Talk:Jews/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Jews/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article contains a lot of citation needed tags, and it's been like this for a while. Thus, the article fails GA criteria 2 (verifiable).--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The issues haven't been resolved. Closing the reassessment now.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Disputed tag on periods of independence

Moving this here - is unsourced and disputed

Israelites enjoyed political independence twice in ancient history, first during the periods of the Biblical judges followed by the United Monarchy.

Was apparently discussed some back in 2015 at Talk:Jews/Archive_26#1350_to_586_BCE and may go back further.

The above is unsourced so cannot be in the article in any case. The "period of Biblical judges" is an ... interesting construct, given that the current scholarship treats the notion of "Israelite" gingerly for the pre-monarchic "tribal" period... Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

That talkpage discussion shows unanimous consensus for the text as it stood. The tag was added in this edit with the edit summary "United Monarchy's existence is disputed", and no discussion followed. In view of the consensus of all 4 editors in the discussion, I think the correct thing to do is to restore the text and remove the drive-by tagging. To which I will proceed. Debresser (talk) 08:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

In case it isn't obvious, I dispute it. It is also unsourced as I pointed out above. Please source it per BURDEN but better just take it out so we can discuss it, as this section is intended to do. Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

That was not obvious. Okay, perhaps you yourself could find a source or two for this statement? Shouldn't be that hard. Debresser (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The content is both unsourced and dubious. Most scholarly sources say that whether such a period as the one described in Judges is dubious, and even it it existed, whether the Israelites were independent or something else is unknown. You have now twice added unsourced dubious content to Wikipedia. Please don't do that. The WP:BURDEN is on you to show that the mainstream view is that the Israelites were independent during "the period of the judges". If you want we can hold an RfC as to whether this unsourced and dubious claim should stay in the article; I think you have been around long enough to know how that would turn out. Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow you restored it again. Terrible. Please justify the restoration under the policies. Thanks. Like I said, very happy to launch RfC, where your stance will be SNOW rejected. Do we really need that? I will wait til the end of the day and if this is not removed or extremely well sourced, I will launch the RfC. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course I restored it. There are 4 editors who agree with this version, and you alone disagree. In any case, since El_C protected the page (IMHO a bit overly protective), I won't be able to add the source till after the protection expires, so please give me till after the Shabbat. After all, what is the hurry; this was in the article for years. Debresser (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)\

You have time to edit war but not to comply with basic WP policies. Great. Please provide diffs of 4 editors "approving" this unsourced, highly dubious content in a putative Good Article. In the meantime I will start the complete waste of everyone's time RfC. This is one for the history books. Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support removal unless someone can find a source per WP:V Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Per Jytdog's suggestion, let me ask the question here that I asked there. What would be a good source for a nation's independence? By discussing a nation as such, the independence is implied. Sources would not often stress the fact of political independece of a nation as such. Debresser (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Another question is if we need one source to mention both periods, or can they be sourced independently? I think we can source each period separately. If necessary, the sentence could be modified a bit, e.g. "The Israelites were a nation during the time of the Judges[source 1] and the period of the United Kingdom[source 2]." Debresser (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

By the way, loud voices notwithstanding, it is not hard to source the independence of the Israelites during the United Kingdom. The question of the accuracy of the Biblical story does not detract from the consensus of historians regarding the fact that there was a United Kingdom. That seems to be a misunderstanding by some editors. The real problem is with the period of the Judges, since sources are rather clear that there was independence, but of tribes, not as one big nation. How should the article reflect that? "Perhaps say The Israelites were independent tribes during the time of the Judges[source 1] and an independent nation during the period of the United Kingdom[source 2]." Debresser (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

You will not be able to find good RS making claims that the Israelites were independent during a period (the "biblical judges") that mainstream sources say probably never existed.

The question about what kind of sources is fake in any case. You either have sources that support this statement (which you need to have per WP:BURDEN to restore it), or you don't. Bring sources now, or concede that the content comes out until there is actual consensus for it or an amended version of it. Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Could you please fix that first sentence? I don't understand what you mean. I am, however, surprised by your categorical statement ("you will not be able"). Regarding the period of the United Kingdom I have already found a good source. Also, please don't make any demands here. You are not the one to decide how things should work on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Contemporary historians strongly doubt whether "the period of the biblical judges" existed. Hence, you will not find RS discussing qualities of the Israelites during a probably-nonexistent period. One of the problems with the content is that it treats something that probably didn't exist as though it does. Please put up the sources you actually have to support your restoration of this content, or withdraw your demand that the content stay. If you do the latter we can have the article unlocked and I can withdraw the RfC below and we can get back to normal editing. (and please don't abuse edit notes in the future, as you did here).Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about "abuse edit notes". I do know that I have had it with you bossing people around. Please take a break from this article for 24 hours and calm down. After that, perhaps we can make some progress here.

You post above claims that historians "strongly doubt" and then continues to say "probably didn't exist". So now you have shown your POV. Unfortunately, that POV is not supported by academic sources. Which you will see when I add them. (Not that I have a problem with discussing them beforehand, but not as long as you put out demands. Don't want to retract your futile Rfc, leave it, it will anyways be redundant as soon as I can edit the article.) Debresser (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Please read the article on Biblical judges and the sources cited there. I have written this three times now; glad you are finally actually reading what i am writing. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of the lockdown is to reach consensus. You have just expressed your intent to continue edit warring. If you have sources for this statement, please provide them so that we can try to reach consensus. Alternatively, please propose other content.Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't twist my words. I said I'll provide sources. Which should resolve the issue. No edit war from my side. Unless you intend to remove the text again after the block expires, in which case you will be edit warring. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

crickets. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I have made the change I proposed here, with sources. I shall be happy to receive constructive criticism, suggestions and improvements. Please try and find additional or better sources. Debresser (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

What change proposed here? You proposed nothing here. Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

How is this not a proposal? Debresser (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

As others have noted, the purpose of locking down a page during an editing dispute is for the editors to work out acceptable content and sourcing on the Talk page. You proposed nothing here. Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@El_C This repeated lie insults me. I linked to a diff showing a proposal in my previous post here. Please reprimand Jytdog or remove his last post. Alternatively, Jytdog could strike his post himself. Debresser (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Debresser, read WP:PREFER which is policy. Here I will quote it for you: "On pages that are experiencing edit warring, temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus." Not using the page-protection time to present your sources and discuss them, but rather waiting for protection to expire and then just making the changes, is not what protection is for. Please learn and follow policy. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, did you read and understand what you just quoted? WP:PREFER says "administrators normally protect the current version", which is what l_C didn't do. That same paragraph also says "can force... to discuss". The operating words are "can" and "discuss". Nowhere does is say that that includes that I "must" discuss (although I did), or "reveal sources". Debresser (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

break

So I pointed on this page (here for example, but several times) to the article on Biblical judges where there is very well sourced content saying that the historicity of the period has been called into question. Those sources are:

• Lester L. Grabbe (1 January 2000). "Writing Israel's History at the End of the Twentieth Century". International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament: Congress Volume Oslo 1998. Supplements to Vetus testamentum. BRILL. p. 210. ISBN 90-04-11598-6. Retrieved 15 January 2017.
• Marc Zvi Brettler (2002). The Book of Judges. Psychology Press. p. 107. ISBN 978-0-415-16216-6.
• Thomas L. Thompson (1 January 2000). Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written & Archaeological Sources. BRILL. p. 96. ISBN 90-04-11943-4.
• Hjelm, Ingrid; Thompson, Thomas L, eds. (2016). History, Archaeology and The Bible Forty Years After "Historicity": Changing Perspectives. Routledge. p. 4. ISBN 978-1-317-42815-2.
• Philip R. Davies (1995). In Search of "Ancient Israel": A Study in Biblical Origins. A&C Black. p. 26. ISBN 978-1-85075-737-5.
• also cited there was a whole bibliography of such sources: John C. Yoder (1 May 2015). Power and Politics in the Book of Judges: Men and Women of Valor. FORTRESS Press. p. 5. ISBN 978-1-4514-9642-0.

Did this edit generate NPOV content that even took that into account? Nope the edit says The Israelites were independent tribes during the time of the Judges sourced to

• Africa Bible Commentary: A One-Volume Commentary Written by 70 African Scholars. p. 295.

And one of the !votes in the RfC notes that the historicity of the united monarchy is also questioned, but the content says and constituted an independent nation during the period of the United Monarchy sourced to

• World History. Vol. I. p. 27. What is generally agreed, however, is that between 1200 and 1000 B.C.E., the Israelites emerged as a distinct group of people, possibly united into tribes or a league of tribes, who established a united kingdom know as Israel {{cite book}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
• Jackson J. Spielvogel. Western Civilization. p. 33. What is generally agreed, however, is that between 1200 and 1000 B.C.E., the Israelites emerged as a distinct group of people, possibly united into tribes or a league of tribes
• "From Jackson Spielvogel, Western Civilization(Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2000) 32-40". The Regents of the University of California. What is generally agreed, however, is that between 1200 and 1000 B.C., the Israelites emerged as a distinct group of people, possibly organized in tribes or a league of tribes, who established a united kingdom known as Israel

Even the 2nd ref used in the edit, deals with the ambiguity. This is unacceptable content and sourcing. And all for a sentence that perhaps doesn't need to be here at all. I won't discuss the behavior here. Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

There are also sources and content in the article to which the content linked, Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy), about the questions with regard to historicity of the united kingdom which this content does not take into account or use. Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

To the contrary, the fact that the sources say specifically that (paraphrase) some of the facts in the Biblical narrative are disputed, but that there is nevertheless general agreement that there existed an independent United Kingdom, is precisely what makes it such a good source in this case.

The source is not contradicted by any of the sources you mentioned above, rather summarizes them and adds to them from other sources to come to an overview of the opinions of historians. Debresser (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

You ignored the sources at hand and your own sources to write content falls very short of NPOV. I cannot understand why you are insisting that a) the time periods of the blblical Judges and of the United Monarchy existed (the vast bulk of reliable sources make it clear that the existence of both is not certain) and b) that the Israelites were independent in some form during those two periods (which is like writing "Planets hosting life as we know it have no more than one moon" (we don't actually know if there are planets that host life as we know it; we cannot say anything about their actual qualities).

If we need to say something at this spot in the content, something like would be NPOV and well sourced:

The Israelites become visible in the historical record as a people between 1200 and 1000 BCE. It is not certain if a period like that of the Biblical judges occurred nor if there was ever a United Monarchy. There is well accepted archeological evidence referring to "Israel" in the Merneptah Stele which dates to about 1200 BCE; there is debate about the earliest existence of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah and their extent and power, but historians agree that a Kingdom of Israel existed by ca. 900 BCE and that a Kingdom of Judah existed by ca. 700 BCE.

References

Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't ignore anything, nor did the source I brought. Please re-read what I wrote. I'll copy it for you here, since you obviously didn't understand it the first time.

...the fact that the sources say specifically that (paraphrase) some of the facts in the Biblical narrative are disputed, but that there is nevertheless general agreement that there existed an independent United Kingdom, is precisely what makes it such a good source in this case.

The source is not contradicted by any of the sources you mentioned above, rather summarizes them and adds to them from other sources to come to an overview of the opinions of historians. Debresser (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not agree that a United Monarchy probably existed. There is serious doubt about that, as reflected in the proposal above. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Your "source" is Wikipedia, if you look at it, not those sources themselves. And even if you would find a few of them disagreeing, I have a reliable source that says otherwise, so per Wikipedia policies, it can be included. Debresser (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Content is all sourced above. In any case I have proposed more comprehensive new content down below to deal more generally with this section. 04:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

New RfC

I propose that you list a new RfC about the latest sources and their reliability and due weight to the contested sentence. El_C 18:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean the version I posted above, or Debresser's immediate post-page-protection? In either case, I would like to see how folks react to my proposal above. We may be able to just use it without going to an RfC, or put it through some tweaks in normal page discussion style. It would be useful to keep the page locked for a while to ... encourage that. Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

What proposal. You didn't propose anything. Debresser (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

See above. You placed a note under it in this diff just before you wrote the note above. Hm. Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

New RfC on the latest contested versions (Debresser's post-page-protection vs. the revision currently up). El_C 04:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Not valid

@El_C, "It's Jytdog's turn to have his version up"[3] is not a valid reason to remove sourced information. Please undo your removal of sourced information. Debresser (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

H'mmm. Please see WP:WRONGVERSION :) — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I am familiar with that. Have been so for about 8 years. If somebody would have removed the sourced statements and by chance that version would have been protected, I would have said nothing. But protecting a version with sourced information, and then removing said souced information, and with the non-existing reason that it's somebody else's turn (??), that is too arbitrary. Debresser (talk) 10:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

You've had your version protected for four days, and it didn't seem to have greatly motivate you to engage on the talk page (you last comment being April 18)—hopefully, now you'll present your sources on the talk page to see that there's consensus they're both reliable and represent due weight. El_C 10:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

1. I didn't have to be motivated. There is no obligation to present my sources beforehand. 2. Now that my sources are revealed, there is no reason to remove sourced information. That is against policy. They were not even contested. They were simply called "garbage", without any explanation or discussion, in a blatant violation of WP:LIKE and WP:OWN and WP:IDONTLIKEUSERDEBRESSER. 3. I am asking you once more to reconsider. If you do not present a valid reason, I will ask for admin review of that action on WP:ANI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs) 11:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I already explained why it was time for the wrong version—feel free to challenge my decision in any forum you see fit. Yes, I also expect your opponent to explain himself as to why the sources were termed "garbage" (a term I'm not happy with)—and, I ask that he maintains decorum. El_C 11:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I should not have called them garbage. My apologies. Would redact that if i could. Jytdog (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It's appreciated nonetheless. Thanks for that. El_C 16:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Appreciated here as well.

IMHO you really should have explained on the talkpage why you think they are not good sources, right after reverting. That is something you have not explained still. You have explained why you disagree with them. You have not cast any doubt on the sources themselves.

@El_C since the sources have not been contested as such in over 24 hours, I propose you restore the information. Debresser (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

What about this analysis? El_C 18:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Quick note, El_C. The version you have up there, is not "my version", as it contains the unsourced content that is the subject of the RfC: "Israelites enjoyed political independence twice in ancient history, first during the periods of the Biblical judges followed by the United Monarchy.". That is Debresser's 1st version. - the one you protected originally. When I reverted Debresser's 2nd version, I reverted back to the version you had protected. "My version" is this one, with that sentence taken out. Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Copy that. El_C 18:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@El_C Please see above where WP:PREFER is quoted. You violated it once, now you violated it a second time, and all of that in the absence of any objection whatsoever to the sources. Your behavior here is highly un-evenhanded. Debresser (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I went counter to normally precisely to be even-handed. And also to motivate you to engage on the talk page—which you were failing to do when your version was up. I see noticeably greater engagement with the material on the talk page now, however. El_C 04:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

That is not because the other version is up, but because the page was unprotected and I could make my edit and add the sources. As I explained to you already. Why is it you keep repeating something that I have already explained to you is incorrect, when clearly you have no way of contesting it? Debresser (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC Jewish history

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article currently includes the following content:

Israelites enjoyed political independence twice in ancient history, first during the periods of the Biblical judges followed by the United Monarchy.

This content is unsourced and had been tagged "disputed" since February 2016 (per the version as of a few days ago which you can see here). I moved it to talk in the section above, and it was restored by an editor saying that it "has the consensus of four editors", as you can see above.

The question - should this content be in the article? Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

!votes (old)

• no There is no basis any policy and guideline for this content to stay. The "enjoyed" is weirdly POV language. Our article on the Biblical judges says (with five sources provided): Likewise, there is doubt among scholars that a period resembling the one described in the Book of Judges existed in ancient Israel It also doesn't really fit in its context. And in any case the WP:BURDEN is on someone restoring unsourced content moved to talk to source it. Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Close Rfc as ill-conceived This Rfc was opened hastily and unnecessarily. After the page is unblocked, I will add sources. As to the question of the Rfc itself, this text had the unanimous support of all four editors who participated in the original discussion, and I think Jytdog, whom I used to know as a good and rational editor, has lost his cool over nothing. I'd advise him to chill. Debresser (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• No If it's not well-sourced, it doesn't belong. The previous discussion on the matter was a handful of editors that wanted to say something without doing actual research. It's time to correct their error. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
• No The period of Judges and the Davidic United Monarchy are at least dubious, since archaeological evidence for them is lacking. I don't doubt that the country was inhabited, but it wasn't ruled by Judges nor it was a Davidic United Monarchy, or at least the past academic consensus upon those "facts" has crumbled. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
• No Firstly it would need to start with "According to the Deuteronomist#Deuteronomistic_history of the Hebrew Bible" or similar. Secondly "political independence" is a very modern term with modern-day political overtones. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion (old)

A good question would be, what is considered a good source for a nation being independent. Sources that discuss a nation, imply by that fact alone that it is independent. Debresser (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No, that is not a relevant question here. The only relevant question is - should content be in a Good Article that is dubious (tagged so for over a year), unsourced, and in Wikipedia's voice? The answer to this is a complete no brainer. For content proposed on talk page, your question can be discussed at leisure; it is a different issue. Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, calm down, will you. As I said, I will add sources after the page is unprotected. If you want to discuss this, you should have waited and discussed, instead of opening an Rfc in such a hurry. Not befitting for the experienced editor that you are. Debresser (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Not responding further - your remarks here remain offtopic. Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The page can be unprotected early if sources are provided to everyone's satisfaction. Use the talk page for that. El_C 22:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

[I]f sources are provided to everyone's satisfaction, Debresser(!). El_C 09:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

That was said in relation to early unprotection of this article, which is not the case. The protection simply expired. Also, that is an arbitrary demand. Also, the sources were not contested on this talkpage, just called "garbage" randomly. Also, you too removed my fix of a reference error. Do you even read what I write when I edit? See the section below, that I have to insist you undo that. Debresser (talk) 10:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

You can insist, but it won't help. With your version up, it didn't seem you were motivated enough to present your sources, here, on the talk page. By all means, if there are unrelated fixes, please make a protected edit request (x to y format), and I will edit on your behalf. El_C 10:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

1. I didn't have to be motivated. There is no obligation to present my sources beforehand. 2. Now that my sources are revealed, there is no reason to remove sourced information. That is against policy. They were not even contested. They were simply called garbage, without any explanation or discussion, in a blatant violation of WP:LIKE and WP:OWN and WP:IDONTLIKEUSERDEBRESSER. 3. I am asking you once more to reconsider. If you do not present a valid reason, I will ask for admin review of that action on WP:ANI. Debresser (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

There are two competing versions and I didn't feel it was fair for just one to be offered the benefit of being up during the 4-day interval—interval in which for 3 days you seem to have not been motivated to do much at all. El_C 11:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Waiting for protection to lapse (1 day of activity, 3 days of inactivity), then adding (and edit warring over) the sources—rather than bringing them up for discussion on the talk page—that was the wrong move. Now instead of fighting for your version to be up during this protection interval, I expect you to present and discuss your sources, here, on the talk page. And again, gain consensus for their reliability and due weight. Now that should be your focus at this time, just as it ought to have been before. El_C 11:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

1. I would not have been in the slightest more motivated if another version of the article would have been protected. 2. Since I already revealed my sources, that reasoning is no longer valid. 3. Ergo, your argument is now only punitive, and that is not allowed on Wikipedia. 4. Nobody has seriously challenged these sources. Only one editor, with a vetted interested and a huge WP:POLITE problem, has removed them, not explaining anything since. You can't seriously support that. 5. The fairness argument is invalid, and is not what WP:WRONGVERSION comes to address.

I do appreciate your reply, and I hope you will again consider my arguments. I have no more interest in taking this to WP:ANI than anybody else, moreover, I have a huge lack of faith in WP:ANI, based on many years of experience. Which will not deter me from doing the utmost of my capabilities to receive what I think would have been the correct thing to do, nl., to reinstate information that was supported by 4 editors on this talkpage, then stood for two years, and is now also properly sourced, after which it was by an admin in an arbitrary way, against the rule that anything that is well sourced can not be removed without good reason. Reasons have been provided; good reasons haven't. Debresser (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

If you're opponent fails to explain why they maintain the sources fail to meet standards, I will consider switching back. El_C 13:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that would be the correct thing to do, if let's say he doesn't reply within 24 hours of his revert. I might add that a reply that is not substantially motivated, should also be considered sufficient reason to do so. Debresser (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you should focus on the sources, not what others are doing. What if Jytdog doesn't come back to this discussion? Their absence wouldn't automatically give any more credence or acceptability to what had previously been under dispute. Just a thought. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

To the contrary, if an editor claims to have a problem with my sources, and then disappears, even tough his point of view was unexplained and is being heavily challenged, that is almost like an admission that his problems were not founded in any serious policy-based objections. Regarding your suggestion to focus on the sources: nobody has said a word about those sources yet, apart from the unexplained and rude word "garbage", so what is their for me to focus on them about at the moment? Debresser (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

No disappearing happened. I just came back to WP after doing RW stuff for 12 hours, and my first edits back were here. You can see that in my contribs. No crickets from me. Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jews. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bh.org.il/links.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/903585.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jafi.org.il/JewishAgency/English/Jewish%2BEducation/Compelling%2BContent/Worldwide%2BCommunity/Connecting%2Bto%2BCommunity/Jewish%2BLanguages.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930033403/http://www1.cbs.gov.il/reader/shnaton/templ_shnaton_e.html?num_tab=st02_01&CYear=2006 to http://www1.cbs.gov.il/reader/shnaton/templ_shnaton_e.html?num_tab=st02_01&CYear=2006

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC:Revised origins section

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Jytdog's proposed version is accepted.Winged Blades ^Godric 08:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The Origins section is currently kind of messy, mixing mythology and history. The 1st and 3rd paragraphs, and the first 2 sentences of the 4th paragraph, are mostly mythology but mix with history; the 2nd paragraph and the rest of the 4th are generally history.

I have proposed a version that gathers the mythological material all in one place, followed by 3 paragraphs of history. Please see versions below. Jytdog (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC))

Versions

The content said, before all the current dispute began:

According to the Hebrew Bible narrative, Jewish ancestry is traced back to the Biblical patriarchs such as Abraham, his son Isaac, Isaac's son Jacob, and the Biblical matriarchs Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, and Rachel, who lived in Canaan around the 18th century BCE. Jacob and his family migrated to Ancient Egypt after being invited to live with Jacob's son Joseph by the Pharaoh himself. The patriarchs' descendants were later enslaved until the Exodus led by Moses, traditionally dated to the 13th century BCE, after which the Israelites conquered Canaan.

Modern archaeology has largely discarded the historicity of the Patriarchs and of the Exodus story, with it being reframed as constituting the Israelites' inspiring national myth narrative. The Israelites and their culture, according to the modern archaeological account, did not overtake the region by force, but instead branched out of the Canaanite peoples and culture through the development of a distinct monolatristic—and later monotheistic—religion centered on Yahweh, one of the Ancient Canaanite deities. The growth of Yahweh-centric belief, along with a number of cultic practices, gradually gave rise to a distinct Israelite ethnic group, setting them apart from other Canaanites. The Merneptah Stele appears to confirm the existence of a people of Israel somewhere in Canaan as far back as the 13th century BCE (Late Bronze Age), while the Hebrew language is the last extant member of the Canaanite languages. In the Iron Age I period (1200–1000 BCE) Israelite culture was largely Canaanite in nature.

Although the Israelites were divided into Twelve Tribes, the Jews (being one offshoot of the Israelites, another being the Samaritans) are traditionally said to descend mostly from the Israelite tribes of Judah (from where the Jews derive their ethnonym) and Benjamin, and partially from the tribe of Levi, who had together formed the ancient Kingdom of Judah, and the remnants of the northern Kingdom of Israel who migrated to the Kingdom of Judah and assimilated after the 720s BCE, when the Kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Neo-Assyrian Empire.

Israelites enjoyed political independence twice in ancient history, first during the periods of the Biblical judges followed by the United Monarchy. After the fall of the United Monarchy the land was divided into Israel and Judah. The term Jew originated from the Roman "Judean" and denoted someone from the southern kingdom of Judah. The shift of ethnonym from "Israelites" to "Jews" (inhabitant of Judah), although not contained in the Torah, is made explicit in the Book of Esther (4th century BCE), a book in the Ketuvim, the third section of the Jewish Tanakh. In 587 BCE Nebuchadnezzar II, King of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, besieged Jerusalem, destroyed the First Temple, and deported the most prominent citizens of Judah. In 586 BCE, Judah itself ceased to be an independent kingdom, and its remaining Jews were left stateless. The Babylonian exile ended in 539 BCE when the Achaemenid Empire conquered Babylon and Cyrus the Great allowed the exiled Jews to return to Yehud and rebuild their Temple. The Second Temple was completed in 515 BCE. Yehud province was a peaceful part of the Achaemenid Empire until the fall of the Empire in c. 333 BCE to Alexander the Great. Jews were also politically independent during the Hasmonean dynasty spanning from 140 to 37 BCE and to some degree under the Herodian dynasty from 37 BCE to 6 CE. Since the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, most Jews have lived in diaspora. As an ethnic minority in every country in which they live (except Israel), they have frequently experienced persecution throughout history, resulting in a population that has fluctuated both in numbers and distribution over the centuries.

References

Am proposing instead the following. This moves material from the 3rd paragraph and the 1st bit of the 4th paragraph to the first paragraph, so that the mythological material is all in one place, followed by 3 paragraphs of history. The 2nd paragraph is close to what was there before; the 3rd is new (addressing the disputed sentence about the historicity of Judges and the United Monarchy, and other aspects), and the 4th is unchanged but for the 1st sentence.

According to the Hebrew Bible narrative, Jewish ancestry is traced back to the Biblical patriarchs such as Abraham, his son Isaac, Isaac's son Jacob, and the Biblical matriarchs Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, and Rachel, who lived in Canaan. The Twelve Tribes are described as descending from the twelve sons of Jacob. Jacob and his family migrated to Ancient Egypt after being invited to live with Jacob's son Joseph by the Pharaoh himself. The patriarchs' descendants were later enslaved until the Exodus led by Moses, after which the Israelites conquered Canaan under Moses' successor Joshua, went through the period of the Biblical judges after the death of Joshua, then through the mediation of Samuel became subject to a king, Saul, who was succeeded by David and then Solomon, after whom the United Monarchy ended and was split into a separate Kingdom of Israel and a Kingdom of Judah. The Kingdom of Judah is described as comprising the tribes of Tribe of Judah, the Tribe of Benjamin, and partially the tribe of Tribe of Levi, and later adding other tribes who migrated there from the Kingdom of Israel.

Modern archaeology has largely discarded the historicity of this narrative, with it being reframed as constituting the Israelites' inspiring national myth narrative. The Israelites and their culture, according to the modern archaeological account, did not overtake the region by force, but instead branched out of the Canaanite peoples and culture through the development of a distinct monolatristic—and later monotheistic—religion centered on Yahweh, one of the Ancient Canaanite deities. The growth of Yahweh-centric belief, along with a number of cultic practices, gradually gave rise to a distinct Israelite ethnic group, setting them apart from other Canaanites.

The Israelites become visible in the historical record as a people between 1200 and 1000 BCE. It is not certain if a period like that of the Biblical judges occurred nor if there was ever a United Monarchy. There is well accepted archeological evidence referring to "Israel" in the Merneptah Stele which dates to about 1200 BCE; and the Canaanites are archeologically attested in the Middle Bronze Age, There is debate about the earliest existence of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah and their extent and power, but historians agree that a Kingdom of Israel existed by ca. 900 BCE and that a Kingdom of Judah existed by ca. 700 BCE. It is widely accepted that the Kingdom of Israel was destroyed around 720 BCE, when it was conquered by the Neo-Assyrian Empire.

The term Jew originated from the Roman "Judean" and denoted someone from the southern kingdom of Judah. The shift of ethnonym from "Israelites" to "Jews" (inhabitant of Judah), although not contained in the Torah, is made explicit in the Book of Esther (4th century BCE), a book in the Ketuvim, the third section of the Jewish Tanakh. In 587 BCE Nebuchadnezzar II, King of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, besieged Jerusalem, destroyed the First Temple, and deported the most prominent citizens of Judah. In 586 BCE, Judah itself ceased to be an independent kingdom, and its remaining Jews were left stateless. The Babylonian exile ended in 539 BCE when the Achaemenid Empire conquered Babylon and Cyrus the Great allowed the exiled Jews to return to Yehud and rebuild their Temple. The Second Temple was completed in 515 BCE. Yehud province was a peaceful part of the Achaemenid Empire until the fall of the Empire in c. 333 BCE to Alexander the Great. Jews were also politically independent during the Hasmonean dynasty spanning from 140 to 37 BCE and to some degree under the Herodian dynasty from 37 BCE to 6 CE. Since the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, most Jews have lived in diaspora. As an ethnic minority in every country in which they live (except Israel), they have frequently experienced persecution throughout history, resulting in a population that has fluctuated both in numbers and distribution over the centuries.

References

If anyone needs the changes marked, see here (with refs removed, to reduce clutter:

According to the Hebrew Bible narrative, Jewish ancestry is traced back to the Biblical patriarchs such as Abraham, his son Isaac, Isaac's son Jacob, and the Biblical matriarchs Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, and Rachel, who lived in Canaan around the 18th century BCE. The Twelve Tribes are described as descending from the twelve sons of Jacob. Jacob and his family migrated to Ancient Egypt after being invited to live with Jacob's son Joseph by the Pharaoh himself. The patriarchs' descendants were later enslaved until the Exodus led by Moses, traditionally dated to the 13th century BCE after which the Israelites conquered Canaan under Moses' successor Joshua, went through the period of the Biblical judges after the death of Joshua, then through the mediation of Samuel became subject to a king, Saul, who was succeeded by David and then Solomon, after whom the United Monarchy ended and was split into a separate Kingdom of Israel and a Kingdom of Judah. The Kingdom of Judah is described as comprising the tribes of Tribe of Judah, the Tribe of Benjamin, and partially the tribe of Tribe of Levi, and later adding other tribes who migrated there from the Kingdom of Israel.

Modern archaeology has largely discarded the historicity of the Patriarchs and of the Exodus story this narrative, with it being reframed as constituting the Israelites' inspiring national myth narrative. The Israelites and their culture, according to the modern archaeological account, did not overtake the region by force, but instead branched out of the Canaanite peoples and culture through the development of a distinct monolatristic—and later monotheistic—religion centered on Yahweh, one of the Ancient Canaanite deities. The growth of Yahweh-centric belief, along with a number of cultic practices, gradually gave rise to a distinct Israelite ethnic group, setting them apart from other Canaanites. The Merneptah Stele appears to confirm the existence of a people of Israel somewhere in Canaan as far back as the 13th century BCE (Late Bronze Age), while the Hebrew language is the last extant member of the Canaanite languages. In the Iron Age I period (1200–1000 BCE) Israelite culture was largely Canaanite in nature.

Although the Israelites were divided into Twelve Tribes, the Jews (being one offshoot of the Israelites, another being the Samaritans) are traditionally said to descend mostly from the Israelite tribes of Judah (from where the Jews derive their ethnonym) and Benjamin, and partially from the tribe of Levi, who had together formed the ancient Kingdom of Judah and the remnants of the northern Kingdom of Israel who migrated to the Kingdom of Judah and assimilated after the 720s BCE, when the Kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Neo-Assyrian Empire.

The Israelites become visible in the historical record as a people between 1200 and 1000 BCE. It is not certain if a period like that of the Biblical judges occurred nor if there was ever a United Monarchy. There is well accepted archeological evidence referring to "Israel" in the Merneptah Stele which dates to about 1200 BCE and the Canaanites are archeologically attested in the Middle Bronze Age. There is debate about the earliest existence of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah and their extent and power, but historians agree that a Kingdom of Israel existed by ca. 900 BCE and that a Kingdom of Judah existed by ca. 700 BCE. It is widely accepted that the Kingdom of Israel was destroyed around 720 BCE, when it was conquered by the Neo-Assyrian Empire.

Israelites enjoyed political independence twice in ancient history, first during the periods of the Biblical judges followed by the United Monarchy. After the fall of the United Monarchy the land was divided into Israel and Judah. The term Jew originated from the Roman "Judean" and denoted someone from the southern kingdom of Judah. The shift of ethnonym from "Israelites" to "Jews" (inhabitant of Judah), although not contained in the Torah, is made explicit in the Book of Esther (4th century BCE), a book in the Ketuvim, the third section of the Jewish Tanakh. In 587 BCE Nebuchadnezzar II, King of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, besieged Jerusalem, destroyed the First Temple, and deported the most prominent citizens of Judah. In 586 BCE, Judah itself ceased to be an independent kingdom, and its remaining Jews were left stateless. The Babylonian exile ended in 539 BCE when the Achaemenid Empire conquered Babylon and Cyrus the Great allowed the exiled Jews to return to Yehud and rebuild their Temple. The Second Temple was completed in 515 BCE. Yehud province was a peaceful part of the Achaemenid Empire until the fall of the Empire in c. 333 BCE to Alexander the Great. Jews were also politically independent during the Hasmonean dynasty spanning from 140 to 37 BCE and to some degree under the Herodian dynasty from 37 BCE to 6 CE. Since the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, most Jews have lived in diaspora. As an ethnic minority in every country in which they live (except Israel), they have frequently experienced persecution throughout history, resulting in a population that has fluctuated both in numbers and distribution over the centuries.

Please accept (if implemented this will surely be further edited for improvement), reject, or propose tweaks. Thanks~ Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC) (redacted to pose as an RFC Jytdog (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC))

!votes

• accept as proposer. Started thinking about this when trying to understand why the sentence originally under dispute ("Israelites enjoyed political independence twice in ancient history, first during the periods of the Biblical judges followed by the United Monarchy.") was in the article at all, and noticed at that time that the content in this section mixes history and myth in unfortunate ways, just as the disputed sentence does. The proposed changes address the time periods mentioned in that sentence and deal with the larger issue of the flow of myth into history in this section. The proposed content is better-organized, well sourced, and reflects current ANE scholarship. It can surely be improved, but the goal here is just to get the section re-organized and placed initially on a more solid footing. Jytdog (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• accept well-sourced. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
• Partial agree partial disagree Partial disagree: The text must include the reliable sources that state that there is a consensus among historians that there were independent Israelite tribes during the period of the judges and an independent Israelite nation during the United Kingdom. As I mentioned in quite a few sections above. This is an important point that must not be ignored. Especially since the sources I provided fully acknowledge and include all points of view on this issue, as they state: "What is generally agreed, however, is that between 1200 and 1000 B.C., the Israelites emerged as a distinct group of people, possibly organized in tribes or a league of tribes, who established a united kingdom known as Israel". The only sentence which needs to be changed then is "It is not certain if a period like that of the Biblical judges occurred nor if there was ever a United Monarchy." The sentence to replace it should be "The Israelites were independent tribes during the time of the Judges,[1] and constituted an independent nation during the period of the United Monarchy.[2]" See this edit of mine. Partial agree: The rest is fine with me. Especially the split between the biblical narrative and the opinions of historians in the first two paragraphs is a good idea and was implemented well. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
• accept well written, wording is inconclusive regarding the United Monarchy which makes it neutral. Infantom (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
• Accept seems reasonable given the mix currently. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

NB: For those coming to the RfC, I originally simply proposed this here 23:52, 22 April 2017 and later at 15:55, 23 April 2017 reformatted and added the 3rd version showing changes, and added the RfC tag at 15:55, 23 April 2017. So initial comments here were to the simple proposal. Jytdog (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that this is a lot of text, and what are the precise changes you are proposing. And how is this related, if at all, to all those sections above. I have a feeling you are obfuscating things with all these sections and separate posts. Debresser (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It is all explained above, between the two blocks of text. The changes are clear. Jytdog (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

One step at a time. I think we should return to this once the earlier dispute over the contested passage is resolved. That said, there is nothing wrong with research work (related or unrelated to the aforementioned dispute) leading to further additions. But we do need to prioritize tasks on the talk page. El_C 05:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I have been saying all along that the sentence doesn't really belong where it is. If you read the Origins section you will see what I mean. This arose because I thought about where the content I proposed above would go, and it doesn't fit anywhere due to the jumble between myth and history in the current content. This fixes it and incorporates the content I proposed above. I am considering doing an RfC on the above. I could add underlines and strikes to show the differences but it but it would be very cluttered. Jytdog (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, okay. If it all connects, then that's a good idea. El_C 08:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, the section needs a rearrangement and distinction between biblical and historical narratives (which are both important to the article). Infantom (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Since Jytdog has refused to explain his changes in detail, I don't think this section can go forward.

In addition, I think we should first discuss the simple change of one sentence and its sources, as I proposed above, since in any case the text Jytdog drew up in this non-proposal is only to counter a simple proposal of mine, and the issues are becoming obfuscated. As El_C correctly said: one step at a time. The claim that "If you read the Origins section you will see what I mean" is typical tendentious editor baloney to get away with obfuscating the issues. See Talk:Abraham#Infobox_RfC for another Rfc by Jytdog, where editors complain that the proposal is not clear. Here too, there is a wall of text, many issues intermingled, and all of this is only to lead away from a clear and simple proposal that Jytdog doesn't like, without being able to say even one word against a clear and academic source! This has to stop: one issue at a time. Debresser (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

In any case, before "There is debate about the earliest existence of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah and their extent and power, but historians agree that" there must be something along the lines of "The Israelites were independent tribes during the time of the Judges, and constituted an independent nation during the period of the United Monarchy.", as I proposed above. The rest can be discussed after that issue is settled. Debresser (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

References

As noted and sourced to death, there is significant scholarly opinion that a period like that of the biblical judges as it appears in the biblical narrative (namely, a messy period between conquering the land and there being a United Monarchy) may never have existed. it makes no sense to state as fact qualities like "independence" of a period that may never have existed. Modern ANE scholarship does draw a lot of the "emergence" theory from the apparent sociological background expressed in Judges by itself and some of Samuel (scattered, loosely aligned groups that come together from time to time in various ways) but not from Judges in the narrative framework of post-conquest/pre-monarchy. That might be part of the confusion here. Jytdog (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

That significant opinion is fully acknowledged by my sources, which incorporate it in their summarizing statement. And even if there would be a diference of opinion, the way to deal with that on Wikipedia is to bring all well-sourced opinions, per WP:NPOV. Debresser (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm pleased that the RfC highlights constructive additions that you both agree on, and which are somewhat incidental to the dispute. My position is that you refine what you disagree on and list an RfC about that, specifically, once this RfC is concluded. Drafting that RfC should be a mutual collaboration, however. Thanks. El_C 23:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

El_C, as I noted above here (which you acknowledged) the sentence that Debresser has fighting to keep was part of the myth/history mess, and when I came up with a sourced version of that sentence, I had no place to put it. The whole section needs to be re-ordered. Content expressing the nuance about these two periods only works in that context. I do not believe that Debresser is going to accept any content that questions the historicity of the Biblical Judges period and of the United Monarchy; I do not believe that the two of us can agree. That is not important nor required. The community can come to consensus on the organization of the content that reflects scholarly consensus. There is no need for a 3rd RfC at this time. There may be, after this one is closed. Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

We will have to determine in this Rfc if there is consensus for the new organization and decide on that sentence. Unless you'd remove the disputed sentence from his Rfc, they can not be separated. Debresser (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Jytdog, please shorten this RfC in accordance with WP:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief. If you want to know why, check out how it appears at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy - 27,307 bytes were added to that listing and it is well beyond WP:TLDR. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

OK. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Redrose64, I added a subsection break -- does that fix it? Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• El_C There is absolutely no need for a third Rfc, All issues scan be dealt with in this one.
• User:Redrose64 This Rfc has been voted upon by two editors. It can not be changed any more at this stage. Debresser (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Again, it's best to list an RfC about just what you disagree on, in my view. But you can have a more convoluted format—that's certainly your prerogative. El_C 23:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Your last comment assumes to know what people agree on. That is precisely what this Rfc is here to find out. Debresser (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Not at all, this RfC will serve as step 1—refining what you agree on—leaving the contested bit you disagree on for the next RfC. That's my advise. El_C 00:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

That would be a bad idea. As I said elsewhere, it is highly unlike that first editors agree with this proposal, and then would agree to seriously review part of it. Unless, as I hinted to above, the contested sentence would be removed from this Rfc. Otherwise, one Rfc can easily handle both issues. Debresser (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

If there are unanswered questions when this one is resolved, we can try to address them via normal discussion and if they cannot be resolved through that, then if we need an RfC, we need one. We will see where things are in 30 days. Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Debresser (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, Debresser, okay. This is, after all, your show. I just thought hammering just the contested bit in an RfC would be best. Oh well. El_C 03:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Debresser: I wasn't asking for the RfC to be changed, just that a brief opening statement be provided (which Jytdog has done, Thank you). The thing is, Legobot (talk · contribs) picks up everything from the {{rfc}} template (exclusive) to the next timestamp (inclusive) and copies that to the RfC listing pages, so if there's a lot of text between those two points, a large entry will be added to the listings. Compare this with this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the explanation. Debresser (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• I though we were not supposed to make judgements. The currently popular view in some fields of archeology and historical and religious studies is I think just as jytdog has it, but al that really proves that we have read the same books. (As I understand it, the first securely dated individual is Omri). That this is the current hypothesis does not make it true, any more than the almost universal acceptance of the history quite different hypotheses in AD 1915 or 1815 or 1615 shows or ever did show that they are true. Personally, I think the current version is most likely, but there is no way I could convince a traditionally oriented religious scholar--the argument will always be, we merely have not yet found...,. The fact that the very large enterprises of traditionally minded scholars have found only a very few equivocal artifacts from the period makes it less and less likely, but it is indeed the cases that one or two clearly authentic discoveries could up-end the field at any time. We do at WP privilege to a great extent the scientific world view for questions of science. I do not see why we should privilege it for religion, and the fact that I or a majority of us here may share it is not a reason why we should. The scholars of a traditional religious background are scholars also--it makes them neither wrong or right, but it does give them equal time. The proposed wording states their view, but states it in such a way as to imply it is probably wrong, and we do not have the authority to do that. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Any chance you could be more specific about the words which "imply it is probably wrong, and we do not have the authority to do that". Making a decision about article wording based on what religious authorities say would lead to chaos. Scientology is a religion! Enthusiasts would argue that Intelligent design is handed down from religious authorities so their view must dominate the article. Johnuniq (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Articles must represent all non-fringe, sourced points of view. They must do so in a neutral way. The proposed wording does not represent a certain significant and academic point of view at all, namely that there existed a United Kingdom, and presents the opposite point of view in a non-neutral way, as though al historians would agree with that. That is why a sentence must be replaced,in the way I proposed above, to adhere to basic Wikipedia policies. Debresser (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• User:DGG i worded very carefully - "it is not certain..." with regard to Judges and the United Monarchy, and "There is debate about the earliest existence of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah and their extent and power, but historians agree that a Kingdom of Israel existed by ca. 900 BCE and that a Kingdom of Judah existed by ca. 700 BCE." Omri is around 900 BCE. And history is not religion... Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

You and I do not disagree on what we personally think is the "right" interpretation. But the "historians agree" has supported quite a range of positions in the last century. This is true also in other historical periods in which I am interested,; the study of history is a process of continuing reinterpretation. (Obviously so with new documents or archeological data, but also with closer study or wider comparisons with pre-existing information, or taking developments in other fields into account.) The most one can say is that according to the most widely accepted current viewpoint, most historians.... And to even say this one must not select sources, but need some way of proving that it is the generally accepted current viewpoint, which can be quite difficult. Sometimes one can say, as summarized in authoritative general sources--but these will usually be about 1 generation out of date; sometimes one can quote what ought to be considered as modern authoritative summaries, but often these will disagree. We cannot make judgments about whose summary is correct, and I am personally especially dubious about concluding that the summary I agree with is the correct one.

We cannot exclude historians who also have a religious interest from our statement of consensus. We must also take account of their arguments. That this particular historical period is closely involved with belief systems is not unique--other ones are involved with other sorts of biases, usually national or political or philosophical. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we should look to modern historiography for guidance—the kind which is based on sound social-science and archaeological findings. El_C 06:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

User:DGG...I don't really understand what you are saying; this is not about what you or I personally think. WP reflects relevant scholarship in fields like history and science; we don't put religious beliefs on par with scholarship. With regard to changing consensus, yes. WP would have had content about 'ether" if it had existed back in Newton's time; WP changes as the scholarly consensus changes and this is not a big deal. In any case it would be helpful if you proposed language that you would like to see. Thx. Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• I think it is good, but if you don't have a source for the last sentence it should be reworded. The content should follow the source. A similar statement will not be difficult to source, but it may not be possible to source that exact statement as it is written. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reversion of nation

User:Jytdog, could you be more informative and explain why you removed the definition of nation although: 1) it is supported by 6 sources 2) already mentioned in the lead with a different context. 3) what does is mean "You shouldn't add stuff only to the lead"? what if the definition is relevant to the lead? Where else should it be inserted into the article? Where is 'ethnoreligious group' mentioned apart from the lead and why didn't you remove it as well? Thanks. Infantom (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for opening discussion. In general it cause for pausing when somebody adds sourced content only to the lead. Sourced content should be added to the body and only if rises to the importance of the lead should it go there. The question to ask is - where in the body is this discussed? It needs to be discussed and supported there first. Then step back and see if that really should be in the lead. I think you could easily do that. But there should be nothing, and no source, in the lead that is not in the body somewhere. Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion where it could be mentioned? When i think about it now, a section about "definition of Jews" or "identity" is pretty constructive, especially when it comes to the varied identity of the Jews. Infantom (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Very high level articles like this are hard. A good place to start is word-search for "nation" to see where it already is. I found it at Who is a Jew?. But if you look there, there are two main articles linked, and per [{WP:SYNC]], that section should really just summarize the split off article (basically, it should be a copy of its WP:LEAD, with sources added), and should use its sources. (Doing this kind of meta-editing is so, so important to keep Wikipedia coherent across articles!) So that leads you to Who is a Jew? and Jewish identity, and if you look at those, this notion of "nation" is probably handled with the most nuance at Who is a Jew?. So I would zoom in there and see how it is handled, check those sources, see what goes in the lead, etc. Hard! Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, it has already been in the body of the article all time along, i should have noticed it already at the beginning though. In that case, there's no problem to add the sources to the section and mention it in the lead. Infantom (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I restored it, since Infantom is absolutely correct, that the Jews being a nation has been in the lead and body of the article for forever, and it is well sourced. Debresser (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Not worth dealing with. It is bad editing however. Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Removal of well-known sourced content & related links to articles

I added the following to the lede, and it has been removed:

The original Jews were Egyptians. Today, there are Jews of many different races (majority is white), and Jewish ethnic groups, spread all over the world. For example Arab Jews (such as Moroccan Jews,Iraqi Jews, Yemeni Jews and Syrian Jews among many others), Crimean Jews‎, Italian Jews, Iranian Jews, Singaporean Jews, Ethopian Jews, British Jews, Spanish and Portuguese Jews and Chinese Jews, among many others. Jewish customs also vary from place to place.

References

--Killian James (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging Killian. I would not consider these good sources, and the material you are trying to insert is already covered in the article at some length. Please read WP:RS and WP:NPOV which should help. I am aware you are new here. Irondome (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Killian James: Your source states (quoting Pope Francis}: "The people of Israel, who from Egypt, where they were enslaved, walked through the desert for 40 years until they reached the land promised by God" (bold added). The source simply states that they walked from Egypt. It does not state that they were originally from Egypt. Where is your evidence that there were no Jews outside of Egypt before some Jews were enslaved there? Please read Jewish history and stop edit warring. Sundayclose (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The content is not supported by the sources, which are not reliable in any case. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I myself is Jewish. The source states "The people of Israel, who from Egypt, where they were enslaved" Part of Egypt originally belonged to Jews. I was only linking related Wikipedia articles.--Killian James (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

There are lots of Jews who edit Wikipedia. Being a Jew is irrelevant to the accuracy of your edits, and it does not make you an expert on Jewish history. What is at issue here is reliable sourcing and confirmation by those sources, both of which are problems in your edits. Sundayclose (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Yes, well so am I. There are quite a few on WP. However that is not a reason for adding sub-par material into an article of high importance. I would suggest you read the links I gave above, and the links that were given in the welcome post on your talk page. I suggest you confine yourself to small edits until you learn the ropes here a bit better. Irondome (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

PM Netanyahu stated Jewish customs vary from place to place, not me.[4]--Killian James (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Well I am glad Bibi is aware of that, as it has been going on for a few thousand years now. Just confine yourself to minor edits for now Killian. And if you need help, just ask. Many of us started like you. Irondome (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I've struck the comments of a confirmed Mangoeater1000 sockpuppet. Doug Weller talk 06:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Corrected the indentation and adding here a link to Mangoeater1000 sockpuppet typical behavior. Sad to see this since some of "Killian"'s (other) edits are comprehensive and even constructive. Makes one wonder what this person's real thoughts are.פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

European peoples...

In the "related people" field of the infobox, European peoples are mentioned, but the sources given are all specifically speaking of Ashkenazi Jews, not Jews in general. It's basically a C+P from the sources given on the Ashkenazi infobox. I'm not sure when it was added, but it was certainly relatively recent, and I propose it be removed, because it's not supported by the sources.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but... There is currently a laundry list of Levantine people there on the one hand and Ashkenzi Jews are a major portion of all Jews on the other (over 50% off the top of my head).Icewhiz (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not a laundry list, it's from sources that are referring to Jewish relations to X. There is a difference between "Jews" and "Ashkenazi Jews". It doesn't matter how many Jews are Ashkenazi. Likewise, it would be ridiculous to say the Irish are Americans because a majority of Irish are American. It's just not in the source.--Monochrome_Monitor 22:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The question is what does "related people" mean? At the template's page it says "List of other ethnic groups related to the group", so it's still unclear. If the meaning is cultural or linguistic relation, then European people should be removed. If it's about genetics, then all the people that have genetic admixture with Jews should be added as well. Infantom (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

If we remove European, Arab is likewise suspect (the Arab conquest of Israel occurred well after the major expulsion - however Jews lived in Arab communities - just as they did in European communities - Mizrahi Jews. Arabs are a Semitic group - however they were really adjacent during Biblical times (there was peripheral contact with Nabataeans which are identified as northern Arab by many but not all). Druze (a late group, arising in the 11th century in Arab conquered Egypt-Levant) is probably even more questionable than either.Icewhiz (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Arabs are related to all Jews, not just Ashkenazi Jews. There is a huge difference. Jews who lived in Arab lands have Arab admixture, but Arab admixture is not the same as having a "common ancestor" population. @Infantom: We do not include "all groups admixed with" in infoboxes. I'm removing it from the infobox, if you want to restore it please take it to talk and get a consensus.--Monochrome_Monitor 13:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Is not that the Levantines and Druze (Druze also Levantines) are Arabs, so why are they characterized as isolated ethnic groups?.

Identifying Levantines as Arabs is not so straightforward (though many do self-identify as such). The Druze (whose founding group is complex) themselves are isolated in the sense they have been a closed sect (marriage only inside) for the past 1000 years or so.Icewhiz (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 10 October 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved DrStrauss talk 19:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

---

Jews → Jewish people – Many Jewish people consider the word "Jews" offensive. 2601:CE:C002:6EE8:296E:6810:576:98C1 (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Can you provide reliable sources (I would say multiple sources would be needed for such a remarkable claim) that verify that assertion? Please note the commentary at Wiktionary on this topic:

“ The noun Jew is not offensive, and the overwhelming majority of English-speaking Jews use the noun Jew to identify themselves. That said, it has become offensive for historical reasons to use the word Jew attributively, in modifying another noun (as in "Jew lawyer"); the adjective Jewish is preferred for this purpose. Additionally, the derived verbs jew and jew down are considered offensive, as they reflect stereotypes considered offensive. ”

Neither of the alternative uses mentioned are relevant to your claim. Without substantial supporting evidence, I would oppose the move. General Ization ^Talk 00:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Yes, I agree with General Ization: WP:SOURCES are needed. Besides that, the naming WP:PAG is WP:COMMONNAME. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Per evidence provided by General Ization from Wiktionary. In and of itself, it is not an offensive term, unless used in a derogatory way. "The Jews" is commonly used without any kind of derogatory intent._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

“ It is widely recognized that the attributive use of the noun Jew, in phrases such as Jew lawyer or Jew ethics, is both vulgar and highly offensive. In such contexts Jewish is the only acceptable possibility. Some people, however, have become so wary of this construction that they have extended the stigma to any use of Jew as a noun, a practice that carries risks of its own. In a sentence such as There are now several Jews on the council, which is unobjectionable, the substitution of a circumlocution like Jewish people or persons of Jewish background may in itself cause offense for seeming to imply that Jew has a negative connotation when used as a noun. ”

• Oppose In addition to the note cited by General Ization, I would add the preceding note (quoted in this article) from the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, fourth edition (2000). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose this absurd request. What is most offensive is that someone would think the word "Jew" is offensive and then assume that Jews feel that way. Sundayclose (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment In fairness to the OP, there is evidence that there are some Jews who find the term offensive, or at least uncomfortable. Here is an interesting perspective that appeared in the New York Times. And another in the Washington Post. But some is by no means many, much less most, and this is not evidence that would support the proposed move. General Ization ^Talk 01:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose move for now. Though the nominator's reason has been debunked, we may want to look at this a few months down the line because of the various meanings of "Jewish people".  ONR  (talk)  12:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I see absolutely no evidence that it is generally seen as offensive. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've once or twice encountered people who've said that "Jews" is derogatory and, Jewish myself, I've only shaken my head at the fad that has developed at finding words that have long been the ordinary terms used both for and by members of some group declared "pejorative". What's next, lawyers demanding that people stop calling them "lawyers" because some people speak of lawyers with contempt and (gasp) use the word "lawyers", the name by which they're normally called, when they do it? We're Jews, my rabbi speaks during services of Jews, and I oppose the notion that every time someone launches a campaign to take offense at something, we progressively-minded people (of which I am one) must all jump on the bandwagon. (I fear I've diverged from the criteria by which such decisions are made here on Wikipedia, but I felt the need to vent.) Largoplazo (talk) 13:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose based on the reasoning given by others above. My litmus test of whether the term 'Jew' is being used in an offensive manner on-line is whether it begins with a capital 'J' or not. If it's the latter I am usually fairly certain it's meant as a slur. Irondome (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Largoplazo. The term is not actually offensive to most Jews. Lepricavark (talk) 05:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose while "Jew" is offensive in certain contexts (i.e. as an adjective or verb), it is neutral as a noun and remains the most common way to describe followers of the Jewish faith in English. Academicoffee71 (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Jewish and origins

How correct is to say "Jewish people are (...) originating from the Israelites, or Hebrews, of the Ancient Near East." beign judaism a religion which allows convertions and with historical convertions? I think that is a definition much appropriate to talk about Hebrews but Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.130.98.96 (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It depends on your definition of the verb originating and the subject Jewish people. The Jewish people, in a conceptual sense, originated from the Ancient Near East. That's were the notion of a Jewish people originated. However, if you talk about "Jewish people" as in persons belonging to the "Jewish people" then it is not clear that they originated in the Ancient Near East, for any definition of originated. So the article is right even though it can be a little confusing because it discusses both concepts at the same time. ImTheIP (talk) 08:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Etymological Equivalents

In the paragraph that lists many languages' word for Jews, the Arabic term banu israil is incorrectly identified as coming from the root Judah; It comes from Bnei Yisrael, the Hebrew term for Children of Israel, i.e. Jacob. Ephraimhelfgot (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, I removed it. It's as though someone saw the preceding Arabic words and treated it as though the sentence was about Arabic terms for Jews rather than about cognates for yehudi, etc. Largoplazo (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Jews can be of all races

If "race" means anything, Jews can be of all races. Evidence: see figure 21.2, p. 321 from Marvin Harris, Culture, People, Nature. An Introduction to General Anthropology. 7h ed., Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc. 1997. See also Category:Jewish ethnic groups. All Jews I met in real life (knowing they were Jews) are White Caucasians. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, are you commenting on the article? I'm asking because talk pages are for discussing the maintenance and improvement of their associated articles rather than for general conversation about their topic. Largoplazo (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I guess it is a reply to [5]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

To a large extent what you said is true of the self identification of American jewry (though this was process). But this was not true elsewhere, e.g. Beta Israel, Cochin Jews, or Kaifeng Jews. However, historically Jewish communities were in contact and there was quite some wide ranging travel of Jews between communities with the exception of geographic isolates which tended to "homogonize" Jewish communities.Icewhiz (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, I see the conceptual relationship, but, as far as I know, the various Jewish communities that reflect European, African, and Asian genetic heritage came to do so through intermarriage (or, at least, sexual relations) between individuals, and through individual converts, not via absorption of whole other ethnic groups. As for communities like Beta Israel and the Lemba, I believe it was about those communities adopting Judaism, not through a commingling of separate communities. Absorption sounds like the Arabization of the Middle East and northern Africa, and whatever happened to individual cultures like the Edomites and Midianites and Amalekites and Babylonians, where we ask: Where'd they go? Largoplazo (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Edomites were finally absrobed (being very much related originally), including by forced conversion, in the Hashmonean period. I am not sure if there are examples of the Jews assimilating other cultures during the diaspora - it is mostly admixture, co-mingling, conversion, etc.Icewhiz (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Except for stories from more than 2000 years ago (possibly historical, possibly fictional, perhaps bits of each), I don't believe any ethnic group has been "absorbed" or "assimilated" into the Jewish people. Individuals of all ethnicities and races have become part of the Jewish people (and this article said that at one time, but it seems to have been removed), but that's not what the sentence added said. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Here, for example, is a (very old) version of the article that said in the opening paragraph that "converts to Judaism ... have been absorbed into the Jewish people throughout the millennia." — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Jewish Nation

Talking about a Jewish nation before the birth of Zionism is very much an anachronism. The article doesn't seem to "understand" that at all and uses the word "nation" in contexts where it is simply incorrect. Eg intro: "Jews originated as a national and religious group ... during the second millennium BCE" It should be "Jews originated as a people ..." Nations aren't that old. ImTheIP (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The use of nation pre-1800s (or 1848) is of course a wider discussion, however some do use the term in Europe and elsewhere. The Maccabees could definitely be construed as a nation state (along with other early examples).Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it is an effect of sloppy writing. I posit that the editors who have written this article have not been aware of the finer differences between nations and peoples. Usually, a people is thought to go through a process of becoming "sentient" of its own nationality. For the Jewish people, Zionism was this awakening process. If this commonly accepted wisdom, that Zionism created the Jewish nation, is to be challenged, then sources must be provided. IMHO ImTheIP (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

While I do for the most part agreee, the distinction between people and nation is somewhat post modern. There are sources who use the two interchangebly or prefer nation (for the Jewish people, and for other people). It is also possible to refer to a Jewish nation in the Macabee and the Roman Jewish wars period with some basis. So there are sources that use this language.Icewhiz (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps new to European people and others but Jews have always had national awareness, and regarded themselves as a nation much before terms such as 'religion' and 'ethnos' entered their lexicon. The Maccabean revolt and the Jewish-Roman wars are good examples. To say that "Zionism created a Jewish nation" is incorrect and misleading. Did Zionism, for instance, create the notion of Jewish political independence in Israel? or the "ingathering of the exile" and return to Israel? All those elements (and many others) predated the Zionist movement by thousands of years. Zionism revived and fulfilled them, but did not create. Anyway, as for the sources, please review footnote 12, it addresses your concern. Infantom (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Is this relevant to the history of a concept of a "Jewish nation"? "Siquidem in libro Geneseos sic Abrahae loquitur Deus, promittens fore, ut ex ipsius stirpe nasceretur olim, cuius gratuito beneficio non solum natio Judaeorum, verum etiam omnes totius orbis populi non per circumcisionem, quae tum nondum erat nata, sed per fidem evangelicam in ius et charitatem filiorum adiciti, coelestis regni consortium una cum Christo sortirentur." Desiderius Erasmus, Paraphrases in Novum Testamentum, volume 1, "In Evangelium Matthaei Paraphrasis", chapter I, 1778.

Also: "Longe faciet Dominus. Liquitur de se in tertia persona, quasi dicat: ego Dominus ablegabo Judaeos a sua patria, faciamque eos extorres, ut toto orbe vagentur. Et multiplicabitur. Qui reliqui fuerint ex Judaeis multiplicabuntur. Quae derelicta fuerat. Natio Judaeorum." Menochii, e Societate Jesu, Totius Sanctae Scripturae Commentarii ex optimis quibusque auctoribus collecti, volume 3, "Prophetia Isaiae", chapter VI, 1825. Largoplazo (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: you need good sources here. The source in footnote 12 claims that "The Jews are a nation and were so before there was a Jewish state of Israel." This claim is uncontroversial as Zionism was founded about 100 years before the establishment of the state. What is controversial, is the claim that the Jewish Nation is over 2000 years old. It would make it the oldest nation in the world by a very large margin!

The established wisdom is that the idea of the nation arose in Europe during the Renaissance and developed into the modern theory of the nation state. While there were examples of prior ethnic states, they weren't nations in the sense of the word we use today. For example, the Macedonians unified the Greek city states in the 4th century BC, but few people claims that that created a Greek Nation. This is what the article about Greece says:

"In the late eighteenth century, an increase in secular learning during the Modern Greek Enlightenment led to the revival among Greeks of the diaspora of the notion of a Greek nation tracing its existence to ancient Greece, distinct from the other Orthodox peoples, and having a right to political autonomy."

Note how the article claims that the notion of a Greek Nation stems from the 18th century. It does not claim that the Greek Nation stems from antiquity. ImTheIP (talk) 09:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

User:ImTheIP is correct. I agree that the word 'nation' gets thrown around casually by people, often academics, who don't actually understand the term, but that's no reason we should. Doug Weller talk 11:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I feel as though concept is being confused with existence. Bipolar disorder afflicted people before it became classified in psychiatric literature, for example. What is it about nationhood that would call for it not to exist until it's conceived of as such? Largoplazo (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Early and modern proponents of nationhood extolled the previous cultural heritage or the peoples of their nations. However post-modern thought tends to associate the concept of nation with modern thought, and views ascribing nationhood upon prior pre-modern generations as a cultural appropriation. To wit, an English (or French) serf toiling away under a French (or English) lord of the manor probably cared little which way regarding nationality. And monarchies ruled over wide area of lands with many different people and language (though there was a language of the court - it was not imposed uniformly on all the people - in France there were many languages, e.g. Occitan) - the concept of a single people to a single country with a single uniform language is quite modern. All that being said, some older sources do use nation and people interchangeably and some newer sources use nation in preference to people in order to make a point.Icewhiz (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

In addition to what @Icewhiz wrote, which I agree with, a nation and a national identity is a rethinking of an individual's position in society and to whom allegiance is "pledged." During antiquity, slaves and servants would pledge their loyalty to their masters. During the middle ages, peasant would pledge it to their noblemen and kings. But after the American and French revolution, royalty lost their power and the pledge of loyalty became directed towards the nation instead. It is not a coincidence that the American pledge of loyalty is to the flag and not the president of the United States. In this way, a nation requires a sense of egalitarianism or solidarity with other members of the nation which simply did not exist on a large scale before the Renaissance. A nation also requires its people to be educated enough to be aware of its existence, because a "nation" is a much more abstract concept than a tribe or a clan. The upper classes perhaps were, but illiterate peasants and slaves were not. ImTheIP (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

This is incorrect, references to the "Jewish nation" far predate Zionism, and Jewish nationalism far predates european nationalism. Ie., "Am Yisrael" "It would make it the oldest nation in the world by a very large margin." That is not so shocking.

Ie., "

True, but the English Wikipedia should use English definitions of English words. The English definition of the word "nation" can be found on that page. If you go by the definition on that page, I think it is clear that the Jewish people did not constitute a nation before the advent of Zionism. Regarding the word "Am" in "Am Yisrael," so is it my understanding that "Am" means "people" but can also mean "nation." Jewish writers have certainly asserted the existence of a Jewish people or Jewish world-wide community. That much is indisputable. But what is disputable if they asserted the existence of a Jewish nation in the same way as we today take the existence of, for example, the American nation for granted. I don't think they did. In fact, I don't think they made any distinction between the words "people" and "nation" as we do today. ImTheIP (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

A people, or aggregation of men, existing in the form of an organized jural society, usually inhabiting a distinct portion of the earth, speaking the same language, using the same customs, possessing historic continuity, and distinguished from other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics, and generally, but not necessarily, living under the same government and sovereignty.[1] The Jews are a people who have a language they all use, they have the same customs, possess historic continuity, and are distinguished from other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics. AmYisroelChai (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Questionable paragraph

"Despite their small percentage of the world's population, Jews have significantly influenced and contributed to human progress in many fields, including philosophy, ethics, literature, politics, business, fine arts and architecture, religion, music, theatre and cinema, medicine, as well as science and technology, both historically and in modern times."

I mean, I'm not saying it's not true. But doesn't it seem somewhat swaggering to leave that bit in? You won't find analogous bits in any other page describing a people. And that's coming from a Polish-Jew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.43.29 (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Have a look at English people and Italians for instance. Infantom (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

In the course of a lengthy discussion of that paragraph here last year, no one suggested removing it. The consensus seemed to back validity and, by inference at least, retention. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721133548/http://ftp.beitberl.ac.il/~bbsite/misc/ezer_anglit/klali/05_123.pdf to http://ftp.beitberl.ac.il/~bbsite/misc/ezer_anglit/klali/05_123.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016211752/http://www.jdc.org/where-we-work/africa/tunisia.html to http://www.jdc.org/where-we-work/africa/tunisia.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120521082932/http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/communities/show/id/2 to http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/communities/show/id/2

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2017

148.122.181.232 (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

•  Not done No request. --regentspark (comment) 18:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for "Jews and Judaism" navigational template

{{Jews and Judaism}} is too large. New version is ready – see Template talk:Jews and Judaism#New version. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Abraham

Please change mythical Abraham to just Abraham implying Abraham was a myth is offensive Shosh18 (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done Hertz1888 (talk) 10:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Replace the representing picture

The image of Jacob with a female angel in a Christian like style is unseemingly to the artile "Jews", it should be replaces. המכלולאי (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

That is no "female angel"` that is the guardian angel of Esau, with curls. Debresser (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to change infobox ethnic group photo

Much as the Rembrandt painting of Jacob and the angel is beautiful, and does have significance in Judaism, Rembrandt was neither ethnically nor religiously Jewish. Perhaps a mosaic photo actually showing Jewish people, diversity, and well-known figures — in kind with mosaics shown in the articles of some other ethnic groups— would be more representative. I submit this as a more satisfactory infobox image:

File:Jewish mosiac.jpg

Batanat (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Batanat: MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Now see it. I just replaced the link to an earlier RFC that had been there with a link to the more recent, dispositive RFC that led to the removal of these in 2016. Largoplazo (talk) 10:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Which doesn't mean another picture wouldn't be more appropriate. So perhaps we should consider another picture, not a mosaic. Debresser (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

A dictionary of Jewish terms and a glossary from a non-scientific book that simply states "Israelites: Ancestors of present-day Jews" are not valid or reliable sources to support the statement:

Modern Jews mostly descend from the southern Israelite Kingdom of Judah, namely the tribes of Judah and Benjamin since the ten northern tribes were lost following Assyrian captivity.

WP:NOR IronTower (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Please don't be disruptive. You should not remove such important information just because the source leaves to be desired. Use {{Better source}} or some other template, if you must. Debresser (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Presenting myth as objective fact is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE/PS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Presenting assertions that have no basis other than mythology is what's disruptive. It isn't that the source "leaves to be desired" but that it's sheer mythology—and why in the world would anyone select that source for the assertion made if one with a solid historical basis actually existed? That source is no more justification for assertions about the tribes of Israel than it would be if you decided you wanted to write as fact in Wikipedia that the Jews exiled to Assyria were unable to return because the Lord had surrounded them with the river Sambatyon. Calling it "important" when we have no historical evidence for it is like saying it's "important" for Physical cosmology to mention the six days of creation. Largoplazo (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, citing a source that is only quoting from another source is misleading. Were you misled by it, Debresser? The footnote says "PBS"—wow, those of us in the U.S. would say, it's from public television, it must be sound academic material. But the PBS source says it's only reproducing what was written in a work entitled "Beyond the Sambatyon: The Myth of the Ten Lost Tribes". It says right there that it's myth. Largoplazo (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Debresser: Are you trying to get reported? The factual dispute notwithstanding, you not only restored as a source for a purportedly factual statement a work that plainly stated that it was reporting on a mythology, but then you added another source that is obviously relating history entirely in the context of the same mythology (in this case, the portion that purports that there was a tribe named Judah), one in which there was a Jacob, a Leah, a Judah, and a Joshua. Your introduction of more mythology to back up the claim only makes it look like you're imagining that there is a factual basis for it, since you introduced another fictional source and have shown no evidence of understanding what was wrong with the first source even after I explained it to you. I am removing both sources, and if you restore either or post another that is no more grounded in fact than those, this conversation will expand to some other venue. Largoplazo (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can not remove information with a good source, like the one I just added, and if you do, it is you who will be reported. Debresser (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I restored them and replace the Citation needed template with Better source, since that is obviously what you think is needed. You had no right to remove good sources, just because you for whatever reason disagree with them. I personally think that the 3 sources are good enough, especially the Encyclopedia Britannica one. Debresser (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Not a single source supported what the article said, which was essentially that modern Jews descend from the Kingdom of Judah. They say that modern Jews "trace their lineage to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin" (Britannica) or use similar language, and there's a simple reason. There is no historical or scientific basis for a flat-out statement that modern Jews descend from a mythological kingdom that may or may not have existed. Are modern Britons descendants of King Arthur? Are modern (USA) Americans descendants of the Pilgrims? Of course not, and we would be laughed at if we said so. So why do we make a similarly absurd statement about the descent of modern Jews? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The only sources that exist are not credible and are based on mythology because the statement itself is factually incorrect biologically. Despite all the in-depth genetic studies on the topic, they cannot even remotely make this claim. In fact, the most recent genetic studies even point to the contrary. The statement itself should be removed entirely until there is a solid scientific source that can back up this extraordinary claim which at this point does not exist WP:REDFLAG. IronTower (talk) 04:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Since Debresser has repeatedly failed to grasp that mythology is not a "good source", I've reported this situation at WP:ANI. User:Debresser, do you even know the actual source of the content of that web page you most recently cited? The same content is on at least a dozen other websites. It most certainly didn't originate with the Sino-Israel Global Network & Academic Leadership, which doesn't sound like the name of a serious, academic historical research organization (you don't seem even to care whether the web pages you cite are themselves the sources of the content you are relying on to support the claim here on Wikipedia; you don't seem to have any regard for who bears responsibility for the assertions in the sources). If it didn't originate with them, then with whom did it originate? I ask again: Do you know? How can you, with a straight face, claim that it's a "good source" if you haven't the foggiest notion what the source is? Largoplazo (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The quick reaction at WP:ANI was that this is a content and Reliable Sources dispute, whereas I think it's so patently obvious that these aren't reliable sources that that part of it didn't need further discussion here or referral to WP:RSN before getting more dispositive action. Well, if it's out of their jurisdiction, so be it. But everything I wrote in my post immediately above after the first sentence stands. The only good sources for this would be evidence from historical records, not instances of people saying what they believe, or reporting what others believe, because it's what the Tanakh says. Largoplazo (talk) 05:22, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Largoplazo You are hereby kindly requested, and per WP:CIVIL required, to stop using that denigrating tone ("failed to grasp", "you don't seem to have any regard", "haven't you the fogiest notion" etc.). I am a 10 year editor of Wikipedia, with close to 100,000 edits to his name, and the fact that I disagree with you does not per definition make you right. Debresser (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Suppose I disagree that pork isn't kosher. Discuss. Am I simply disagreeing or am I being completely oblivious to what it says explicitly right there in the Torah?

When someone insists that a reading that states right at the beginning "this is fiction" is a good source, that goes beyond a simple difference of opinion. An editor with ten years' experience shouldn't find this such an unreasonable proposition. Largoplazo (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, how well has bringing up your ten-year tenure here worked for you before? Largoplazo (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

As for WP:CIVIL, didn't you start this whole thing by telling someone he was "disruptive" because he disagreed with you on the appropriateness of the claim and the source? Largoplazo (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

None of these petty comments has anything to do with the issue at hand. Debresser (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It's like stating that a granddaughter of Abraham married the son of Zeus, see Josephus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

You brought up the topic of civility.

You brought up the number of years you've been here.

If these are off-topic, then you stop bringing up off-topic subjects.

Meanwhile, you haven't made a single, substantive on-topic contribution to this discussion. Your comments that are at least on-topic have consisted of repeating that the claim in the article is true and important, and reiterating that the sources are good. You have done this without providing any defense for your contentions, or any response to objections by multiple editors that doesn't amount to "I disagree because I disagree" and "You're being disruptive" and "I've been here ten years". I am writing objectively, not in violation of WP:CIVIL, when I observe that you have been reacting, repeating, and deflecting, but not discussing.Largoplazo (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Those were in reaction to your civility problem, while your petty comments are just that, and we can really do without them here.

There isn't really much to discuss, I think, since there are 3 sources for the statement you so dislike. Now you can either be a sport about it, or continue with the petty comments, it's up to you. Debresser (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

You just got through telling me that civility is off-topic, and here you are bringing it up again. So I will note again that you, not I, brought incivility into this section discussion. Hint: it isn't on-topic when you bring it up and, magically, off-topic when I bring it up.

"There isn't really much to discuss" after you've been challenged over the assertion and after the mythological nature of your "sources" has been pointed out is pretty much a refusal to discuss. Anyway, you're the only person in this discussion who has expressed the opinion that these are valid sources. Consensus has run against you. I'm removing the remaining source. If you want to supply an actual reliable source based on historical evidence such as you claim exists, fine. If you want to find a consensus that the Bible and sources repeating what's in it are considered reliable sources for assertions about the real world on Wikipedia, you can try that out at WP:RSN. Also, another editor modified the sentence so that it's now accurate—but it's in the section on the actual known history of the Jews, not on what Jews claim (Jewish tradition can be found elsewhere on Wikipedia, I assume), so I'm going to remove that too. If being a "sport" means leaving improper sources and content without proper support in Wikipedia, and doing so against consensus, then I'm not going to be a "sport". Largoplazo (talk) 02:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Was that your one-man consensus? You are simply being disruptive! Debresser (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I suppose you should count again. We allow no ethnicity and no religion to present its own mythology as fact, in Wikivoice. If you need a source, see fr:Comment le peuple juif fut inventé or The Invention of the Jewish People. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, IronTower, Malik Shabazz, and I are one person? Largoplazo (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Isn't this statement on the Biblical tribes of Judah and Benjamin already covered in the very next paragraph in the "Origins" section (the one starting with "According to the Hebrew Bible narrative...")? If there are no reliable sources supporting the historicity of this claim outside of the Biblical narrative, then that paragraph is where it belongs and it doesn't need to be mentioned prior to that. Bennv3771 (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

On the whole, I think Bennv3771 is right. (I'm not sure why Britannica there is considered an unreliable source.) In any case, the idea that modern Jews claim ancestry from Judah and Benjamin [and Levi, in some cases] almost (almost) reaches WP:BLUE. I don't even think that fact is controversial, even to those who would say that the claim itself is controversial or unjustified.

I'm not going back into the page history to see what was changed. But I would say that the lead is allowed to say—doesn't have to, but is allowed to say—that this claim exists. (Whether it's a good or bad idea to do that is more than I care to weigh in on.) Better to state it as a claim than as a fact. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

This discussion began with the story being presented as fact rather than traditional claim. Debresser was citing Britannica as a reliable source that descent from a tribe called Judah actually happened. No source is a reliable source for any arbitrary thing someone chooses to make of what it says or misunderstands it to say. The Britannica article on the Tribe of Judah was clearly written within the context of the story from which it comes—which is religious tradition, not historically documented fact. It's a reliable source as a summary of the events as told in the Bible. It isn't a reliable source for any claim that the people and events discussed in the Britannica article were real. Britannica is neither making that claim nor citing evidence that it would be true. Largoplazo (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

As for the issue that remained, for me, after the text was revised to indicate its nature as a claim was that it shouldn't be in a section on the history. When it was noted that there was a whole paragraph devoted to the tradition, and the sentence was moved there, I was no longer concerned with it. My preference not to mention it in the section opening is the same as my preference that Chronology of the universe not delve early on, if at all, into religious and cultural origin stories from around the world but focus, as it does, on what science tells us. Largoplazo (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)