012 Ist chapter.

Most of the sources are not linked to pages, many of them are pointless (definition of Semite, or question-begging (saying Israelites became know as Hebrew does not testify to the descent of modern Jews from Israelites: it is an inference left to the reader) etc.etc.etc..Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

These sources recognize the definitions that are used here. We know Jews have a complex variety of definitions: ethnic, religious, national, cultural etc.. and they are all acceptable. Do you have a better way to briefly express these complicated definitions, including origins (ethnic, geographic and national), than the current paragraph? Infantom (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, let me construe the definition. Remember, a definition must fit all constituents of the set it describes.

The Jews are a Semitic ethnoreligious group and nation native to the Land of Israel, also referred to as an ethno-cultural group and a civilization. With origins dating back to the early 2nd millennium BCE, they are descended from the Israelites and the historical kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

That means that a Jew has all of those elements, he is 'semitic', native to the Land of Israel (a religious, not a topological concept) descended from Israelites and Israel and Judah.

All of the above sources, and dozens more, would deny elements of all of this, since many Jews are known not to be of semitic origin (given conversion, even now), many ancient Jewish populations were not native to the soi-disant Land of Israel, and no one can descend from a kingdom (Judah and 1srael). You descend from people, not from territories, unless you have a genetic relationship to mythical Thebans. It is like saying I am descended from the Kingdom of Munster. The idiocy is not only in that, but in trying to patch up all the relevant identitarian terms (race, nation, religion) to make them coextensive. You can be a Jew by descent but not religion, a Jew by religion but not descent, etc.Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Converts are a minority, and when drawing up a description minorities should be ignored. Debresser (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not speaking of contemporary converts, Debresser. Both genetics and history indicate that there is a substantial ethnic diversity within Jews. Large numbers of Mediterranean peoples converted, before and after the CE. Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

1) Semites are a linguistic group, Jews are Semites because of their belonging to that group. But we can drop that if editors think it's unnecessary.

2) Do you have a better name for the geographic origin of the Jews except for the "Land of Israel"? It is the most frequent name used by Jews to refer to their geographic origin. The nativity to the land is in the sense of where the Jews were originally formed as an ethnic group and nation, not implying that every Jew in the world is native to this land. Are all French or English people native to France and England?

3) We can change to "originated from" (Judah and Israel) and solve it. These two kingdoms are the national origins of the Jews.

4) Neither of the used definitions contradict your last argument. Nobody claimed that belonging to the Jewish ethnicity or nationhood is dependent on descent.

Jews, as a collective, are descended from the Israelites. Even if not necessarily by genetics(some of them), still by their culture, religion, language, nationhood and collective identity. How would you define the origins of the Jews then? Infantom (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Can someone else who actually understands the issues raised please address them. This is not a website for asserting one's personal beliefs.Nishidani (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't very civil. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion on this on the NOR noticeboard.Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Genetics have established that most actual Jews descend from the ancient Israelite population, with some admixture from other people, mostly converts during the Roman era. There is not one group of people today that is exactly the descendant of their ancestors of 2000 years ago. Even the Chinese Han population is genetically a mix of diverse South-Eastern populations that have been incorporated into the Han ethnos. Bu all accounts and definitions, the actual Jews are the descendants of the Israelites - biologically (mostly), culturally, religiously... All this is pretty well known and standard. Benjil (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Genetics has not established that. The Jews were in diaspora from at least the 6th century B.C.E. esp. in Egypt (Elephantine). The ancient Israelite population was a great mixture of peoples. It is fantastically absurd to say, as the definition does, that all Jews descend from people resident in either the kingdom of Israel or that of Judah, furthermore. There is simply no historical or genetic method capable of determining the veracity of such an assertion. It is made up, and if conversion and interbreeding were widespread, the descendents come from several places, and peoples, not one. Even quite a few of the genetic papers speak of a Levantine component, not Judah and Israel kingdoms, meaning the Near East generally not a specific zone in Palestine.Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani Yes, there have been converts through all ages. Still, that doesn't change the fact that as a group, Jews trace back their national and religious sources to Israel. Converts are neglected in this regard, regardless of the degree of admixture of converts for any specific person.

To even more directly answer your question, the reason is probably that after a few generations, the convert origins are forgotten. But the real reason is the first, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

As an exercise for reader, compare Nishidani's insistence here that a definition "fit all constituents of the set it describes" to his comments on another ethnic group where he insists the definition be deliberately vague and that it doesn't necessarily need to fit all constituents of anything. It starts here and then goes on over several pages. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Delightful hypocrisy. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, he has a simple problem: that there exists no Palestinian people, and never has. It is a modern term, originated in certain interests. But there definitely is a Jewish people! Debresser (talk) 07:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, 3 useless comments. The first is stupid, because the single phrase is not a composite sentence or definition, and is backed by several sources, whereas the Jewish definition is modeled on it, and has several constituent elements, each documented, in a sentence for which there is no single source or set of sources corroborating the definition. I know that to edit here, the first step is to throw away logic, the second to think in terms of POV advantages, and the third to rally support. As to Debresser's remark, it shows why he should not be editing articles in the I/P area, since he openly declares my people exist, the other 'people' don't exist as a people.Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Debresser, that reminds me of an interview with Azmi Bishara I once saw [1]. Interestingly, when I tried to add definitions made by actual Palestinians to the other article, some editors had a problem with that. But here we must use "Jewish definitions of Jews". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Try not to be an idiot. The atmosphere against 'outsiderts' is so toxic, it is obvious that one recommends that those enveloped by the kind of animosity you show in my regard at least should accept that what Jews determine to be Jewishness is more cogent than anything I or anyone else might say. The definitions you added to Palestinians were stale political declarations from ages back, cherrypicked.Nishidani (talk) 11:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You did not allow any Palestinian definition into that article. There still isn't one in that SYNTHy ref list there, which you protect as if your life depended on it. Your interest in this article is part of a pattern any idiot can see. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani I am entitled to my opinion, as long as I edit according to Wikipedia rules and guidelines, and abide by consensus. Also, please note that my opinion is perhaps a minority opinion, but has been voiced frequently and prominently. You can read more about the dispute regarding this issue in our Palestinians article. It is even in the lead. Debresser (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course, but they are generally uninformed by any familiarity with the kind of scholarship required for writing encyclopedic articles. I have provided evidence from sources above, and what do I get as a reply: 3 pieces of chat about one's personal opinions, or opinions about Nishidani.If you want to be useful, attend to the merits of the evidence, and keep the rest out of this place.Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, you guys missed the point, dammit. Pay attention. I was saying we should group cites together so they are less disruptive. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't missed the point. You missed the point that the group cites are all rubbish in a composite sentence in which none of the 19 sources foraged from the internet corroborate the generalization made, which, please note, does not make sense, is grammatically inept, and would not be underwritten by any professional scholar of the area, particularly since of the 19 citations only about 4 are given page numbers, the links linking to a book name, and at least 2 were published a century and a half ago, which is barrel-scraping. Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I've asked at WP:RX for reference sources relating to this topic. I will forward the material I receive, when I do, to anyone who chooses to give me an e-mail address that I can send them to. On reception, I will also look over various reference sources I may have access to which aren't included in the e-mailing from RX.John Carter (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

My email is available on my userpage, Always happy to receive some sources. Debresser (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Debresser, notwithstanding our differences, we once worked together to fix a similar problem at Ashkenazi Jews, and your sober mediation was decisive in the solution obtained. I accept that you often find my editing worrisome, but there can be no hiding the fact that this is blatantly an unacceptable piece of synthesis. The problem is complex, and needs attentive care to fix. I hope you see your way round to finding some amenable answer, based on sources, that will find a consensus here. 21:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Nishidani (talk)

Since you are calling on my better virtues, let me ask you. Where is the synthesizing? WP:SYNTH refers to combining two things to make a third. In this article I see a text which combines two things by stating these two things without making or even implying a third. That is simply and legitimately culling information from various sources. Please show me if I am wrong. Debresser (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

No, not two things to make a third only: 'Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Any definition of this kind should be sourceable, and I have never come across any source which combines these elements in this comprehensive manner. I laid out the case in simple terms on the NOR page, and it has been endorsed by Doug Weller, who is as independent as you get, but since you ask for a repeat. One synthetic sentence contains 9 independent attributes each of which is independently sourced (poorly) and run up into a generalization that must apply to all Jews. The definition, to use a much abused phrase by Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, is an übles Flickwerk. Nishidani (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that every statement, apart from that of a civilization, represents one of several possible opinions. You can easily find (infra-Jewish) sources denying that the idea of a common Middle Eastern lineage (connected to Judea and Samaria) is factual, as it is asserted to be here. The notion of a Jewish nation was common in the 19th century, but not after the Shoah Alain Gresh & Dominique Vidal, The New A-Z of the Middle East I.B. Tauris 2004 pp.174-177 p.175 The majority of modern Jews have therefore, apparently, no direct links with the Hebrews. . Nishidani (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Gresh and Vidal are not exactly neutral sources, and they have no qualifications on the subject. The notion of a Jewish Nation has been more common *after* the Shoah than before, but whatever, to do not seem to care for facts and cherry-pick only from dubious sources what fits your ideology. Benjil (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear me, dear me: zero argument, zilch counter-evidence, large on whimsical assertions and personal innuendoes. Sources are never neutral and no editor is required to seek them. Texts are edited for neutrality by balancing. No one can obtain a qualification on an issue like identity. Cherry pick again everyone's favorite verb when one can't find an argument (for another example see my page this morning). I don't have an 'ideology': I have a lifelong interest in the way ideologies interfere with natural perceptions. The way you use 'ideology' illustrates how McLellan defined it, 'ideology' in usage, ' is what someone else thinks (Ideology 1986 p.1). The problem with the I/P zone is that it attracts people who read to a purpose, rather than read broadly: they teach themselves, before making any judgement on the evidence, where this or that editor appears to be coming from, what is his POV in the I/P dispute. Once one thinks one has identified the POV, every edit is construed as a reflection of that imputed POV. So Nishidani has, for a goy, this rather suspect interest in us. It can't be from sheer curiosity, it must be motivated by some hang-up, obsession or problem he has with 'Jews'. Meaning, no goy can comment on a subject about us without being for us or against us. This is quite understandable, given the history of antisemitism, but it has one gaping hole: my understandings of this matter are informed only by what Jews themselves say, and therefore the objection to what I state is an objection to what many Jews, noted for their admirable diversity of views,* think. So the gambit becomes, rather than one that seeks to fix a problem, an issue of stopping the person who suggested there was a problem in the first place. It's puerile.Nishidani (talk) 09:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• Dalia Karpel, 'History Professor Yehuda Bauer: 'Netanyahu Doesn't Know History',' Haaretz 21 February 2013.

Why do you call Jews the “impossible people”?

“The Jews were always in opposition to the whole world. The Jewish people would be endangered by unity. The quarrels and disputes are the engine that drives its culture forward, backward or sideways. That is its elixir of life.”

And that healthy quarrelsomeness is one reason why, unlike other pettily nationalist mind-set ridden nations, defining Jews to the satisfaction of all Jews will always be arduous.Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

"I am only saying what other Jews say" is one of the most common sentence from anti-semites so you'd better use something else. Gresh and Vidal are far-left French intellectuals known for their strong anti-zionism. They are not experts, they have no academic credibility, an they publish opinions and pamphlets. Which they are perfectly entitled to. I used to read the "Monde Diplo" every week when I was a student because it was hilariously funny. But this is not a credible source for Wikipedia. Benjil (talk) 10:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I get it. You're not too bright tonight (tempted as you are to insinuate the yawn-inducing anti-Semite innuendo gambit). I'll make it simple for you. The definition of a people with a triimillenarian cultural history has nothing to do with the state of Israel which has enjoyed a mere blink of about 70 years of existence. That means that what one's position is re Zionism has fuck all to do with being a Jew. Your remark is fatuous because it suggests that for a definition to be studied one must subject all thinkers to a background security check to certify that they have the right political credentials with regard to Israel. Jeezus, sheesh. Try to think what your declarations might or do imply before replying. Better still, drop it. Because so far, you hav e an attitude and no evidence. Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course there is a link between one's position regarding Zionism and the definition of Judaism. Your clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The idea that Jews are no a people but just a religion and have no common ancestry is a very important part of the anti-zionist narrative, it is part of the PLO Charter and Palestinian propaganda. It is a political point, the idea being that if Jews are just a religion and not the descendant of the Jews of Antiquity, they have no right to a State. The validity of the argument may be very discutable but it is one of the main anti-zionist argument. Anyway, you are the one insisting on bringing dubious sources. The opinion of some far left ideologues has no academic value and is just POV pushing. Anybody can write a book and develop any stupid idea, it does not make it a legitimate source. Benjil (talk) 08:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

That is all very obvious. Why do you think all these "anti-Zionists" have suddenly shown such an interest in this article? Check out who's participating in the NOR board. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide me with a scholarly reference for any of the above assertions? If not, then it is all just opinionizing. Could I remind you that we are here )a) to write articles (b) which must be written according to RS (c) and optimally, from works of scholarship. We use the talk pages to examine sources, and determine the content from them, not to forumize.Nishidani (talk) 09:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You are the one who started it. And you are the one who brought non valable sources. Regarding references to what I wrote:

The PLO Charter - look up article 20: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp You certainly know Shlomo Zand and his books. You can also read anti-zionist propaganda on numerous sites, it's not exactly secret. Benjil (talk) 11:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

'That Jews have a right to a state': it is already inscribed in the laws of a legitimate state, Israel, and anyone who denies that is screwy. So this political waffle is silly.Nishidani (talk) 09:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much but in case you missed it, there are many people who wish and try to destroy the State of Israel so this is not "silly". Benjil (talk) 11:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It's news to me. I mostly encounter the suspicion whenever there is a discussion of the legitimate desires of another people to obtain a state. There are many who wish to destroy any political process that might secure for Palestinians a state of their own. It is I n the platform of the Likud party. None of this hysteria would have arisen had Israel done the sane thing, and kept within its borders. It's like saying Algerians wanted to destroy France in the 1950s. France, like Israel, is a duly constituted nation, with international legitimacy and no amount of ranting at the margins can change that.Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"It's news to me" says the one-stater. What a joke. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: It seems that Nishidani deemed it necessary to open a parallel discussion about this issue at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Definition_of_Jews._Gross_original_research.2FWP:SYNTH_violation. Debresser (talk) 10:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Note (to show how disattentive 'readers' here are). 'I have opened a discussion on this on the NOR noticeboard.Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC). I notified you all here 5 days ago. Nishidani (talk) 11:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, what do you think about rephrasing the sentence about Israelite origins based on this one- "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." ? (from Encyclopedia Britannica). Infantom (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I should be an arbiter in this (though I appreciate your suggestion which is an improvement). Thinking about this these last few days, I came up with a definition that is certainly not acceptable here:'A Jew is someone other Jews accept as one of their own' but only because it fits one of the several people in my clan who have a Jewish forebear or parent: one is not halakhically so, another is, though the latter doesn't think of herself as Jewish, but simply as a member of the country she was born and raised in). As to the former, the local Jewish community disregards Halakha and treats her as Jewish, because she has proof of paternity and has taken the trouble to learn ancient Hebrew, which many of her more halakhically defined Jewish friends can't manage). In any case, anyone can google at least 20 good books on the topic of ìWho are Jews?'/'Definition of Jews', and work from there. I don't think we have any right to craft a definition that lacks specific source validationNishidani (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Another self-serving anecdote about Jews? What a surprise! No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I can give you some anecdotes about this subject as well. But the problem is that you, Nishidani, opened another discussion about this, and now we don't know where to have this discussion. Debresser (talk) 3:19 pm, Today (UTC−7)

• Comment I won't engage actively, but can I start by pointing out to all users that WP:SOAP and WP:AGF apply here as much as elsewhere. Concerning the lead, it should be as accurate and informative as possible. For the definition of a group in the lead, it's always best to use language that is (A) representative of reliable sources and (B) not challenged by other reliable sources. I fear the second part is not being taken into consideration in the current. The lead makes several claims, all of which I could agree with myself (at least to a large degree) but some of which are not uncontroversial. Either they should be modified, or it should be made clear that there are other opinions, as per WP:NPOV. Jeppiz (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate Jeppiz's contribution! However, I don't believe any single definition will fit the criterion of being non-controversial. Although there is a lot of overlap between the definitions and they will agree on who is a Jew in most individual cases, each definition remains inherently contradictory to most other definitions in RS on common and important fringe cases. I think the best we can hope for is either:

1. A simplified (and hence inaccurate) listing of several major definitions, similar to what we have now.
2. A general note of Jewish origins, with a note that the complexity of defining Jews is dealt with more fully later in the article.

The second option is more problematic because it gives undue emphasis to certain definitions, namely, geography and race. I prefer the slight inaccuracy of the first option, since it at least touches on all the major definitions equally.

I notice though, that within specific scholarly communities, their definitions disagree only in rare fringe cases, or are even completely consistent. Since the definition tends to vary by community, it may be worth noting who tends to use each definition. What do you think? Musashiaharon (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree about my edit on hypocrisy being unhelpful. Not necessarily useless, as it gave wikipedia web traffic. But regardless, I needed a good bandwagon. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. Please continue to deg to biffer of course, where you think appropriate.Nishidani (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים ISO 259-3 Yehudim, Israeli pronunciation [jehuˈdim]), also known as the Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious group originating from the Israelites or Hebrews of the Ancient Near East. The Jewish people and the religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated. Replace the word Jews with Samaritans. The claims are exactly the same. So why does this article not state that Jewsc laim to be descended form the Israelites, when other articles state that Samaritans claim to be descended, etc, etc.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

That spoonerism baffled me for about eight seconds. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Please provide sources, citations and links to support the unproven findings that are described within, for instance, the Jewish people originated from the Israelite's, which they did not. Correct this non-factual statement or provide the facts. We take note to others on this page, asking for this non-factual statement to be corrected, so please acknowledge this and correct it immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.82.83.2 (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• • • Lets stop with all of the semantics and ridiculous twists and go to the only study by Dr. Eran Elhaik, that proves the "jews" are not only not a race, but are also not connected to the Israelites whatsoever, having no biblical association at all. They originated from the Khazarian lands of what is now Russia, North of Georgia and East of Ukraine. This civilization, the Khazars, converted from tribal religions to Judaism between the 7th and 9th centuries.

Dr. Eran Elhaik stated: "The various groups of Jews in the world today do not share a common genetic origin. We are talking here about groups that are very heterogeneous and which are connected solely by religion…[the] genome of European Jews is a mosaic of ancient peoples and its origin is largely Khazar,” he told Ha’aretz. and Haaretz says that it asked a number of scholars from Israel and the Diaspora – both historians and geneticists – what they thought about Elhaik’s article. All of the historians declined to comment on Elhaik’s work, arguing that they were not geneticists and lacked the expertise needed to comment on his work. But every one of the geneticists Ha’aretz contacted also refused to comment. Some ignored Haaretz’s request and never answered at all. Other geneticists claimed they were unfamiliar with population research and therefore could not answer. Still others claimed they lacked the time needed to answer the question. The only scholar who answered Ha’aretz’s question was Tel Aviv University professor of history Shlomo Sand. Sand wrote the book "The Invention of the Jewish People.” It has now been translated into 22 languages, despite what was until Elhaik’s work was published a stacked deck of genetic research that opposed it. Sand has tough words for geneticists looking for Jewish genes. Literature Cited ↵ Elhaik E. The missing link of Jewish European Ancestry: contrasting the Rhineland and Khazarian hypotheses. Genome Biol Evol. 2012. doi:10.1093/gbe/evs119, Advance Access publication December 14, 2012. Google Scholar ↵ Behar DM, et al. The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people. Nature 2010;466:238-242. CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science-Google Scholar

The study of Elhaik has been debunked and nobody is taking it seriously in the academic world. It was made in cooperation with Sand and apparently to support his thesis. Sand himself is widely considered a fraud.

Study debunking Elhaik: http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=humbiol_preprints Benjil (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It is hard to take the Khazar theory seriously, as more than a theory. Same goes for such controversial people as Sand. You had batter return to some mainstream ideas. Debresser (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• • First of all the study that was done was by Dr. Elhaik, not Sand,nor in coopeartion, that is a blatant lie. I really have no interest in what Sand said. Since you missed the point or obviously tried to twist what was said, again, the Study is the point and Sand was not a part of the only study done, which also proves the main point, that the jews of today are khazar's, regardless of what you think, it is simply your opinion, and does not compare to the study, nor dismiss it's facts. Furthermore, are you actually implying that it is due to my thinking that Dr. Elhaik study proves without doubt who these jews are, because again, may I turn your attention to the study and not ridiculous banter which proves nothing. When you do a study, perhaps I will listen, until then don't tell me how to think either! And by main stream ideas, do you mean the way you think? If so, go and find some proof like I did, then we can further this discussion, until then your opinion means squat! The only study done and you use a simpleton's diversion away from the truth, using some lame and irrelevant nonsense. Who cares what Sand says or you for that matter, the study proves my point, where is your proof?

You live on this page and attack everyone, do you work for wiki-pedia, never mind, I already know the answer. Interesting that you hang out defending your non-proven theory of the jews today who are without a doubt, as the study proves and not SAND but Dr. Elhaik, Khazar's. Let me guess, you created this page didn't you?? Again, don't bother answering, I already know the answer, so obvious. You stay here and argue your lies, with no proof whatsoever, many of us know the truth, regardless of what one says and again, let me be clear...with no proof whatsoever.

The "jews" are khazar's, a term created in the 16th century (jewish), and a lie that continues to this very day by people like yourself, based on zero facts. You and what you say are completely and utterly irrelevant and you had better stop thinking that you have any bearing on how people think or should think, and my suggestion to you, since you felt so obliged; you had better start getting comfortable with truth, because it can not be touched by those who try to twist and bury it, even with online dictionaries, many of which are intentionally filled with lies and/or "errors". One last thing, it is a question for you. Why do you think the "jews" have not done a study themselves to share with the world, if your false claims were true? Where is their study? Do you not think that that would have been the first step they would have taken, but no, hhhmmm, I wonder why? Again, no need to answer, I know the answer, as do you.

I won't be back to read more of your ridiculous and unfounded statements, I don't waste this much time with people of your sorts, normally, but sometimes they have to be called out and knocked down to size. Don't reply until you have proof, not personal opinions, not blatant lies about a co-partner, jsut simple PROOF. Do you understand what proof is?? A study would be that proof, can you comprehend that? And a study concerning genes does not lie, but people do, don't they? So prove the study wrong, scientifically or do one to prove it wrong, otherwise, go away and find a new hobby, rather than arguing with everyone who knows the truth. Truth is hate to those who hate truth, regardless, it will always prevail. PROOF... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.82.83.2 (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• • "debresser, I just had it brought to my attention that your comment "You had batter return to some mainstream ideas", was more of a threat, is that true? Do you have more you would like to say? What happens if I do not chose to return to your main stream ideas and nothing more, than your main stream or better described, brain-washing ideas? I would suggest you not threaten people so blatantly in a public forum. To say, "I suggest" is a suggestion,but to say "you had better" means something very different. Are you just a natural bully? I only came back because others suggested your words were more of a threat and I wanted to make it clear, that if so, then you should be banned immediately, but I'll bet you have a lot more to do with the inner workings of wicked-pedia than you would like to share. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.82.83.2 (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Who are those "other" who suggested my words were more of threat? And where and how did they suggest so? I don't see anything like that on your talkpage. What I do see on your talkpage is an uninterrupted list of warnings.

With "you had better" I meant that it would be a better and more meaningful way to manage and invest your time. Debresser (talk) 14:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

We agree, you are not answering to me me the anonymous guy who posted above me. Benjil (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. Well, that is good, actually. I mean, that we agree. :) Debresser (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The anonymous editor who thinks Elhaik's study is serious against all the evidence apparently does not understand how science works. For decades, dozens of studies showed that the Jews of the main three groupes - Sefaradim, Ashkenazim, Edot Hamizrah - share common ancestors who lived in the Middle East, and found no trace of anything that could be linked to the Khazars among Ashkenazim. Comes Elhaik with totally opposite results. Without even checking his methodology, if one study contradicts decades of others studies (and studies made after this one also), the probability is that this study is wrong. But then when you do check you discover a huge number of flaws and nonsense. The main flaw is that as we have no Khazar DNA, Elhaik decided to use modern Caucasian (Armenian or Georgian) DNA as a proxy. But these people never had anything to do with the Khazars, a central Asia people, they are middle-easterners. And that's just an example. And yes, he did it with the cooperation of Sand, maybe you should read the study, it's written in it. Benjil (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sources

I have removed the sources for this claim, The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים ISO 259-3 Yehudim, Israeli pronunciation [jehuˈdim]), also known as the Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious group[11] originating from the Israelites, or Hebrews, of the Ancient Near East. The sources are tertiary and should be replaced by secondary sources, which reflect current thinking on this claim. They should not be restored until consensus is reached.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Would you stop edit warring and forcing your personal opinion? Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean there is no consensus. These sources were brought up several times on talk page and were displayed at the article enough time with no objections. The case here is clearly RS, so stop looking for excuses in order to remove stuff you don't like. Infantom (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

What you are doing here is nothing short of edit warring and WP:IDONTLIKEIT explanations are not reasons for removing WP:RS.Tritomex (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

What you are doing here is edit warring, you cannot add material without agreement, I will remove these sources awaiting agreement. There has not been enough time, and I object. We need secondary, not tertiary sources. Stop edit warring. It is up to you to prove consensus before you restore these sources. Show me the consensus by raising a new discussion here, and then the sources can stay until tertiary sources are provided.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Tertiary sources like encyclopedias should not be used for this sort of stuff. I have no further opinion on the matter because I have close to zero knowledge. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It should be quite simple. The state of the art is that the ethnoreligious idea of an orthodox school of Jews emerges in a number of biblical texts, as a doctrinal notion, read back into the past (the Israelites), and were one to accept a n early date for the Song of Deborah, might be seen to find support in that text. However Frolov for one argues for a late date for Deborah, not the 11-10th century, which means that all is hypothetical, and nothing of this kind can be stated in Wiki's neutral voice, since to attribute an ethnoreligious identity to the Israelites is possibily (a) anachronistic (b) espousing one view against skeptical interpretations that challenge it. One can examine this, for example in Spark's 1998 book. Given this is all wrapped in conflicting interpretations among academic specialists, one cannot press it in as an accepted consensual view, and in any case such controversial statements need recent academic sources to back them.Nishidani (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Frolov rejects the Documentary Hypothesis and thinks Genesis-Kings is one continues text that can be attributed 80 to 90 percent to one author.

But he does not reject Israelites and thinks that there could have been court archives from the 10th century on. He also seems to accept that the Merneptah stele refers to Israelites.

http://thetorah.com/a-russian-jewish-bible-scholar-dr-serge-frolov/

Jonney2000 (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Johnmcintyre1959 I oppose your tendency to enforce your opinions with weak claims based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I see ample support for what is after all a sourced statement, so I think you should stop edit warring, and fight it out here, and be capable of admitting consensus is not always the way you like. Debresser (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser I oppose your tendency to pretend that consensus exists when you are in favour of an item being added but does not exist when you are against an item. I have every right to demand that consensus be demonstrated before these sources are added. This is wikipedia policy, as is the use of secondary not tertiary sources. The word 'weak' is pure POV and OR on your part. When consensus has been shown on here then the sources can be added back in. This policy applies at other articles, why does it not apply here? Edit warriors should stop adding back the disputed sources and instead demonstrate consensus here. When consensus is demonstrated then the sources can go back in, but the policy, that you support at other articles, is that disputed material is removed until consensus is demonstrated. I am prepared to stick to this policy, and await the result of discussion. The fact that these are sources is not sufficient grounds for their restoration, as they are tertiary and should not be used. We should find reliable secondary sources. Please address this point in your contributions.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 08:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Johnmcintyre1959 1. It is sourced. 2. Tertiary sources are acceptable, see Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. 3. Your tu quoque posts will not raise your popularity on Wikipedia, just for your consideration. Debresser (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser. See KingsIndian above, tertiary sources should not be used here. In other articles you accept that material cannot be added without consensus, yet you are not prepared to wait for that to be demonstrated here. Lack of a consistent approach will not help you on wikipedia. Please accept reversions of these tertiary sources while we either demonstrate consensus for their use, (which is against wikipedia policy) or find secondary ones, rather than encouraging edit warriors who override wikipedia policy when it suits them.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Johnmcintyre1959 He? Are you deaf or blind? I just showed you the Wikipedia guideline which says tertiary sources are acceptable. What are you still hacking in chainik?Debresser (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Merneptah

Infantom added back "Modern archeological discoveries confirm Jewish presence in Canaan as far back as the 13th century BCE." Apart from the fact that the sentence incorrectly conflates "Jewish" with "Israelite", the sentence is SYNTH and based on a source relating to the Merneptah Stele because of the inclusion of the term Israel. As we write in Merneptah_Stele#Interpretation, "It is not clear, however, just who this Israel was or where they were located".

Infantom, if you want to discuss whether the Merneptah Stele confirms Israelite presence in Canaan, please first gain consensus, ideally at Talk:Merneptah Stele. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh please. There is consensus about the fact that the Stele confirms Israelite presence in Canaan at the time. Some fringe views do not change it. And the fact that Jews are the same people as the Israelites is also beyond dispute whatever a few editors with an agenda would like to think. Benjil (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

No. The Merneptah stele attests the existence of a people identified as 'Israel' in Canaan by 1207 BCE. Infantom wrote 'Jews' which is a religious concept that was improperly read back several hundred years. The Canaanite kings appear to have employed Habiru/proto-israelites as mercenaries, which, then settled in and intermarried. The Israelites are not interchangeable with the Jews, having none of the legal-religious definitions, and being characterized, like the Habiru, as an ethnic mix (erev rav). The congeries of peoples constituted eventually part of the future Jews in so far as their tribes agreed to a common God, El/Yahweh. This process took centuries. Thirdly, Egyptian Canaan is not, as the editors appear to think, coterminous with Israel/Palestine, but included a far larger territorial reach, including the Sinai, Phoenicia and Syria which is not the sense you get in the Tanakh, where it is used more restrictively. This is an encyclopedia, and vague generalizations or slipshod language to make some point detracts from wikiì's aspirations to be, eventually, a reliable authority. It doesn't help that editors link to books without providing the kind of link which gives the reader direct access to the text being cited. Linking as Infantom did, to a book, even if citing the page, but not with a link directing one to the precise page, is sloppy and subject to abuse, since it defies for many verification, when, as with the four links I have given, it is very easy to be reader- and editor-friendly by a direct page link. These are elementary wiki procedures and the persistence in not adopting them is puzzling.Nishidani (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The southern Levant, further, cannot be glossed as the 'land of Israel', which extends from the Red Sea to the Euphrates, neither of which is part of the modern sense of 'southern Levant'. It is an ambiguous partisan usage which, in normal English as used by everyone not familiar with its intense local reverberances, reads as meaning the state of Israel, which covers the area of the Philistrines, and not the land identified as the heartland of the emergence of Jews (Judea/Samaria in the West Bank).Nishidani (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The Merneptah Stele attests of the presence of a people called Israel in the hills of Canaan in -1207. The people later called "Jews" always and to this day called themselves Israel and lived in the hills of Canaan. Your theory about the Habiru is, well, your theory, the idea that Israelites and Habiru have any link is not consensual (even if I do think there is some link). Benjil (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I see now you have added 'hills of' Canaan. Can you drop the temptation to re-imagine primary sources as a foreshadowing of settlement in the southern Hebron hills, or elsewhere, under Hilltop youth? Assertion is not an argument. I don't have theories: I have sources for the leading scholarship on the questions raised in various articles. This place serves to analyse sources, not exchange opinions. I gave sources, you ignore them (the Habiru-Israelite link is in one of the sources I gave) and counter with personal beliefs, which have no place on Wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Look you clearly or have no idea what you are talking about or is disingenuous. The scholarly consensus, if there is one, is that the Stele speaks about the people of Israel, the same as the later Israelites, who are the forefathers of the Jews. This is the consensus. Nothing else. You wish to hold to fringe theories, that's your problem. Benjil (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The words Israelites and Jews are not synonymous. This material Modern archeological discoveries confirm Jewish presence in Canaan as far back as the 13th century BCE. needs to be changed to use the word Israelites. It is simply OR to use the word Jewish for this historical period.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Benjil. The Merneptah stele speaks of 'Israel' (ethnonym) not of the 'people of Israel (toponym)'. If you cannot understand the difference, nor give focused replies to the 4 books I cited, then you should not be editing here, since you would appear neither to understand the methods of scholarship nor of Wikipedia. Whoever cites unlinked Brenener2010 is obliged to write out the full text on p.10. It clashes with many other, specialist sources and what any one with a tertiary education would know.Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani - "People of Israel" is not a toponym, Israel is not a place, it's the surname of Yaakov (Jacob), the founding ancestor of "the people of Israel" or "the sons of Israel" as they are called literally in Hebrew. Do you even have any basic knowledge of the issue ? Benjil (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You misread the point. I have clarified by bolding Israel.Nishidani (talk) 09:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

And you did not understand my response. People of Israel is not a toponym. It means "the Israelites" and later "the Jews". Not "the people living in (the land of) Israel". Benjil (talk) 12:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Ultimately it is foolish to try to answer this question given the limited sources. Lack of evidence does not prove anything.

“Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel” lays out a rather persuasive review of the scholarly work. The author I think is correct that an Israelite ethnicity had already developed at some point between the Merneptah Stele and the Song of Deborah which most scholars date no later than the 9th century BCE. In both sources the Canaanite are separated from or enemies of the Israelites. The Song of Deborah also talks about kinship bonds. Certainly by the 8th century BCE an Israeli ethnic identity had surfaced.

https://books.google.com/books?id=KztVonFGqcsC&pg=PA95&dq=Merneptah+Stele&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAmoVChMI_NmL_LyPyQIVBlkmCh0AaQsd#v=onepage&q=Merneptah%20Stele&f=false 94- 121 and then summarized on 122 -124. From 125 later sources are covered.

Unless you starting getting into the bizarre theory’s like the idea that the Septuagint was the original Hebrew bible and claiming that because the Elephantine community did not seem to have a bible that this is conclusive evidence. Claiming that it was written by Hellenized Egyptian Jews and later translated into Hebrew. Truly bizarro Jonney2000 (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jonney2000 I agree that lack of evidence doesn't prove anything, but in the context of Wikipedia isn't that an academic distinction since without evidence there is no basis for inclusion in an article? I'm trying to wrap my head around this. Jasphetamine (talk) 03:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Many scholars do date Song of Deborah to the 12th BCE. Poetry is generally thought to be quite resistant to interpolations. The Hebrew is very arcane only 10 tribes are mentioned etc. Jonney2000 (talk) 09:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

First, i didn't write anything, i just added the source to support the sentence. The source is referring to the Merneptah stele as an evidence of the existence of the 'people of Israel' in Cannan, Just like what the sentence says. According to Britannica: "Israelite, in the broadest sense, a Jew, or a descendant of the Jewish patriarch Jacob,...",[2] then yes, 'israelite' can be used as a synonym for 'Jew'. Infantom (talk) 08:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You've made one of the most elementary errors imaginable, confusing a relatively modern English term using Israelite for Jew, which cannot be used to make out that, historically in the period we are dealing with 'Jew' and 'Israelite' were interchangeable semantically. The concept of 'Jewishness' is a later development. It's a bit like me saying I'm an Indo-European, because my forebears were Irish. The two are not interchangeable, though the latter emerged from the former.Nishidani (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

it’s important to remember that Rabbinic texts uses Yehudi only rarely, more often they uses terms like Bnei Yisrael “children of Israel” etc. They make no distinction between Jews and Israelites. Scholars have come to uses the term Israelite to mean pre exile religion. I think partly this was originally linked with how Christianity views Jews.

The term Israelite in a Jewish context is not limited to pre exile religion. Jonney2000 (talk) 11:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't a lot of this debate be eased by a section that briefly covers the concept of "gentile" people? The Tanakh provides it as a way to refer to non-Jewish people within a Jewish context. I think? Jasphetamine (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

If you want to go by Tanach, the definition of a Jew comes from two laws in the Pentateuch: The prohibition against intermarriage, which in passing discusses the status of offspring from forbidden unions (Deut. 7:3,4 and Rashi ad loc. for finer points usually lost in translation), and the law that the convert is subject to the same laws as all other Jews (Lev. 24:22, and Rashi ad loc.). A Gentile is thus someone who is not born of a Jewish mother and has not converted and accepted the 613 laws incumbent on Jews. (Although Gentiles are obligated in the Seven Laws of Noah, which is another very interesting topic.) Musashiaharon (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

We do not need to introduce religious definitions here. We do not need a section that briefly covers the concept of "gentile" people. The term Jews and Jewish cannot be applied from this source. It is pure OR to use any term other than Israelite. As for 'consensus' as far as I am aware there is not statute of limitations on OR. It does not matter how long the term Jewish has been here, it should be replaced.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not confusing anything, i have just cited a source which explicitly states that an Israelite is a Jew. Unlike, for example, in the Hebrew article[3] where there's a distinction and they are referred to as 'ancestors'. Your analogy is more (maybe) equivalent to Canaanites-Jewish relation rather than to Israelite-Jewish one. Infantom (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Infantom. The source you point to says this. Thenceforth these people are referred to as Israelites until their return from the Babylonian Exile in the late 6th century bce, from which time on they became known as Jews. That is the point. Israelites cannot be Jews. The word Jew/Jewish did not exist when the Israelites existed. You have just blown your whole argument wide open. There were no Jews before the BE.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You better read again if that's what you figured out. What you cited indicates only that the name was changed. We are talking about the same people with merely different names, as also stated here: "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)." Got it? only semantics, different name for a different time and era, but the same people. Now, add this to the given previous source that clearly refers to Jews as Israelites i can't see how my argument was "blown". It is true that 'Israelite' is more used in a historical context, still, it doesn't contradict the current sentence in the article and doesn't require a change (which personally i don't necessarily object) especially when the article is about Jews. Infantom (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

' the same people with merely different names.' This is foolishly simplistic. ivrim , like apiru with which it is arguably connected etymologically, denoted a social category not a people, and only in later times and then rarely an ethnos. And Israelites denoted the bĕnê haggôlâ in the Achaemenid province of Judah. Yěhûdîm may well have originally designated a proto-Arabian lineage. The mess in so much sloppy popular generalizations we get here is typical of the closed collectivist mindset here, which is profoundly uncomfortably with complexity. See in any case Joseph Blenkinsopp,Judaism, the First Phase: The Place of Ezra and Nehemiah in the Origins of Judaism, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2009 pp.19ff.Nishidani (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

We should follow a single source. Adding sources together to prove something not in either source is WP:SYNTH. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any SYNTH here. He's only citing the Britannica, which says the name changed. Musashiaharon (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I have little knowledge and even less interest in the minutiae. however the point is extremely simple. If the source says israelite you cannot write jew. And combining it with britannica is straighforward synth. Kingsindian ♝♚ 03:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it says mostly "Israel" or "People of Israel" and not "Israelite", if you're looking for accuracy. Infantom (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The term Land of Israel is theological term (Old Testament, New Testament, Rabbinic literature, Talmud) historic term (the official name of British mandatory Palestine) could refer to historic kingdoms of Judah and Israel (Samaria) linguistic, cultural and political term. It played central role in Judaism, Jewish history, both ancient and modern. This is the main topic of this article and just a few reasons why it should be kept here. As all other historic and religious names for the land(Canaan, Palestine ) it has no precisely and unanimously defined borders--Tritomex (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

That is an interesting argument to use Land of Israel. One that makes sense, actually. Debresser (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Israel/people of Israel. it doesn't say Jewish, Therefore it is OR. If you refer to another source to try and justify using the word Jewish then that is WP:SYNTH. Why not use the word Israelite, and in a separate section note that Britanica says Israel/ite is synonymous with Jew/Jewish? Others can then add RS that say that it isn't. That should please everyone.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Ref the 'interesting argument' to use Land of Israel.According to wikipedia, 'The Land of Israel (Hebrew: אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל ʼÉreṣ Yiśrāʼēl, Eretz Yisrael) is one of several names for an area of indefinite geographical extension in the Southern Levant. Related biblical, religious and historical English terms include the Land of Canaan, the Promised Land, the Holy Land, and Palestine (q.v. Israel (disambiguation)).' So why don't we just call it Palestine, or one of the several other names, or even include all of them? Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, that is also true. But those terms are not as closely linked as Israel and Israelites. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The Hebrew term "People of Israel" or "Am Israel" means Jewish in English. In fact, the term "Am Israel" and the term Judeans (Yehudi) are the only two names Jews use for themselves.Tritomex (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The cited source, Brenner's Short History, actually warns that the identity of the group denoted in the Stele is uncertain:

Exactly what was then understood by the term "Israel" remains something of a mystery, but this inscription testifies to the existence of a group of people in Canaan designated by that name.

This makes it hard for me to understand how the lede paragraph can claim that "Modern archaeological discoveries confirm the existence of the people of Israel in Canaan" (emphasis added), implicitly equating that people with the modern Jews. We'd need a different source for that statement, and so far I haven't found one that makes it explicit. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

References

The addition of this source * "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." Jew at Encyclopedia Britannica, and this "Hebrew, any member of an ancient northern Semitic people that were the ancestors of the Jews." Hebrew (People) at Encyclopedia Britannica does not mean that the use of the word Jews and Jewish is not OR. we don't use other encyclopaedias as RS on wikipedia, so these sources will be removed.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The source for this claim Modern archaeological discoveries confirm the existence of the people of Israel in Canaan as far back as the 13th century BCE refers to the Merneptah Stele only. Therefore the text should not use the plural. It should be more like The discovery of the Merneptah Stele confirms (or indicates, as there is dispute about what it meant by Israel) the existence of the (should be a) people of Israel in Canaan as far back as the 13th century BCE.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

There's now a second source which does corroborate the claim. That doesn't take away the problem, which is that the identification of what the Stele appears to be calling Israel is by no means universally accepted. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Nothing is universally accepted. The relevant question is "is it the majority/mainstream opinion" and apparently it is. Benjil (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Apparent from what? I still haven't seen a source that explicitly posits a kind of consensus or majority opinion. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Apparent from the literature on the subject. You want a poll of experts ? That does not exist and it does not work like that. Most articles and books, and by most I mean almost all of them, take the identification with Israel for granted. Check the wikipedia article yourself for more sources. Benjil (talk) 13:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The closest I can find to a poll is a statement that "Most scholars agree that the Ysry3r/l of Merenptah is in some way related to the Israel of the Hebrew Bible", supported by an extensive list of references, in Hasel 1998 (p. 197). Other sources that I've seen are similarly careful in positing connections, unlike our blunt statement that the Stele "confirms the existence of the people of Israel in Canaan". QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Many scholars agree that the Israel of Iron Age II is continuous with Merenptah's Israel, but not all. I think the lede should be rewritten to reflective that. EyeTruth (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Baruch Spinoza

Is Baruch Spinoza the best choice for the infobox? He renounced his Judaism and argued for secularization. Personally I feel he might not be the best pick as a representative of Jewish denomination. Jbaer50 (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. The consensus is that he is still considered Jewish and influential. Debresser (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Images in infobox

I happened to run across WT:ETHNIC#Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the infoboxes of articles about ethnic groups. I'm not saying we should immediately remove the images in the infobox for this article. And I certainly don't want to open the previously opened can of worms about which images to include. My understanding is that consensus for a specific article can override a Wikiproject decision (correct me if I'm wrong). So should we have a discussion about whether to keep images in the infobox? If we do, however, I implore you to keep it strictly to a discussion about whether to have any images rather than (again) bringing up which specific images to include. Or, it may be that no one here sees a need for any discussion unless the current infobox is challenged. Sundayclose (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2016

When ExRat removed the image gallery from the infobox a little while ago, she/he also removed the "native_name" parameter. Please restore it, as there is no reason why it should have been removed. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• It was removed due to the now-closed RfC WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES discussion. The consensus was to remove images from galleries. I am not in agreement with the consensus, but the discussion is now closed. I will restore the native_name parameter. ExRat (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your quick response. Sorry if I wasn't as clear as I should have been. I understand (from your edit summary) why you removed the image gallery. It was the "native_name" that was removed without cause, in error I assume. Thanks again. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, it was an error when I removed the "native_name". My apologies! ExRat (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Sarah Bernhardt

Please can we replace Portman with her. She is divine. @Nishidani: @Jasphetamine: --Monochrome_Monitor 01:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

(For those who may not know, the issue of the infobox images was discussed a couple of months ago at Talk:Jews/Archive 26#Portraits.) I have nothing against Bernhardt, but my opinion is to leave Portman. Portman is a good representative of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, and she currently has wide appeal. Sundayclose (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I strongly want to keep Portman, for all the reasons I gave then. Debresser (talk) 08:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

But why not have the best? No one thinks Portman is a better actress than Bernhardt. Likewise, Gershwin considered Irving Berlin a greater songwriter than he. I might make the latter edit. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Portman is so far no where near the historic significance of Sarah Bernhardt. This is obvious. As to the edit summary I am very fond of Rita Levi-Montalcini, her breakthrough was done under absurdly trying conditions, -banned by fascism from working, at risk of death, and working in a cubby hole to get the results that led to her Nobel -was an iconic figure for decades in Italy. Emmy Noether is on a par, if not superior intellectually, but worked in a community, and died before the horror could affect her genius. And I think your own academic interests influence your preference there! Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Re Gershwin -- he may well have considered Berlin a greater songwriter than himself, but recall that Gershwin was also a composer of serious music, including what is probably the single best piece of music by an American composer. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Agree completely on Bernhardt. I didn't know about Rita's story, that's pretty damn awesome. My only complaint is the picture. It's old and unflattering and my black and white keeps getting reverted. You're also completely right about my academic interests!! And on Gershwin, I made an unforgivable foible. Gershwin was the composer, and his wife the librettist. So sorry. --Monochrome_Monitor 04:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Oy. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Another anecdote about R L-M. She was appointed senator for life in the Senate by the President of the Republic in her 90s, an honorary position. But, no she took it seriously. When Berlusconi, head of a rampaging group of corrupt lobbyists was buying off votes and Romano Prodi's coalition had a razor-thin majority in that house, where lack of a majority vote could block any reform legislation, she plunked herself down day in day out at critical periods, and sat out the most devastatingly tedious arguments of the opposition for several hours a day in her late 90s, in order to cast her decisive vote to keep a good government in power. She never forgot what fascists are, and how they get to power. Bright as a button and tough as nails: they don't make'em like that anymore. Civic obligations even trumping a natural desire to rest on one's hard-earned laurels or enjoy a life of ease and continued scholarship.Nishidani (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Damn that's cool. I'm gonna restate the black and white. Now help me get Bernhardt on here!!!! --Monochrome_Monitor 14:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: DING! --Monochrome_Monitor 15:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hang on, I refrained even from backing you initially because with my bad reputation, anything I suggest, whoever else might be endorsing it, tends to get a thumbs down. Cheers, kid, and may your studies (and life) thrive.Nishidani (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

You as well! You know, you could help your "bad reputation" by moderating some of your political views a bit. I have, Quand même (as Bernhardt would say). --Monochrome_Monitor 22:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Um, I'm not political. I've never voted for four decades. My politics are those based on a generic reading of the ideal of a polis based on universal human rights, i.e. opposed to any wrong based on inhuman policing. This was a pretty normal outlook for the generations raised in, and immediately after the dark aftermath of, WW2, in households whose fathers and mothers had witnessed, and risked their lives to avert, the worst of what we are capable of.Nishidani (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor Really, not nice to garner support for your edit in such a way. In any case, I just wanted to repeat my point of view, that we should have Portman, as she is more modern and well-known. As I have said before, these collages are not only about merit, of which both Sarah Bernhardt and Portman are not lacking, but also about presenting an easily recognizable face to the general reader. Debresser (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I have refrained from taking sides until now, but Debresser's argument for keeping Portman seems a very sound and convincing one. Not that Sarah wasn't "divine", but MM's endless advocacy (two sections on this page) and exhortations over one photo have become tiresome, and I suggest it is time to move on. Hertz1888 (talk) 10:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree it's inappropriate to seek consensus support by pinging only editors that you think will support it. That's a form of WP:Canvassing. And I agree it's time to move on. If we could include both Portman and Bernhardt that would be great, but we can't. So I think the consensus on the images is settled and has been settled for a while. It's inappropriate to bring the issue up repeatedly and frequently. Sundayclose (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

You do realize that "the divine sarah" is an honorific given to her in 19th century popular culture? Obviously she wasn't divine. Also, why on Earth can't we include both? The 3x3 seems awfully stifling. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, the reason I'm bringing up this point is because I thought it was a refreshing departure from the typical battles on this talk page. Apparently not. Sorry for appearing whiny, remember to always take my proposals with a bit of humor. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

At this point I'd offer that we remove both Natalie and Sarah from the table and simply put a picture of Regina Spektor in her place! I know, I'm kind of a genius aren't I? Jasphetamine (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Heresy! --Monochrome_Monitor 07:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

For better or worse, looks like this gallery and all other such galleries may be removed soon forever per this RFC: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the infoboxes of articles about ethnic groups. The voting is ongoing. --Off-shell (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I approve! --Monochrome_Monitor 21:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Culture?

Forgive me if I'm simply mistaken, but this article seems to neglect Jewish culture, unlike its treatment of Jewish history, ethnicity, and religion. I think it could greatly benefit from a "culture" section with subsections on things like cuisine as well as the fields mentioned in the lead. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

"Jews" is a very broad topic, so one article cannot cover the entirety of the topic. Thus, other more specific articles are linked, including links to Jewish culture, Jewish identity, and other related issues. The average reader will not have difficulty finding this information. Sundayclose (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Your'e not mistaken, the culture is absent and should be covered in a brief section of its own. Infantom (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The lachrymose view of Jewish history. Wringing one's hands, and the handkerchief, in the lead

Jeff. I can see that my suggestions here are falling on deaf ears. What we have is what we had before the lead was questioned, tweaked and in some senses made even more wdded to an identifiable popular story that has no scholarly merit. The latest is pure overegging the pud:

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, to Babylonian Captivity and Exile, to Greek Occupation and Exile, to the Roman Occupation and Exile. These events subjected Jews to slavery, pogroms, cultural assimilation, forced expulsions, and more, scattering Jews all around the world, known today as the Jewish diaspora.

is part of what Salo Wittmayer Baron, reacting to Heinrich Graetz's Liedensgeschichte approach, famously described as the lachryomose conception of Jewish history.' It is utter nonsense to describe 6-1 centuries BCE, as exile,captivity, occupation, slavery. You could apply this to virtually any empire in antiquity by equally selective showcasing as general realities what were episodes in a long history. The majority of Jews were outside of Palestine and there are zero grounds for portraying the collective world of Jews in this way, except of course to underwrite the tedious fables of schoolrooms. Ah well, if the consensus is for the fairy tale, by all means. . . (The use of the scholarly sources is all synth) Nishidani (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, what are your proposals? I see that 'their homeland' is POV, and the use of the term Jews to refer to the occupant of the Kingdom of Samaria, and Judah is OR. The reference to exiles and to slavery, and cultural assimilation. needs RS. Where Judeans sent into slavery, where there forced expulsions 'all around the world"? No the elite were taken to Babylon. However, this time period also includes forced conversion of others by Judeans, conquest and occupation of land previously occupied by others, e.g. King David's mighty empire, and plenty of civil war between groups who worshipped Yahweh and other gods, slaughter of Cannanites, etc. Is it this latter excluded material that you wish to include?Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

King David didn't have a mighty empire and there was no slaughter of Cananites, the Jews were the Cananites. Jews were forced into slavery, etc. Drsmoo (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

That is the minimalist theory. Since Canaanites had no ethnic identity, nor did Israelites at the time, one cannot say that 'the Jews' (an anachronism for the period) came from the Canaanites except by caricature. This thesis has academic roots, but in the scholarly literature, the assumption that proto-Israelites came from Canaan does not translate into 'the Canaanites were 'Jews'/'Israelites'. In any case, the thesis, since it contradicts the whole biblical narrative, means that almost everything there is a tissue of lies, rather than being a late national/novelistic recension of several legendary traditions shared by the tribally distinct groups whose unified identity was forged by Yahweh worship.Nishidani (talk) 11:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Drsmoo That may be your version of events, but any article about Jews will have to at least prominently mention the version of Johnmcintyre1959. Debresser (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I won't be making edits to the article because so far every one I have made has been relentlessly reverted by any one of several editors, so it is a waste of time. I think the on-page editing is disruptive when the talk page is vetting numerous proposals and conflicted material ranging over several issues. The proper thing would be to hammer out a consensus here, using a section as a work page. I won't participate of course, except as I have, to provide some sources.

For example, the diaspora is central to the Jewish experience, and needs expansion, but it obviously can't be phrased in terms of the Roman expulsion myth. Diaspora was due to war's uprooting (Babylonia -but note that most Israelites remained in Palestine: the administrative priestly class was exiled, and came back with the key ideas, developed in the exile, as to what constituted real Jewishness), but also to choice, conversion (often imposed on Itureans, Edomites in Jewish wars), economic opportunity. You'd never guess from this weepy emphasis on diaspora and exile that Jewish units served in Alexander's campaign and that during the Seleucid period, Jewish military forces from Babylonia played an important role in many battles all over Asia Minor, Lydia, Phrygia etc., and that as was the norm, these Jewish soldiers then settled in numerous cities to form one of the nucleuses for the new city-states, such as Antioch. The diaspora after the Babylonian exile evinces numerous examples of successful Jewish growth, economic, military and cultural, abroad, in line with the Tanakh's advice, per (Jeremiah 29:7). In Egypt, Libya and the West (Mediterranean) generally, there was no external compulsion to explain the creation of Jewish settlements. They may have fled to avoid the Assyro-Babylonian onslaught, or followed the Levantine-Greek practice of pursuing economic opportunities in new lands. The Himyarite Kingdom which extended over much of present Saudi Arabia, and which accounts for much of the extensive impact of Judaism on the emergence of Islam, was autochthonous and due to conversion. All of these things clash with that monocular focus, in the rabbinical religious myth, of the decisive impact of an ostensible 'expulsion' from Palestine after the fall of the Second Temple, which plays into the lachrymose version we have here (None of this means one should underestimate the cultural impact of the structural myth in Jewish narratives of displacement as testing, that goes back to Adam's expulsion, through to the Exodus. It sits paradoxically, next to the genocidal narrative of the acquisition of the land by total destruction of the indigenous population in the Book of Joshua, and the mythic version of the events of 70-135 makes the Roman onslaught outrageous, while the version of the conquest of Canaan, which in story form, was equally devastating, is celebrated).Nishidani (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

For once I would agree with many of the things what you wrote here but your strange obsession with a "rabbinical myth" when it has been explained to you many times it was a *Christian* myth, not a Jewish one. Benjil (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

'Strange obsession'? When prizes were handed out at year's end for one's close work on textual sources for some interpretation in the good old days, no one told me I got mine because of some weird compulsion. Merit for scrupulousness was rewarded, because that is how the disciplines of philology and history graded students. If you check the source I quoted. It was a myth shared by Christians and Jews. I have no obsessions, at least here, except in trying to pin down the precise state of knowledge in contemporary and historical articles.Nishidani (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

'The fact that the bulk of the Jewish diaspora long preceded the rise of Christianity, or the destruction of the Second Temple, was conveniently forgotten. The myth of the ‘wandering Jew’ became part of a continuing Christian myth, a myth often absorbed and perpetuated by Jews themselves Jews are forced to wonder, so the dogma went, because of their party in the killing of Christ.' Robin Cohen, Global Diasporas: An Introduction Routledge, 2008 pp.23-6 p.26

All religions are grounded in myths, as most of our opinions and convictions are derivative of hearsay. In this one, just as the post exilic priesthood developed the idea that the exile was part of God's providence and punishment for the sins of kings in the early kingship period, so too rabbinical tradition thought of the fall of the Second Temple as a punishment for infidelity. That is in the Bavli and indeed there was at least one halakhic ban in the early first millenium prohibiting return to the Land of Israel until the Messiah came. That means the rabbinate in Babylon actively encouraged the retention of the diaspora. Christians, being originally Jews, found polemical ammunition in this old tradition of assigning blame and penitence, this time exclusively to the conservative Judaism that kept the faith rather than accept the heretical rewriting that got underway with the Pauline dispensation. In that way, interreactively, the two diverging raditions overlapped in the premise of what was behind the diaspora. The difference is that the Jewish secular version of the narrative, prominent not only in Zionism, blamed Rome, ignoring the fact that in religious terms, the exile was canonically interpreted as being a punishment from God. Nishidani (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Jewish sources interpret the destruction of the Second Temple in a multitude of seemingly strange ways see Kamsa and Bar Kamsa. Generally the rabbis seem to think that winning vs the Romans would have been possible except for internal divisions within the Jewish people.

In other words the rabbis blame the sectarian divisions between Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots etc. Many rabbis imply that it was caused by a minor sin that broke the camel’s back.

Maimonides says it was because the Jews sinned by not learning the art of war.

https://books.google.com/books?id=_A0YCCatVcoC&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=Maimonides+temple+destroyed&source=bl&ots=oV6YCJM1gF&sig=S3_50NXa3FoRGEtJQCdm_R12J1Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZzP3P56bJAhVX_WMKHcOVBOQQ6AEIMzAD#v=onepage&q=Maimonides%20temple%20destroyed&f=false

https://www.ou.org/jewish_action/06/2013/whats-the-truth-about-the-cause-of-the-destruction-of-the-beit-hamikdash-2/ Jonney2000 (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Attempt to restart this discussion before the {{POV-inline}} tag is removed again for procedural reasons: the version of Jewish history in the lede as a blatantly biased view. This issue needs a resolution. Is there an older version of the lede that we can revert to? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 05:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

1. There is no consensus for removal of this information. In addition, the claims are true and abundantly sourced. There is no doubt that the Jewish people has been subject to "slavery, pogroms, cultural assimilation, forced expulsions, genocide, and more" ever since the cradle of its existence as a people.
2. Moreover, even if there were truth to the claim that Jews overstate these facts, that fact in itself would need to be mentioned.
3. I do think the sentence is a bit too detailed for the lead. I would rewrite "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, to Babylonian Captivity and Exile, to Greek Occupation and Exile, to the Roman Occupation and Exile. These events subjected Jews to slavery, pogroms, cultural assimilation, forced expulsions, genocide, and more, scattering Jews all around the world, known today as the Jewish diaspora." to "Since then, while maintaining rule over their homeland during certain periods—Jews also suffered various exiles and occupations from their homeland, which subjected the Jews to slavery, pogroms, cultural assimilation, forced expulsions, genocide, and more, scattering Jews all around the world, in what is known today as the Jewish diaspora.". Debresser (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Based on the given sources, one can write a very different history, and one should if one takes Cohen 1997 seriously: "until a few years ago, most characterizations of diasporas emphasized their catastrophic origins" (p. 21), but "Jewish migratory experiences were much more diverse and more complex than the catastrophic tradition allows" (p. 22). Yet that tradition is what is being presented here, in an overly simplistic account. Even Graetz included in his history of suffering the religious and scholarly tradition that was kept alive during the diaspora.

The cherrypicking that goes into the present summary of several millennia of history is evident in the quote lifted from Botticini and Eckstein. That paper is actually about the voluntary conversion of Jews to other religions (for economic reasons), and about the economic specialization of the remaining (educated) believers, resulting in a "voluntary Diaspora of the Jews in search of worldwide opportunities in crafts, trade, and moneylending" (from its own introduction). What is lifted from this source is what fits the argument, while its thrust is ignored. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Until editors stop fixing the page with community comfort myths, and start rewriting it according to scholarly sources, with all of their openness to dissonances, there's no hope that we'll ever have here a page which mirrors the richness of Jewish experiences, as opposed to one which trots out the fairytales one learns in pre-school.Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Qwertyus The accusation of cherry picking is hard to defend, because any article will have to decide what to include, and especially regarding the lead, so any article and even more so any lead invovles cherry picking. I don't think there was anything untoward in the way t was done in this case. Debresser (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani Your post has few content and much whining. In addition, I notice you ignore my argument #2, which basically says tat yo can not base yourself on scholarly sources exclusively and in every case, because real-life people and life itself are not exclusively and in every case based on them. Debresser (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Debresser, perhaps I don't understand your position, and I request that you clarify it. I've shown that the current text directly contradicts several of the sources stated for it, but you don't seem to try and counter that. What is the argument in favor of keeping the current text in the lede? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I've posted a note at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Summary of Jewish history. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

United Monarchy

As noted by Prinsgezinde, above, Brenner notes that there is no evidence for the existence of a Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy), and our article on the topic cites further historians and archaeologists who have come to the same conclusion. Yet, the Origins section presents its existence as established fact. This needs to be resolved. We can either do the same as with the Exodus narrative, explain that the United Monarchy's existence is not taken for granted anymore, or find a new formulation that avoids the issue so as not to overburden the section with controversies. Thoughts? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps make it more clear where historical fact ends. While unproven religious claims are typically well footnoted in this article, they are often intermingled with actual fact making them very difficult to separate. This is not ideal. Lexlex (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking initiative. I'd say we could indeed go into more detail in the Origins section, so long as the lead accurately yet concisely reflects the issue. I agree though that overburdening it won't help. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The lede doesn't mention the United Monarchy. It jumps from the Merneptah stele to the two-state situation. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Merneptah stele

Since the discussion above seems to have gotten stuck even though the tag is still there, I'll try to reopen the discussion.

The portion in question:

The discovery of the Merneptah Stele confirms the existence of the people of Israel in Canaan as far back as the 13th century BCE.

I wouldn't say it has to be removed, but it simply has to be clarified then. Currently, the curious reader will see the previous sentence ("The Jews trace their ethnogenesis to the part of the Levant known as the Land of Israel.") and deduce that Jews were already there 3300 years ago. I hate getting into semantics but we all know what implications the word "Jew" brings: it generally refers to a religious or at least ethnic concept; this has little to do with that and yet Wikipedia closes the gap.

What seems to be overlooked is the ambiguity of the terms Israelites, Jews, and people of Israel. Equating all three leads to misconceptions about what the sources intend. For example, Brenner states: "Exactly what was then understood by the term “Israel” remains something of a mystery, but this inscription testifies to the existence of a group of people in Canaan designated by that name." It "confirms" only that there was a group in Canaan that was designated by the Egyptians as "Israel". He later states: "What we know from archaeology indicates that the first Israelites were shepherds and farmers, most of whom lived in broadly autarkic village communities around the turn of the millennium," and "What the Israelites of that period understood by religion must be envisaged as a far cry from the idealized monotheism of a later era. The history of Israel up to the beginning of the first millennium BCE is largely unknown." Most importantly, he declares: "There is not a shred of evidence even for the existence of a united kingdom of Israel and Judah in the tenth century BCE."

Greenspahn gives us: "In the early stages, in the thirteenth century B.C.E., Israel was a pastoralist or bedouin people, identified by the Egyptians as part of the larger Shasu group, resident in the general southland, that is, the vast desert that stretches across Sinai, the Negev, Edom, and northern Arabia." Egypt saw a group that was part of the Shasu inhabiting the Land of Israel. The concept of Jews is so far from all this that we really can't make this big of a jump. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The concept of Jews is indeed so far from all these if we are considering "Jews" as a religious designation only. But if considered as an ethnic designations as well, then all these would no more be irrelevant. What I believe works best here is to provide enough details in the article and give voice to all significant scholarly POVs. As it is, all reputable scholars agree that the Merneptah Stela mentions the presence of a people called Israel in geographic Palestine. But that's about as much as the agreement goes. EyeTruth (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The debate on historicity of United Monarchy is not related to the existence of the people of Israel to whom this section refer. This people of Israel were likely polytheistic people, yet most of the scholars do relate them to Israelites. Israelites were according to overwhelming majority of population geneticists and historians the ancestors of modern Jews. The modern concept of ethnogenesis and nationhood is 19th century invention, yet that does not mean that modern people (for example Greeks) do not have their roots in ancient past.Tritomex (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're arguing. All the scholarly sources that I've seen admit that the relationship between the Stele and the later Israelites is a bit of a mystery (though only few will argue against it). I agree with Prinsgezinde, the jump that the lede is making is far too big. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Exactly to which scholars (and text) you refer? I am not aware of any reliable scholar who denies the relationship between the Israel Stele and Israelites, while the list of those who confirm it is very long.Tritomex (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

E.g., Whitelam 2000. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

In historic science there is a very strong consensus that the Israel stele do refer to Israelites-see the debate Hasel, Michael G (1998). Domination and Resistance: Egyptian Military Activity in the Southern Levant, 1300–1185 BC Page 197. I could name here at least 15 books and leading scholars on this question. As in all historic questions with possible political connotation, there are fringe views that are rejected by overwhelming majority. Israel Finkelstein who is certainly not a politically motivated historian, writes on this issue "It is conventional wisdom that each scholar works in a given ideological, philosophical and political environment. This is true for all European, US, Israeli and Arab writers, Edward Said and Keith Whitelam not excepted. The subjective environment threatens objectivity and excellence of scholarship. The question is whether a scholar dealing with the past can free himself from the burden of the present." --Tritomex (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, this is not the real issue. The issue is that one of the sources cited for the claim in the lede, Brenner, says that

Exactly what was then understood by the term "Israel" remains something of a mystery, but this inscription testifies to the existence of a group of people in Canaan designated by that name.

(I'm repeating myself.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Qwertyus is right. Since there is no consensus on it it most certainly does not belong in the lead in its current wording. The dispute tag will have to remain until we find a solution. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hasel (1998, p. 215–217) also summarizes the state of affairs as a debate between four positions, without explicitly favoring any one of them or naming any as consensus. They range from "this Israel as the first evidence of early Israel as a socioethnic entity" to the position of Whitelam. The two positions in between are to give "cursory mention" of the stele while acknowledging that "it is difficult to link this with monarchical Israel", and to treat Merneptah's Israel as a geographic designation "either with or without a people named Israel".

A related problem is the "Ancient Egyptian Occupation of the Levant" mentioned later on. This seems to be taking the stance that the people of Israel/the Jews can be identified as a people during the period of the New Kingdom of Egypt, i.e., before 1077. But AFAIK, the archaeological record is silent until the tenth or ninth century BCE. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Culture dump

Obviously this is extremely important to the article, but right now it's just a dump which needs to be sorted through and made concise.--Monochrome_Monitor 22:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I reverted the massive dump of unattributed text from... where exactly? In order to satisfy relevant copyright and attribution requirements, please comply with WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

"Jews originated as a national and religious group ... during the second millennium BCE"

With this edit, Debresser restored material to the second paragraph of the lead that I had removed. In his edit summary, Debresser wrote: "If I understand correct, this part of the edit that was revert is not being disputed." I may be mistaken, but I thought that material—namely, that the "Jews originated as a national and religious group ... during the second millennium BCE"—was still contentious.

I'd like to hear from other editors. Has this issue been resolved? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

If it would turn out that there is no consensus for this, we can either try to source it or remove it. I am fine either way, and my partial restore was only based on the assumption that this material is not contested. Debresser (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I tried to get some discussion on the deeply flawed earlier lead hodge podge, but got nowhere. The issue is, are we going to document these ideological positions of historical reimaginings to rthe relevant scholarship, or are we going to google 'stuff' that fits our preconceptions? D's edit was absurd, as is so much editing on this topic. All huge generalization, and no care for the complexities of scholarship. It is farcical for editors of experience to add a genetics paper or a government bureau note (as this), for example notes 18 and 19, for historical data. This has been stated, repeated and argued for years that this is unacceptable, and yet the habit stubbornly persists, and reappears no matter how much it is challenged. So be it.Nishidani (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Population

There's an updated source(per 2015) that includes the figure of ~17M under the "Population with Jewish parents" category. See [4] (page 25). Last consensus regarded the "Enlarged Jewish population". Infantom (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Infantom, it seems perfectly factual to use the updated source. Jeppiz (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Why use that and not the explicit "The size of world Jewry at the beginning of 2014 was assessed at 14,212,800" from the same source? I don't have a preference either way, just want to hear the arguments. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess it boils down to that never-ending question "Who is Jew?". Needless to say, there are millions of people who see themselves as Jewish, who are Jewish under Israel's Law of Return, but whom the Chief Rabbis of Israel do not consider Jewish. Any one number would force us to take side in that argument, better to report the span between the different views. Jeppiz (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

These people are not Jewish under Israel's Law of Return, they just have the right to emigrate to Israel and become citizens. But the law defining Who is a Jew in almost the same as the Rabbinate (there are a few differences). Benjil (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Whoho, Benjil, you are mixing up your terms. The Law of return say nothing about who is a Jew, only concerns the question who has the right to become a citizen of the State of Israel. Debresser (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I never said that the Law of Return states who is a Jew, I said that the definition of who is a Jew according to the State of Israel is very close to the rabbinic definition (but slightly different).Benjil (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

We already talked about this! STOP RE-ADDING IT! It's in the freaking archive! @Sundayclose:

Last consensus was to exclude the "Enlarged Jewish population" which included "non Jews in Jewish households". Read the archive yourself! Your'e probably confused because of the new source with bigger numbers and, as usual, edit of your own accord. Infantom (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Monochrome, yes we talked about it and there was no consensus just as there is no consensus know. You're edit warring and shows signs of claiming ownership. I recommend you to drop it. If you have arguments, present them but stop shouting at other users to stop editing. Jeppiz (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not confused. There is no "new source", the reference box lists the same exact source with the same exact reasoning. @Jasphetamine: --Monochrome_Monitor 01:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Same source? now i see you didn't even bother to click on it. The new source(2014): Core Jewish population: 14,212,800, Population with Jewish parents: 17,236,850, Enlarged Jewish population: 20,109,400. the old source(2013- the one your are taking about): core: 13,854,800, Jewish parents: 15,772,800, enlarged: 18,197,400. see the difference? notice these are same figures that were discussed in the archive. And stop calling other editors, you are violating WP:CANVAS. Infantom (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

First off, Everyone needs to cool their jets about this. We're talking about a rough count of a complex demographic group. It isn't a huge deal. Population figures are never going to be terribly accurate or precise. They are always estimates. It is very hard to count humans. The enlarged number is not valid to use; by consensus, common sense, and by virtue of being called "enlarged" in the source cited. It isn't valid. Since a child born to a Jewish mother would be Jewish, and "Jewish parents" is plural which I'd take to mean both parents are Jewish, that number would seem to be the best one to use. In addition to that reasoning, it is the number in the middle. Those tend to be the safe bets. Ultimately I see no reason why the population field can't contain the word "Approximate" and use the middle of the road figure from the latest source. We're working on an encyclopedia, not an official census. We should use what would be most useful to someone looking up this subject. I feel that would be a rounded population figure from the middle three, which is 17,000,000 and clarified with "Approximate" just to be safe. I will make this change.

Infantom I certainly hope your allegations of WP:CANVAS aren't merely in response to me being pinged here. This page is on my watch list already. I care about this page being a good article, not about who gets their way. Jasphetamine (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

To clarify... I pinged (her/him)? Because of a prior discussion on my talk page about it which we had before it was changed. I pinged sundayclose because he/she was a part of the first discussion on this. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you can approximate it like that, it's probably synth. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear god it's worse than before now. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I see your argument though. Non Jews with Jewish parents are different from non-jews in jewish households, but still flawed. The people don't indentify as Jewish and no one in their household identified them as Jewish. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I think if we can find a source, then "Approximately X" with X being a very round number would be best. Not sure it can be done this way from the current source, though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is synth to round a number. If that is synth, then you can use the exact number from the source but keep approximately. Monochrome Monitor since this article opens by defining Jews as an "ethnoreligious" group that means we're not necessarily looking for a number representing people who identify as Jewish, but rather that Judaism says are Jews. That being their mother was a Jew. We're talking statistics here. To use myself as an example to try to explain my thinking, I do not identify as a feminist at all however I'd put women's rights in the top 3 social issues I care about. If someone was studying feminism and wanted to know how many feminists were in NYC, I'd count as one. You don't pick what demographic you are put in, the method of data collection and analysis does. Jasphetamine (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why he's determined to use the largest estimate he can find. Most figures give 13.9-14.2 million, and so should we. It's silly to use a definition of Jewish that Jews don't use. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

If we are going to use a range I think we should do 14.2-16.5 million. 14.2 are people identifying as jewish and 16.5 are people with one jewish parent. But it's quite silly to just give a high estimate. [5] --Monochrome_Monitor 01:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Wait a minute. After reading it I noticed that people with a Jewish parent who do not identify as Jewish and do not profess another religion are included in the core population. This must mean that "people with a jewish parent" includes people who don't identify as Jewish and identify as a different ethnicity and religion, thus they shouldn't be included.

Definitions provided: Core Jewish population: Includes all persons who, when asked, identify themselves as Jews, or, if the respondent is a different person in the same household, are identified by him/her as Jews; and do not have another religion. Also includes persons with a Jewish parent who claim no current religious or ethnic identity. "people with a Jewish parent": Sum of (a) core Jewish population; (b) persons reported as partly Jewish; and (c) all others not currently Jewish with a Jewish parent. They don't necessarily even identify as partly Jewish. In contrast, the 16.5 estimate only considers people who consider themselves partly Jewish. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to including a broader estimate at all. I just think it's silly that people who do not identify as Jewish, are not identified by anyone in there family as Jewish, and consider themselves to be a different ethnicity or religion, would be considered Jewish because a parent is. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I think unless someone does the legwork to get inside how these numbers came up there is no reason for us to keep worrying about it. We should either pick a nice safe number in the middle of the range that is approximately the population, or we should remove that section of the infobox. There is no reason to keep worrying about this issue. We know approximately how many Jews are out there. We have a source. We stipulate it is not an exact figure in the infobox. This isn't an article about polling ethics or data manipulation. Come on lets just lock something in and leave it until better data comes out in a year or two.Jasphetamine (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor: The middle number was a lie. I used the CIA world factbook and my TI-83+ and according to the US Gov't you were right to push for the lower number. The CIA puts world population at 14 million. I think the infobox should be "Approximately 14,000,000" and I think the CIA is a pretty great source to have for settling this whole thing. Yah? Jasphetamine (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I have a TI-84 plus silver :D I think the figure should be listed as approx 14 million, but the 16.5 part should at least be mentioned in the reference box. But if we are going to summarize the data 14.2 million works. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The number is not a "lie", that's an estimation that includes also ancestry(which is also used in other ethnic groups articles such as English, Italians, Russians..). Moreover you're ignoring Reforms and conservatives definitions that counts at least one parent. It's impossible to know the number of Jews outside of Israel and i can't see why the CIA is a better source than the demographic study we already have (Actually, i won't be surprised if it is based on such studies). Why is that obsession to determine such a controversial matter and not represent a range of estimations and let the readers to make their own conclusions? Infantom (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

But for english, italians, russians, they identify as having italian ancestry. These people don't identify as jewish ethnically or religiously. --Monochrome_Monitor 04:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The CIA is a better source because not only is it within the range we'd already established, it only has two significant digits and we can cite that figure so there is no WP:SYNTH issue with saying "14,000,000." Look dude, a population is not a range unless the people involved are nomadic or something. It is a damn number. We got two sources that both point to using 14,000,000. Both are good. Why not let readers make their own conclusions? You open an encyclopedia specifically to get access to other peoples' opinions! Besides, since readers can edit, why not let them just write their conclusions into the article? Oh wait, that is WP:SYNTH. Oh, also buddy I didn't mean the middle number was actually a lie intended to deceive; it is a saying. "Numbers lie." "The G train is a lie." It is called hyperbole. Jasphetamine (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Monochrome Monitor, 1)how do you know they identify as such? it is not mentioned in the articles 2)People's ancestry is a fact, their self identification is irrelevant. Jasphetamine, how exactly presenting the full picture from a single source is SYNTH? quiet the opposite. The Jewish population is indeed a range, as it includes several definitions of a scattered people. You suggest writing your conclusion, i suggest to copy directly from a demographic study. Infantom (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You forgot a colon in this reply and you stated something I wrote was "quiet the opposition. That aside, I agree completely with your last statement above: I suggest we copy it from a demographic study. I have said this over and over in the 24 hours -- the demographic study conducted by an organization with unlimited funds, expert staff, and unrestricted access to any data they want to have from anywhere in the world. Result: 0.2% of seven billion people are Jewish, which is 14,000,000. The infobox should say that. Since you agree I'll make the edit. Jasphetamine (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the figure should be around 14 millions and not include people who do not define themselves as Jews. Benjil (talk) 07:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Why is the range necessary? 500,000 is within a margin of error that shouldn't need a damn hyphen. I'm not gonna edit it, I just really am blown away by needing to clutter an infobox to show a 3% margin of error.Jasphetamine (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110805210424/http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/jew to http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/Jew
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111013070200/http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/EDC6CB3D-73EE-43BD-9CDC-ED4EFF8A4008/0/usisrael_pub.pdf to http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/EDC6CB3D-73EE-43BD-9CDC-ED4EFF8A4008/0/usisrael_pub.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140307172019/http://www.jafi.org.il:80/JewishAgency/English/Jewish+Education/Compelling+Content/Worldwide+Community/Connecting+to+Community/Jewish+Languages.htm to http://www.jafi.org.il/JewishAgency/English/Jewish+Education/Compelling+Content/Worldwide+Community/Connecting+to+Community/Jewish+Languages.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140326082731/http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/jerusalem-babylon/.premium-1.579733 to http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/jerusalem-babylon/.premium-1.579733
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121116090339/http://www.biology-direct.com:80/content/5/1/57 to http://www.biology-direct.com/content/5/1/57
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121003094552/http://www.shavei.org/communities/kaifeng_jews/articles-kaifeng_jews/chinese-jews-reverence-for-ancestors/ to http://www.shavei.org/communities/kaifeng_jews/articles-kaifeng_jews/chinese-jews-reverence-for-ancestors/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110812024158/http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=46252 to http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=46252
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131203022557/http://www.researchgate.net/publication/44657170_The_genome-wide_structure_of_the_Jewish_people/file/79e41508a88be7e829.pdf to http://www.researchgate.net/publication/44657170_The_genome-wide_structure_of_the_Jewish_people/file/79e41508a88be7e829.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131012025833/http://www.brandeis.edu:80/ssri/pdfs/AmJewishPopEst2012.pdf to http://www.brandeis.edu/ssri/pdfs/AmJewishPopEst2012.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121127021212/http://www.jafi.org.il:80/JewishAgency/English/Home to http://www.jafi.org.il/JewishAgency/English/Home/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)