Talk:Jews

For prior discussions of the infobox in the top right corner of the article, please visit Talk:Jews/infobox.

Originating from the Israelites

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

For starters, because it is sourced. Your objections are correct on the level of any specific Jew, but as a nation the statement holds true. Debresser (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The sources in the article do not support this. It is also clearly not provable - there is simply no evidence. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I see the same sources as you do, and in my understanding they do support this. Why in the world it would be "not provable", I fail to understand. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

What's wrong with tertiary sources? according to wp:TERTIARY, there are allowed to be used. Your concern seems wrong and irrelevant. Race has nothing to do with the issue; as supported by at least 10(!) sources in the first paragraph, Jews are indeed the same ethnic group and are also a nation; the article doesn't even use the term "descended" (which the sources support as well). Infantom (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Infantom is absolutely right about the use of tertiary sources. I was ready to write that he was wrong about all Jews belonging to the same ethnic group until I read the lead section of Ethnic group, according to which:

Membership of an ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language or dialect, symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, art, and physical appearance.

I think that applies to Jews as physically and ritually dissimilar as a secular African-American Jew such as myself and a religious Mizrahi Jew on the other side of the world. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

"Nowhere does the article say, as ScienceApe claims, that "Jews originate from Israelites"" That's exactly what it says. It's stating that jews are descended from Israelites. There's no evidence for this. If that's not what it means then you need to rephrase the statement to be very clear on what it's supposed to mean, although I can't possibly fathom what it's supposed to mean other than that. There's no evidence that anyone is descended from ancient Israelites. Tertiary sources shouldn't be used when there's no evidence that what the tertiary source says is true. I never said all jews belong to the same ethnic group, nor do they. If jews are multi-ethnic and multi-racial (which they are), it makes no sense to say that they "originate from ancient Israelites", which directly implies that they are descended from them (again if that's not what it means, the statement has to be rephrased for clarity). Different jews of different races descended from different people, hence their origins are varied and the statement that they originate from ancient Israelites is totally wrong. ScienceApe (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

To summarize:

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

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

We also need to recognize that there is a structural reason for the continuous criticism which this sentence has garnered on this talk page over the years. Most other ethnic groups cannot be "converted in to". e.g. you cannot become a member of the Japanese ethnic group if you were not born into it, but you can become a member of the Jewish people - as an ethnoreligous group, the situation here is more complex. We shouldn't hide from this by clinging to an overly simplistic sentence. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no synth, you don't have to copy word by word from the source. I would prefer another phrasing, however the sources support the current one. There's no ambiguity as well, first because Britannica refers directly to Jews while it could refer to ancient Jewish people as it did at the article about Jews, secondly because it doesn't really matter since Britannica says the Jews of today are a "continuation of the ancient Jewish people" anyway. You can assimilate into an ethnic group, each group has it's own ways (if it allows it, many are), but i can't see how it's relevant, no one ever claimed all Jews in the world are descended from Israelites, but that the Jewish people, as a nation and ethnic group(which doesn't necessarily involve blood relation), originated from them, if that's the your "structural reason" than you don't really have a case.

ScienceApe, it's like your'e discussing with yourself, all your arguments have been addressed and you just ignore them and keep telling the same thing. Your'e clueless about the topic and about what is a Jew, you refuse to read the sources and make up your own Wikipedia rules. This is unhelpful. Infantom (talk) 12:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

First of all, you're replying to Oncenawhile, but thinking it's me. That shows me that you aren't paying very close attention to what you are doing, so you're the last person to be calling anyone clueless. As for being clueless about what a Jew is, I think everyone is clueless about what a Jew is, since anyone can be a Jew. This article calls it an "ethnoreligious" group, but Jews can be different ethnicities and different religions, so it hardly makes sense in the first place. "continuation of the ancient Jewish people" is vague, what does that mean? If someone from India today identifies as an adherent to the ancient Norse religion, does that mean they are a continuation of ancient Nords? Assimilating into an ethnic group doesn't mean you are part of that ethnic group. "no one ever claimed all Jews in the world are descended from Israelites" The article directly implies this, if that's not what it means, then it must be rephrased because that's the meaning I'm getting from it. It's poorly phrased if that's not what you are trying to convey. "but that the Jewish people, as a nation and ethnic group(which doesn't necessarily involve blood relation), originated from them", again what does that mean? As far as I'm concerned that means they are descended from them. If that's not what it means, then you have to rephrase that statement so it's clear on what it's supposed to mean. ScienceApe (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I was replying to both of you, first paragraph addressed Oncenawhile and the second addressed you, that's why it mentions your user name at the beginning. Not only you're clueless and, as it seems, lack of basic reading comprehension you also misunderstand basic terms as ethnicity and ethnoreligious group which means "an ethnic group whose members are also unified by a common religious background" (read more at Ethnic religion), Jews cannot be of "different ethnicities and different religions", that's nonsense. Your comparison with an Indian adherent of Norse religion is irrelevant, because again, you're talking about an individual while the article talks about a collective. Jews as a people, a nation, and their cultural heritage, language, religion, mythology and rituals, territorial and national affinity are originated from the Israelites, no blood relation of any individual within the ethnic group is required, you simply make up your own definitions. Infantom (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Clueless and inability to read seem to be traits that you possess and are projecting on to others. Not all jews are jews, some are atheist, some are Buddhist, some are christian. So no, they are not unified by a common religious background, they can come from any religious background and be any religion. Jews can be of different ethnicities, simply asserting that they can not, is patently wrong. You can be Nordic and jewish, you can be Semitic and jewish, you can be Germanic and jewish, you can be Yiddish and jewish, you can be any ethnicity on the planet and simultaneously be jewish. No actually it's not irrelevant, there can be a group of Indian adherents of Norse religion, not merely an individual. "Jews as a people, a nation, and their cultural heritage, language, religion, mythology and rituals, territorial and national affinity are originated from the Israelites", that's not what the article says, the article says that JEWS are an ethnoreligious group originated from Israelites. This is vague and implies that jews descend from Israelites, of which there is no evidence for. Jews are NOT, "a nation, and their cultural heritage, language, religion, mythology and rituals, territorial and national affinity". You smuggled all that in there into your definition of a jew, which is incorrect nor is it even in the article. Your infantile remarks detract from your overall point and discredit any cogent point you are trying to make. ScienceApe (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

By "Infantile remarks" you mean telling you to follow Wikipedia guidelines and read more than 10 sources in the article that says "ethnic and religious group" and their origins, or that tertiary sources are allowed? that you are clueless because you make up your own definitions of what is a Jew in contract to any source; like "Jews can be of many religions", "Yiddish and jewish" (what is that even mean? it's a language!) and other nonsense? that you failed to understand the meaning of an ethnoreligious group (or ethnic group in general)? or that addressing multiple editors in the same comment doesn't make one "not paying attention"?

Look, to summarize, this discussion lost it's validity at the moment you haven't provided even one single source and refused to address the numerous that are in the article. I have wasted way more time than what it deserved, unless productive assertions are being made i'm done. Cheers. Infantom (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

No, by infantile remarks I mean your behavior and lack of maturity. You also project what you are guilty of, namely the inability to read. I never once made any claims that weren't patently obvious, nor did I ever try to define what a jew is. Unless you actually challenge that jews can be of different religions, if so then you lack even common sense and shouldn't be editing wikipedia in the first place, although feel free to read about Jews for jesus. You on the other hand are so juvenile that you think "jew" is a nation, which is laughably stupid to say the least. I'm assuming you are trying to refer to Israel, but this article is not about Israel, it's about jews, and no they are not the same thing and it is troublesome and disturbing that you appear to think they are. Do you even know what an ethnicity is? A person's language is closely tied to their ethnicity, hell yiddish people even redirects to Ashkenazi Jews which is indeed an ethnicity, but not all jews are ashkenazi, hence they are different ethnicities from non-ashkenazi jews. You don't even have a modicum of understanding of the topics you are attempting to discuss, which I find incredibly ironic given that you spend your time editing nothing but jewish related articles. You are identified by a single thing that you don't understand. Maybe take up a hobby and learn about it, because you don't know anything about jews. But I agree with you, you are wasting my time. Oh and cheers. ScienceApe (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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

WP:DEADHORSE. Debresser (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Platitude. ScienceApe (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

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

FYI

My edit cited the wrong archive. Sundayclose mentions the original archive. This was a consensus view.[1]--Monochrome_Monitor 07:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Origins: a false equivalency where there is none.

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

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

My edit cited the wrong archive. Sundayclose mentions the original archive. This was a consensus view.[2]--Monochrome_Monitor 07:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Reference material [1] [2]

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

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

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

DavidAFalk, I believe you're mistaken. The edit did try to create a false equivalency between the view of "some" archaeologists who are described (in very poor English) as having abandoned the search for the historicity of the Patriarchs and consider the Bible a national myth and those "others" who are described (in English almost as poor) as "find[ing] the evidence consistent with the Hebrew Bible narrative."

First, no professional archaeologist looks for evidence to support the Biblical narrative. In the 19th century and maybe the early 20th century, it was common to describe archaeologists of the region as "digging with a spade in one hand the Bible in the other", but not in the 21st century or most of the 20th century.

Second, pitting as opponents those who do not seek evidence of the historical Patriarchs and those who find evidence consistent with the Biblical narrative is a false dichotomy. Most archaeologists of the region are probably in both groups. They are not looking for Abraham or Joseph or David, but nevertheless they find remains of cities mentioned in the Hebrew Bible.

I'm not arguing the article or its description of archaeology is ideal or even good. It's not. But what was suggested was worse, not an improvement.

Also, our WP:NPOV policy requires us to describe the mainstream archaeological view. We can, and should, describe significant minority views, but we should not make them appear to be as widely accepted if they are not. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Debresser, don't be so surprised. Not every sentence that has a source at the end of it is an accurate summary of that source. As I wrote, creating a false dichotomy is not necessarily an accurate summary of the source—which I have not read—nor is an edit with a summary of "Added both sides of debate" a guarantee that the edit accurately summarizes both positions in a debate. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Siefert, you left a copy of your message on my talk page as well. I believe you may have me confused with Jheald, the editor who reverted your edit. I reverted a different edit. Also, this article has been semi-protected to protect it from vandalism for nearly a decade. It isn't a new change. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Siefert: Please read WP:CIRC. This is in no way acceptable for any article, let alone a good one. Also, please gain consensus before making major changes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN I have no idea why you are saying the edits are unacceptable. WP:CIRC has nothing to do with the number of peer reviewed pubs and books that I cited. Siefert (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN ALso if you read the previous comments, we have gained consensus to make this major change.Siefert (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Siefert: You also cited Wikipedia articles as sources and managed to copy-paste(?) sentences from somewhere that have citation needed tags. Please, if you're going to work on a WP:GA, then do it carefully or ask for help on the talk page on how to incorporate significant changes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN So then help me Neil. It seems to me that you are unhappy with my lack of skill on wikipedia. I understand that, But the actual content of what I am trying to change is very reference rich, correct, and fair. As a scientist, I very much want the public to get the right information. Siefert (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Siefert: I have no issue with you adding properly sourced content. Other editors more familiar with the topic may have comments. But again, whatever you add needs to be properly sourced. If you're adding content from other Wikipedia articles then the external references used to source the content must be added, not a link to the other Wikipedia article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN So properly sourced material i believe I did on most of the edits. I will do them again. However, I have two questions: 1) so there are NEVER links from wikipedia pages to content in another page? (for instance the stele I mention has its own page with images). and 2) how do you insert the fact that a statement that has been made needs a citation? Siefert (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Siefert: 1) There are of course article wikilinks to other articles. Every blue link links to another page. But these links are not sources and can never be used as sources. 2) The proper tag for citation needed is {{cn}}. However I strongly urge you not to add any content requiring that tag to this article as it puts its good article status at risk. If you can't properly source content, leave it out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The fact your using and referring Wikipedia pages over scholarly publications is a bit concerning. Are you aware of books in this field or is this a learn as you type thing--Moxy (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN To make certain, you did see the 15 or so sourced materiial I referenced that had nothing to do with wiki pages? Are you saying that I did those incorrectly? By the way, the DavidAFalk in the talk page is an Egyptologist and tried to explain to some of the other admins the necessity for these changes. Siefert (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Siefert: At a very superficial glance, those are fine. Others more familiar with the topic may have comments on the sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@moxy Moxy, this is actually not a valid statement that I was using pages over references. I used wiki pages to point to the Torah and the Mernepta stele. I used over 15 other references citing peer reviewed books, specific pages in books and academic journal articles and 2 newspaper articles. What I don't understand is why no one seems to have seen those in my edits Siefert (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC).

@NeilN So I will take out any links to wiki pages. The only reason I had them in there was because they had images. So that brings up another question. Siefert (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it may be best to propse the text here on the talk page first. There seems to be some odd formating and wording that would need fixing for GA article.--Moxy (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN How do you add "citation needed" at the end of a statement?

Please see my answer above. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Neil Actually, all of my text has the proper references, its text that was already on the page that fails to cite. I don't know what support/references were intended for whoever wrote it. There is also a factually incorrect statement that I will delete. There is also an error in a formerly used reference that I will fix. It is also used incorrectly, it actually supports the alternative view that I have written, but I will not remove it, just fix the typo in it the reference.Siefert (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Siefert: No, as an example it's pretty obvious the very first change here did not have a proper reference. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Ur.. irrelevant?

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

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

What does it matter where he came from? A simple proof that it does not mater is that for Isaac and Jacob you did not write where they were born.

You underlined the words "his son" by mistake, because I never removed them. Debresser (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that you didn't remove "his son". Abraham's call, from his home in Ur to go to "the place that I will show you", and him heeding that call, is one of the founding myths of Judaism. Of course it is important! Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It is not evidently relevant in that sentence, so we shouldn't have it. Of course it is important, but in the right place and the right context. Debresser (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

We don't agree, obviously. Let's see what others say. Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Referencing

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

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

Recent edits

What do others think of the change in tone? this edit

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

Changed to

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