Talk:Land of Israel

Question

Is Eretz Yisrael really modern Israel + West Bank + Gaza Strip? It's a strange coincidence if a term that has been used for more than 2000 years so exactly match up to what some modern people consider "the land of Israel" when the borders have changed so many times. :) BL 03:13, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

"Eretz Yisrael" is somewhat like "Palestine" - it meant (slightly) different things to different people at different times. In its most widespread modern usage (more or less since the 1920s, when the borders of the British Mandate of Palestine were formed), the term corresponds to what used to be Mandatory Palestine, and now is Israel + WB + GS. No strange coincidences here. uriber 12:55, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Nile

The Great River of Egypt is undisputedly the Nile. There was a 19th century dispute based on ignorance amongst Christian Biblical commentators over whether the "brook of Egypt" is the Nile. This results from the mistaken translation of Hebrew nachal as "brook" implying a small stream. While in later Hebrew nachal tended to be used for wadis or streams, in Biblical Hebrew it could also mean river and even the Euphrates is called a nachal. Jewish tradition was always that it was the Nile. One commentator specifically identified it with the easternmost branch of the Nile delta. There is also enough evidence from its usage that it refers to the Nile, e.g. it is equated with the Shichor which is equated with and is in fact a Hebrew translation of Egyption Yaor (dark/muddy river) which is undisputedly the Nile. Moreover the name Nile, is ultimately derived via Greek Neilos from Semitic nachal so the expression Nachal Mitzraim is probably best translated as "Nile of Egypt". Kuratowski's Ghost 10:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Land of Israel = Promised Land?

I have no problem with the definition in the first paragraph: "The Land of Israel (Hebrew: ארץ ישראל Eretz Yisrael) refers to the land making up the ancient Jewish Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The term has been used by Jews and Christians throughout history." But most of the article is devoted to the religious belief in a "Promised Land" covering a much larger area. The "land making up the ancient Jewish Kingdoms of Israel and Judah" is not the same as the "Promised Land" extending from the Nile to the Euphrates. So I want to move the latter to its own article "Promised Land (Biblical)". 24.64.166.191 05:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Everything that was promised to the Jews by God in the Torah is called the Promised Land, which is the land of Israel. Guy Montag 06:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Biblical Passages

These don't look like any standard translations I have ever seen: "from this desert and Lebanon"???? Kuratowski's Ghost 1 July 2005 00:24 (UTC)

Anon comments 1

Obviously some people have a difficulty with reading or will use any argument to justify their views. the issue in dispute is in the highlighted paragraph below. Exclusion of a view with which you disgaree is just as much a breach of the NPOV rules as stuffing your article with propaganda...

Except the criticism below is nonsense. There is a difference between explaining how the term is used - which happens to relate to Jewish and Christian religious belief - and stating that the belief cannot be challenged. The article makes no claim that one must accept either Jewish or Christian belief it merely presents the information about the belief. Similarly if an article states that Sif was the wife of Odin and presents a quote from the Eddas as evidence this would not mean that the writer expects you to start worshipping Odin. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't get your point. This is not a dispute about mythology but about the use of the term "Land of Israel" in modern Israel - about who uses it and why. You refuse to even let that discussion be referenced. Then you refuse to allow anyone to know about your censorship. You are abusing the encyclopedia.

You are asserting that only members of one particular political ideology uses the term in Israel today when this is not the case, anyone discussing the area defined in the article uses the term regardless of their political beliefs. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

To carry on the analogy, I might also add that if one were to edit an article about Sif the wife of Odin and state that the name Sif is only used by a group of extremist neo-pagans in modern times, it would be reverted because anyone discussing the subject of Norse mythology uses the name not only a small group of neo-pagans. Ok not a perfect analogy but you get my point :P Kuratowski's Ghost 22:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

This page is being maliciously edited by people determined to present only one view of what the meaning of "Land of Israel" - namely those who regard the definition of it as a Biblical gift to the Jewish people as a fact that cannot be challenged. Repeated attempts to place the use of this term in a contemporary political context - particularly important given the events of the last week or so - are being stopped by those who clearly are adopting a pov postition incompatible with producing an encyclopedia. it's a disgrace and it has to stop.

No this page is being maliciously edited by people who insist on falsely potraying the name as something only used by rightwing extremists when it is a term that Jews and Christians of all political persuasions typically use for the region defined by the Biblical passages listed in the article. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that I dont understand any of this.. I really have no opinion as i am not of any religious faith, however I would like to say that this hole site has not been much help at all, and the people on this "comments" page are not really adding any thing of value, any real information, or opinions that would make a difference.

Anon comments 2

The issue here - for me at least - is the need for this article, if it is to be full, to include a reference to the fact that the zionist right (eg Netanyahu) are seeking to make the issue of the "land" of Israel central to Israeli politics. Those zionists who are committed to an Israeli state in the "land of Israel" are in conflict with those Israelis who - such as Sharon - support the withdrawal from Gaza and those zionists on the left who support a Palestinian state in some or all of the West Bank. I cannot see it as anything other than a failure to live up to the values of Wikipedia if this use of the term "land of Israel" is not even allowed to be discussed. I am happy to enter into dialogue with those who disagree with my interpretation of the debate within Israel but i refuse to accept that we are not even allowed to discuss it - especially when a dispute about the "land of Israel" has now split the ruling party in Israel. That sort of censorship just isn't on.

Do you have any encyclopedic references indicating that this is relevant and significant? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

How about the fact that the phrase appears in the published political platform of the Likud Party?Brian Tvedt 03:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

For example, in the Peace & Security chapter we read

Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel.

Clearly the use of the term is not just a reference to the Bible, or the British Mandate boundaries. It carries with it an implicit assertion that the entire region belongs to the Jewish people and not to its current residents (in the case of the West Bank and Gaza). Brian Tvedt 02:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

This is not a different usage to the Biblical. Kuratowski's Ghost 10:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you deny that there are political implications in the use of the term? Brian Tvedt 11:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The term itself has no political implications. The Likud and other parties may have a political stance on the Land of Israel, this does not give the term political implications any more than a policy on water consumption makes "water" a term with a special political meaning. Kuratowski's Ghost 13:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Brian, who (aside from you and the anon) assert that this usage is a special political meaning of the term? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The usage by the Likud or Netanyahu (hardly what I would call rightwing, but whatever) is not a different usage to that already described in the article, they distinguish between the Biblical Land of Israel and the state of Israel and this usage is not unique to them. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Why this article is not NPOV

The article pretends that Eretz Israel is a simple geographical denotation with no political implications. In fact everyone knows that nearly half of the people who actually live in the region in question would angrily deny that they live in the "Land of Israel". The use of the term in a modern context is every bit as politically charged as using "Palestine" to refer the same region is. Just as many Jews read in use of the term "Palestine" an implicit threat to drive them into the sea, so do many Palestinians read in the term "Eretz Israel" a threat of ethnic cleansing. Indeed there are some fanatics who use it in just this way, as this example shows:

Eretz Israel means "the Land of Israel." Meaning the land of the people called Israel. Precisely as Moab was the land of the people of Moab and Edom that of the Edomites. The concept, the logical concept of a land, is that it serves as the home and the receptacle for a people to lead their own unique and distinctive life style. It is not the geographical area that defines the person, it is the person who controls the land. No non-Edomite was ever a citizen on Edom just as no non-Philistine was a citizen of Philistia or had any say in its national concerns or character. So, too, with Israel - the Jewish people. The Land of Israel belongs to the people of Israel. It is they who control it, define it. It is their vessel, their territory in which to create the society of Israel, the Torah society of G-d. Only Israel, only the Jew, has a proprietary interest in it.

Note that Kahane is not just expressing here an opinion about the Land of Israel. He is explicitly saying that the term carries in itself support for his program.

Even in the narrow terms of usage within mainstream Zionism, the anon is completely correct: Eretz Israel is used nowadays mainly by the Right. The term is much less used by the peace movement, and when it is it is mostly as a rejoinder to the Right. Consider this editorial that recently appeared in Haaretz:

However, the ethos of Eretz Israel that the followers of the Greater Land of Israel and the Jewish residents of the territories have appropriated for themselves is not their exclusive property. It is the ideological source of the Labor movement as well as of other sectors of Israeli society. The difference between them is that the latter, sooner or later, realized that the rebirth of Israel can be carried out only within the framework of a Jewish state, and that that state can be realized only in part of Eretz Israel. In the case under discussion here, 80 percent of it is involved.

Note that it is understood here that the term Eretz Israel has heavy connotations—it has an "ethos" associated with it. Although the Medinat Israel/Eretz Israel distinction is acknowledged, it is in the context of understanding a concept historically important in Zionism. In the here and now, the settlers are described as living in "the territories", not Eretz Israel. Brian Tvedt 03:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The quote from Haaretz shows that it is indeed not an exclusively rightwing term btw so I still don't know what you are getting at. Its your perception that it is rightwing, find a published analysis that says that the term is rightwing and we will accept it, otherwise it sounds like your original research. If you want to point out that the rightwing emphasize the standard Jewish teaching that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jews then that is fine, it doesn't make the term inherently rightwing or mean that it has some different meaning now than what is has meant before. Kuratowski's Ghost 10:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

1. If the article was solely about traditional Jewish religious teachings, there would be no POV issue.
2. However, the article is not solely about tradional Jewish teachings,. It describes the use of the term Land of Israel to refer not to any exact region described in the Bible, but to the exact region defined by the British Mandatory boundaries, a peculiar, 20th century usage.
3. This peculiar, 20th century usage definitely has political implications. The Haaretz editorial confirms this: the term has an "ethos" associated with it, it is an "ideological source". One can argue whether the political implications are the same for Labor Zionists as for the modern day Greater Israel Zionists. What is untenable is the position that the word has no political implications.
4. As to the narrow question, whether the word is now associated specifically with right-wing Zionism: The Haaretz editorial asserts that the term has been "appropriated" by the settlement movement. I have produced a quotation from an indisputably right-wing figure, Kahane, in which usage of the term is crucial. I doubt you can provide a single quotation from any modern left-Zionist group (such as Peace Now) that uses without irony the term Land of Israel in the sense described in this WP article.
5. As to the broader question, whether people "of all political persuasions" use the term in the sense described in this article, obviously that is not true. The Palestinians, for example, do not call the region the Land of Israel. They call it Palestine. That at least ought to be mentioned.

Brian Tvedt 01:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

merge

There is a discussion at Palestine (region) about merging "Land of Israel" with "Palestine region" as they both share a lot of content. I think redirecting "Land of Israel" to another merged article would be unacceptable to many people, but that that doesn't neccesarily have to happen. It could redirect to the Israel (disambiguation) page and this article's content could also be distributed to other articles such as Kingdom of Israel and Israel - Or not. --Yodakii 09:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"Land of Israel" is a concept with a long and varied history in Jewish thought and Christian thought as well. The concept goes well beyond the issue of borders and geography. (Which unfortunately seems to have become a major focus of this article, but changing that has nothing to do with a merge or a redirect. More will be added with time in the wiki way, including "Land of Israel" as opposed Babylon and diaspora, and "Land of Israel" in mediaval and modern Jewish thought.)

So no way to a merge. The historical concepts of "Land of Israel" and "Palestine" obviously overlap geographically, but only out of ignorance could someone identify the concepts and try to merge the articles.Dovi 10:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. In addition "Palestine" has been used at different times in history for significantly different shaped regions within the Land of Israel but never for the entire region defined by the Biblical passages cited in the article. And lets face it, the idea of merging with Palestine is yet another lame attempt to suppress mention of the word "Israel" while promoting the term "Palestine" offensive to many Jews. Kuratowski's Ghost 12:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree and have said so there. As Dovi says, LoI has religious aspects which are not sufficiently weighted here imho too. KG, you should look at the discussion there, that is not the motivation or history. I don't think Palestine being strictly within LoI is entirely accurate even. (The southern Negev, probably/perhaps no, no?) I've tried to be neutral, objective and practical in my comments there. For instance Humus is OK with merging, but insists the merged article to be LoI, which would be offensive to many others. There is now a copied section from this article there, which in my opinion does not belong there, although the attached map, probably replaced with a better focused one is appropriate enough. I would welcome your and Dovi's input there.John Z 12:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Eretz Yisrael/Erets Yisrael

Erets Yisrael is a better transliteration then Eretz Yisrael, i think it should be the transliteration of ארץ ישראל. Toya 05:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, Eretz is much more widely accepted. Google test is not perfect, but it shows under 1,000 for Erets and iver 260,000 for Eretz. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

But Erets is more correct. T and S create a צ, but T and Z not. Toya 06:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

To an English speaker a t followed by an s looks like two separate sounds especially at the end of a word (because it looks similar to English plurals like cats, hats, boats, while tz as in the English word waltz (borrowed from German) is recognized as a single sound. (Although for some reason when writing Japanese words like tsunami, ts seems to be more popular.) Kuratowski's Ghost 16:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Also listen to the way English speakers pronounce the word cats and the surname Katz for example - tz in the surname Katz is always a single sound while ts in cats when spoken slowly and carefully is a separate t sound followed by a separate s sound. Kuratowski's Ghost 16:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Map

Why is there a map at the top of the State of Israel today? How is that relevant to the topic of this article? I think the map at the top ought to be the one of the traditional boundaries of Eretz Israel. Later, in the section on The Land of Israel and the State of Israel, we can have a map of the British Mandate. john k 16:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, can some one provide us with a map ?

Done! Emmanuelm 18:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Topic sentence(s) for this article

I think this article would greatly benefit from a more precise definition of what it is about and (accusations notwithstanding) believe that some progress was being made in the discussions above titled "Why this article is not NPOV" and "merge"

Perhaps some of the chief contributors could comment on the following:

This article concerns the "Land of Israel" in Jewish [and Christian] thought from its Biblical sources to the present day. The history of the area that is now the State of Israel and the occupied territories is treated in [Reference to other articles].

This definition, or one like it, does not unduly restrict the scope of the article (for example, it would be perfectly appropriate to discuss biblical or post-biblical ideas about the geographical boundaries in this context).

I'm not sure if there are modern aspects to this subject that are not subsumed within Zionism, but that question doesn't have to be answered for a helpful definition of the article.

Perhaps the article should be further restricted to Jewish thought only, since there is very little in here about Christianity now and that is actually a significant topic in its own right (one would want, for example to examine the sigificance of this concept during the crusades and to modern Evangelical christians in the United States.)

In light of the potential controversy about anything having to do with this topic, I'm reluctant to follow wikipedia's dicate to "be bold" and would prefer to reach some sort of consensus here first. --Sjsilverman 16:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds ok, be bold. Im gonna be bold and remove the State of Israel sidebar. Kuratowski's Ghost 17:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I like it for a topic sentence (made one slight adjustment). I also don't think the State of Israel template needs to be here. The only connection between the two needs to be how the traditional idea played out in modern Zionism (there is already something on that in this article anyways).Dovi 18:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

River of Egypt

Dear KG, the "River of Egypt" is most definitely not "unanimously" understood as the Nile, so please don't pretend that it is. AnonMoos 01:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The term Nahar Mitzrayim used in Genesis 15:18 _is_ unanimously understood to be the Nile, there is some debate still over Nachal Mitzrayim used in other passages. Kuratowski's Ghost 12:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Dude, I'm fully aware of the fact that you think that the Nile is the One True Interpretation, and that other views don't even deserve a hearing (hence your inappropriate use of the word "unanimous" to describe something which is far from unanimous) -- but unfortunately for your position, many people disagree, including a number of somewhat recently and somewhat scholarly sources (as I detailed on the Talk:Brook of Egypt page, where you chose to high-handedly dismiss them).

However, Wikipedia is not set up to give you a forum to exclude all views opposing what you consider to be the One True Interpretation, and it's not particularly appropriate to unilaterally impose one interpretation when many respectable sources disagree (however wrong you may think that they are). Furthermore, your current edit is even more unfortunate when it mentions Iraq -- I would greatly appreciate it if you would give a citation of one single scriptural passage which more or less unambiguously includes part of Iraq (and just citing the single word Prat won't do the job). AnonMoos 19:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well it does do the job if you look at a map of where the Euphrates is. There was in fact a map included in a earlier version of the article that clearly showed this. Kuratowski's Ghost 19:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

There's no need to superciliously condescend about the geographical location of the Euphrates. I'm perfectly aware of its location -- and also quite aware that the Upper Euphrates in northern Syria is quite different from the Lower Euphrates in Iraq. Unless you have some specific citation of some Biblical verse (other than the general vague occurrence of the word "Prat") to support your claims, then I would kindly appreciate it if you were to keep Iraq the hell off this article page. Unless the "Bead Artzeinu" map cites a specific Biblical passage (other than the general vague occurrence of the word "Prat") then its map represents purely extremist fringe political rantings, which has nothing in particular to do with the Bible, and so doesn't belong on this page. AnonMoos 01:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"Vague occurrence of Prat"?? Whats vague about it? Its there. Kuratowski's Ghost 03:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's there. So what? A reference to "the Euphrates" doesn't immediately translate itself into coordinates of longitude and latitude of boundary lines on a map -- unless you know what part of the Euphrates is referred to, and what role it plays in determining the boundary. That's where interpretation of the occurrences of the word Prat comes in. There's no simple "Prat"="Iraq" equivalence, because the Euphrates also flows through Turkey and Syria. 02:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It means the Euphrates, the whole Euphrates not some segment of the Euphrates as you seem to be implying. If it meant up to some point on the Euphrates then that point would be mentioned. Kuratowski's Ghost 03:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's simply outright nonsense. Canada could still have its motto "From sea to Sea" (A Mari Usque Ad Mare) even if the only two Canadian coastal cities were Vancouver and Halifax. According to your line argument, Canada isn't entitled to its motto unless it owns ALL of both the ocean coasts, from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, and from Tierra del Fuego to Greenland!!!

Furthermore, a highly relevant historical fact which colors the interpretation of Genesis 15:18 is that the Bible records that Solomon had a trading outpost at Tiphsah on the UPPER Euphrates in northern Syria, but the Bible says absolutely nothing about any Israelite sovereignty or quasi-sovereignty of even the most tenuous kind in the area of modern Iraq (whether on the LOWER Euphrates or elsewhere), or anywhere even very near the area of modern Iraq. AnonMoos 02:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Reality check: a text refers to "river of Egypt", this is (a) the Nile, the river that Egypt is most famous for and the only significant river in Egypt? or (b) an insignficant wadi lying in a desert miles to the east of what was called Egypt in ancient times? Lets get real people. Yes there was confusion over the past few centuries about the geography of the Exodus because the ancient easternmost arm of the Nile delta had dried up, but lets not be silly and suggest that reinterpretations based on this confusion are what was meant in the ancient text. Kuratowski's Ghost 12:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Dude, the Wadi el-Arish may be insignificant from your point of view, as you view large-area maps in your atlas with majestic detachment from the comfort of your armchair, but from the point of view of the ancient Israelites, it was a lot closer to where they were living than the Nile was. AnonMoos 19:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that Genesis 15:18 says Nahar which does not apply to wadis. Nor the fact that before anyone ever came up with a claim that the border was wadi el arish that Nachal Mitzrayim was always translated Nilus in Aramaic, nor does it change the fact that long before KJV and its "brook" translation, Rashi noted in his commentary on the word Shihor in Joshua: "From the Shihor: that is the Nile the same as Nachal Mizraim." Kuratowski's Ghost 19:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

That's nice -- that's your interpretation. Many other people (including scholars in the field) have different interpretations, and the purpose of Wikipedia is not to give you a personal playground to suppress beliefs which you happen to disagree with. AnonMoos 01:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Can't you guys read? The South border is clearly delineated in Numbers 34:4-5 and Ezekiel 47:19. Both describe a river/brook that starts from Kadesh Barnea and goes to the sea. It cannot be the Nile, it can only be the Wadi Al Arish. If you do not trust your own eyes and brain and must read what experts think about it, go to the ISV encyclopedia. Emmanuelm 18:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Jordan

The circuit of Canaan in Numbers 34 doesn't include the territory of the modern state of Jordan at all, which is presumably why Jordan was left off of earlier versions of the list in that section. Please try to remember that the purpose of this page is reporting on accepted Biblical interpretation, not collecting a series of extremist ultra-right Zionist irredentist fantasy maps. (Funny how the extremist ultra-right Zionist irredentist fantasy maps seem to coincide with Arab propaganda claims!) AnonMoos 01:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You are forgetting the territory east of the Jordan. Half of Manasseh, Gad and Reuben lived east of the Jordan [...] Kuratowski's Ghost 01:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm not forgetting that -- I drew every single Bezier curve bounding the pink area in image Image:Early-Historical-Israel-Dan-Beersheba-Judea.png by hand, and agonized to some degree over almost every little indentation or protuberance.

What I am doing is calling attention to the fact that there seems to be an unfortunate creeping tendency in the evolution of this article to increasingly define the land of Israel syncretistically, combining the most expansive features of several different definitions given in the Bible, even though these different definitions actually are conflicting in many cases. You take some parts from the circuit of Canaan in Numbers 34 (even though this doesn't include any territory east of the Jordan river), stitch it together with other parts from the descriptions of the territories allocated to the twelve tribes (even though those territories don't go anywhere near the Euphrates), etc. etc., and try to cover up any remaining geographic gaps with a vague hand-waving appeal to Genesis 15:18, and then screw in the neck-bolts, tell your assistant Igor to turn on the electricity, and scream "IT'S ALIVE!".

If this article is to have any integrity, then it should stick more or less closely to one Biblical definition, or should present clearly the conflicts between the different Biblical definitions. What it should NOT do is eclectically and quasi-arbitrarily pick and choose different bits from different Biblical definitions, and then present the result as supposedly being THE Land of Israel. AnonMoos 02:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[...] and if you accept Genesis 15:18 as a defining passage it goes all the way to the Euphrates, that certainly includes Jordan and parts of Iraq.

Does it?? The circuit of Canaan as defined in Numbers 34 goes a long way into Syria without including any territory in modern Jordan, while the empire of Solomon included a trading outpost at Tiphsah on the upper Euphrates in northern Syia without remotely approaching near the territory of modern Iraq. 02:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Aaah ok I see where you are coming from. The way I see it, well not me alone, this is basically the way it was taught to me, is that the borders are indeed stitched together from all the vague references. Numbers 34, deals explicitly with the division of land amongst the 9 1/2 tribes and ends off with only a very vague definition of the land on the east of the Jordan. You understand Numbers 34 to be the main defining verse, while I and others see Genesis 15 as the main one. The area allocated to the tribes is indeed a smaller area than what one gets from Genesis 15 and the other verses. And as the article points out the land finally settled does not actually match the land allocated in Numbers. Ok all this needs to be clarified in the article. The Talmud has some terminology relating to this, borders of the patriarchs and borders for those coming out of Egypt. Kuratowski's Ghost 03:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You are also ignoring the fact that irredentists base their irredentism on the Biblical passages, they dont make up maps based on nothing. Thats why their maps are relevant to the article regardless of their political beliefs. Kuratowski's Ghost 01:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That's nice -- the irredentist maps could possibly go on this page if they were presented alongside a relevant political discussion which would place them in the proper context, and provided that they were not presented in such a manner as would confuse their interpretations with the mainstream scholarly consensus. Unfortunately, the manner in which you referenced the irredentist maps in the article accomplished neither of these two goals. I don't know that I'm excessively impressed by the way that you insist on applying alleged strict rigorous scholarship with reference to the identification of the "River/Brook of Egypt", and yet then turn around and devote space to arguments between ultra-rightist rabbis about how much territory the "Land of Israel" includes around the Shatt-al-Arab area (a debate that to my mind closely resembles the debates about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin).

Next I expect you to start repeating the Arab propaganda about how the two blue stripes on the Israeli flag represent the Euphrates and the Nile, and how there's a map of the Israeli Egypt-to-Iraq conquest plan on the wall of the Israeli Knesset! AnonMoos 02:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well the Arab propaganda matches what the irredentists say because both are based on looking at the verses in the Bible! I'm picking up a vibe that you are very sensitive about what is said in the article because of how the statements relate to modern extremist politics. Unfortunately its only the extremists who ever seem to discuss the issue and draw maps, if you can find maps that are purely scholarly it would be most welcome. Kuratowski's Ghost 03:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have enough of a bee in my bonnet about this to revert, someone who cares, please step in. Kuratowski's Ghost 02:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Islamic/Arabic Name

Since the land of Israel is a religio-historic name, I think that if we are to include Arabic names, they should be from the Hadith and Koran. A simple google search of Koran and Land of Israel gives me this quote (of course I am not expert on this and it took me five seconds):

"And thereafter Allah said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd.'" [Qur'an 17:104]

And it has come to pass.. the descendants of Jacob have mingled with other races the world over, and many have now returned to the Holy Land. And they are "gathered together" in a "mingled crowd", comprising, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Caucasians, Africans, Indians, Aryans and, mostly, Jewish and Muslim Semites. Indeed, it has come to pass.

As far as I can tell, it uses Holy Land and Promised Land but no Filastin. Comments?

Guy Montag 22:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Palestine is not a term for this concept; it is a secular term for the region. Stating that Filastin is the Arabic translation of Eretz Israel is misleading. —Aiden 15:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why is "Land of Israel" ok to be in the intro of Palestine but not vice versa?--Andrew c 03:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, Eretz Yisrael is a historical and Biblical name for the region based on Torah, while Palestine is a secular name given by the Romans. "Filastin" is not an accurate Arabic translation of this Biblical concept. —Aiden 19:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

going through the history

This edit, at least to me who doesn't know that much about the topic, seems to explain the concept in much clearer terms. I like how the geographic location is explained, and it seems much less vague and overly concise as the current intro. Why were these revisions deleted? Is there any way some of the helpful information can be restored, or is it inaccurate for some reason? (Kuratowski's Ghost (talk · contribs) did the revert citing rv to last version with factually accurate and neutral intro)--Andrew c 13:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly its not known as "Palestine" in English its known as the "Land of Israel", duh. Palestine in modern usage refers to the PA autonomous regions. It was not known as Canaan, as one will see when reading further Canaan referred to a particular area within the Land of Israel lying strictly west of the Jordan. Reading further the modern states listed in the intro also did not accurately reflect the entire region defined in the Bible. It also missed the most important aspect the religious nature of the concept. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Meaning...?

Nowhere does the article state what the name Yisrael or Israel means. Would someone who knows kindly put it in.Angrynight 23:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Done. See Land of Israel#Definitions of the term and its earliest roots. IZAK 13:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I am kid in 5th grade wondering...........

i am a kid in 5th grade wondering when Joesph had a dream they were all bowing down to him, Jacob said. "You expect me and my wife and you're brothers to bow down to you?" who was his new wife? It can't be Leah of course, since she was with Esao. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.131.179.66 (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Leah was with Esau? I must have missed that episode :D Kuratowski's Ghost 14:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You've got all mixed up. Jacob had two wives - Leah and Rachel, and two concubines - Bilhah and Zilpah. There is a Midrash which says that Leah was supposed to marry Esau, who was an "rasha" (evil person), so she cried her eyes out, and that's the reason her eyes were dim. Of course, she married Jacob, although only through her father's cunning. Eliyyahu 15:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

State of Israel is a modern secular country ??

Oh, please - there is the rabbinocracy which decides who is Jewish or not and what is kosher (and allowed to be sold) and Jewish holidays and Jew-only towns and live animal sacrifices on the Temple Mount. (and the great mystery of who appoints the rabbinocracy) Fourtildas 04:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? And what are you doing here? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate to agree ( sort of ) with him, but the modern state of Israel is NOT a secular country, there is a strong religious influence on the governmental policies. But at the same time it is not a Complete Theocracy. Maybe "Modern Secular country" should be changed to a "Modern Jewish Country" and explain how religion has influence on the gov, but not total control yisraeldov 13:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The Land of Israel in Jewish law (Halakha) and Heradi position on living in E'Y

This article seems to imply that all Heradi Poskim hold there is no Mitzva to live in Eretz Yisrael ? Was the Ramban not Heradi? What about the Gra? The BS'T ? R'Simcha HaKohen Kook Shlita? Many Heradi Poskim hold it is a mitzva to Live in E'Y and lead by example. yisraeldov 13:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Bible is not objective or accurate historical source...

For this photo, you showed overview of lands inhabited by Isralites, based on the Bible. You must be kidding if you are going to argue that the bible is accurate and objective source to use for mainstream science of history? I wonder how much lies have been spilled as a result of lies perpetrated by the Bible and Qur'an? How many lives have been lost due to complete lies and imaginary friends, such as Jesus, Allah, and other characters from Christian, Muslim and Jewish religious fantasy books. Don't you agree that the Bible cannot be source for mainstream scientific research of history? Bosniak 06:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither is Berossus, Herodotus, Tacitus, Saxo Grammaticus, the Encylopedia Britannica or CNN ... Kuratowski's Ghost 02:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this idea that the Bible is not an entirely accurate source. I think it's absurd to compare especially Enyclopedia Britannica's accuracy to the Bible. Like the Bible, I too could question CNN's accuracy, but I think the point should be that the article shouldn't so heavily rest on the Bible alone... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.168.156 (talk) 07:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

a small pov point

In the first paragraph "what is considered to be the historic and divinely ordained/given territory of the Jewish People." seems technically pov. Could it be slightly reworded to "what they consider to be the historic and divinely ordained/given territory of the Jewish People."? Michael2314 21:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

ok I'll give it a try. Michael2314 22:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

New map

I added a map of the Land of Israel, as defined in Numbers and Ezekiel. At first, I looked for a similar map but, to my surprise, could not find one that clearly displayed the names of the cities and mountains as spelled in the Bible. This information is 2,000 year old, yet no one drew this map before. Two days later, it was done! Why have I never seen this map before? Is there a big conspiracy or a religious edict I am not aware of? Emmanuelm 01:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Your map is not right by the order of Halacha l'maaser. The true map is by the order of Bereishit, as guided by Rav Avraham Shapira Ztl and HaRav HaGaon Mordechai Eliyahu, relating to the works of Tevozot HaAretz and Rav M. Eliyahu's commentary on the Kitzur Shulchan Arukh. Even Chafetz Chaim Zt'L would disgree with this map- Rakach

Wow, Rakach, your knowledge is truly impressive. Could you please produce the "correct" map for all to see? As I said in the map page, it is based on several sources, mainly the The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Online. I would love to read the discussion of the learned men you mentioned and correct my map accordingly. In the meantime, stop deleting it. Emmanuelm 15:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Halachically l'maaser, the map is the goyishe view, not the Jewish view. In the meantime, its being deleted.

Hey, anonymous Halachi, Wikipedia is not Kosher; rabbis do not make the rules here. I thought I made myself clear in the above comment: do not delete this map unless you have another one to show! Sheeesh. Emmanuelm (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

So who made the rule that the map you have concocted from your chosen Bible-believing sources should stay unless someone produces another map? If you look at real peer-reviewed academic sources, you will find that there is a lot of uncertainty about the location or even the existence of locations mentioned in the Bible. Too much uncertainty to draw a map - it would have so many alternate lines and dots on it as to be unreadable. So please tell us the WP Policy that says your creation (original research?) should not be trashed.

There are people who make maps of magical "ley lines" - according to your thinking their maps should appear in WP until someone produces an alternate map of magical "ley lines". Of course, any map of magical "ley lines" is a POC like your map and should be trashed.

WP Policy says you have to provide peer-reviewed sources if available,your creation must be deleted or moved to the talk page until you provide them. There is no shortage of peer-reviewed sources - just Google and you will find many, but few will agree with your concocted map.

Better yet, why not submit your creation to a peer reviewed journal - since a brilliant guy like you has spent two whole days on it it will surely be accepted for publication and then be incorporated into textbooks so college students will receive the benefits of your excellent superior brilliant genius. Fourtildas (talk) 07:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The map is rather bizarre. It includes territories the Israelites never inhabited (Lebanon, mostly), but excludes territories they did rule - Bashan and Gilead. john k (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, John. For example, in the following verses of Numbers, the tribes of Gad and Reuben were given land clearly outside of this border.

But I disagree that it the map is "bizarre". I would use the word "hypothetical". I did not trace a map of the Israel that was, I traced the map that the Bible (God) dictated, following step by step the Numbers and Ezekiel text. That's how it came out; I do not pretend to understand. You are surprised because you have in mind the map of the historical Israel, the Israel that truly was, which looks like Image:1759 map Holy Land and 12 Tribes.jpg. Theory vs. history, that's all. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That map is pretty theoretical, too - there is no evidence that the Israelites ever controlled Tyre or Sidon. john k (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Land of Canaan vs Land of Israel -- needs clarification

I think there should be a paragraph in the introduction discussing the difference (or absence thereof) between the Land of Israel and Canaan. This discussion is also absent in the Canaan page; I left a similar request in the talk page. Emmanuelm 16:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I made a joking reference to the "Land of the Zionist Entity", which I promptly reverted. Perhaps that's all we need, a compromise in the form of the name "Zionist Entity" ;-) 204.52.215.13 21:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Where does Ezekiel mention Ezion-Geber?

Or Eilat-Taba? or the Gulf of Aqaba?

The passage about the South border says Ezekiel 47:19 And the south side southward, from Tamar even to the waters of strife in Kadesh, the river to the great sea. And this is the south side southward. (KJV)

Therefore, the border goes from Tamar-Engeddi on the shore of the Dead sea, to Kadesh Barnea, then follows the brook of Egypt to the Sea. That's what I mapped. Where did you guys find the other stuff? Emmanuelm (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I edited the text to follow Ezekiel 47:19. Emmanuelm (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection requested for this page

I requested semi-protection for this page today. This will block IP edits. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Land of Israel and State of Israel

This article is about religious beliefs, sourced to the Bible, etc., except for the section "Land of Israel and State of Israel".

The latter section is blatant soapboxing on behalf of the Zionist political movement, which bases its territorial claims on the Biblical "promised land" notion.

The lengthy quote from a political document ( Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel ) is not neutral or unbiased.

The arcane digression about inscriptions on 20th century coins clearly does not belong in an article about religious beliefs (if that is the topic - I wish WP would require that the topic of an article be stated clearly, it might discourage people from sticking in irrelevant cruft).

The absurd statement "in 20th century political usage, the term 'Land of Israel' usually denotes ..." needs a citation - I have never heard a 20th century political usage of this term (except by religious believers, if you can call that political).

I will soon move this section to this talk page unless someone can fix it. Or explain what the topic of the article is, if not religious beliefs. Fourtildas (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Fourtildas, all of us think that the purpose of this article is plainly obvious, but you proved us wrong, so I will explain it for you: there are thousands (millions?) of Jews willing to die today to defend this abstract belief, thus making it both political and actual. How actual? A search for "land of Israel" in Google News returned 225 media articles in the last month; pick your citations from the list. I think the part about the state of Israel (the "irrelevant cruft") should stay. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Gevulot Haaretz vs Greater Israel

Ghost, don't just delete, edit the text to improve the article. I'll re-introduce the 10 Agorot controversy elsewhere in the article. Emmanuelm (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Promised land

Eretz Israel can mean a number of things: The current Israel, the Israel of 1970 (Including Gaza and Judea and Samaria), the Israelite kingdom, and also the biblical 'promised land'.

I believe this article lacks some basic distinction between the differnt meannings and that this should be addressed to.

Thoughts? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The article already has a section about contemporary uses of the term. As for Promised Land and the Israelite kingdom, they have their own page. So do the Holy Land and the Land of Canaan. I recently added a paragraph to clarify these closely-related term; you may want to add to it. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The ambiguation needs to be dealt with in the intro. If the article only discusses the "promised land", then it should be titled as such rather than with a term which has multiple meannings. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me repeat: be bold, edit the article. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking I may have made an error, I missed your note that 'Promised Land' already exists and moved the article... I'm thinking the best way to handle the structural problem of the article is just merge the two. thoughts? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

p.s. after the material is merged, we can recreate a "Land of Israel (ambiguation)" page to refer to the three possibilities. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I think the disambiguation should be under Israel (disambiguation). Most of the items are already there except Canaan, Promised Land and Holy Land. You may want to fix this. You may also add to the Land of Israel vs. Land of Canaan paragraph, which I am still attempting to save from deletion by Mr Ghost, who is so knowledgeable he feels no need to discuss his changes. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to take a step back from this issue for now, and discuss it fully at a future date when I have more time on my hands to delve into related sources.

cheers. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Land of Israel vs. Land of Canaan

Ghost, one of the five pillars of Wikipedia is the WP:NPOV policy, which states : When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page. I sourced the opinion that the Land of Israel is a renaming of the Land of Canaan to mark its sanctification. Interestingly, I wrote an identical paragraph in the Canaan article and not one objected. The proper Wikipedia protocol for dispute resolution is not to delete my opinion but to write down yours, with references, alongside mine. Add, don't delete. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ghost, Numbers defines the Land of Israel as West of the Jordan, as demonstrated in my map. What do you do with this? Emmanuelm (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it defines Eretz Kna'an as west of the Jordan. It also explains that two and half tribes settled east of the Jordan in the region called Gilead. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Numbers 34:10-12 (NIV): For your eastern boundary, run a line from Hazar Enan to Shepham. 11 The boundary will go down from Shepham to Riblah on the east side of Ain and continue along the slopes east of the Sea of Kinnereth. [e] 12 Then the boundary will go down along the Jordan and end at the Salt Sea.

Ezekiel 47:18 (NIV) On the east side the boundary will run between Hauran and Damascus, along the Jordan between Gilead and the land of Israel, to the eastern sea and as far as Tamar. This will be the east boundary.

Ghost, I am sincerely interested in knowing how rabbis understand these two very precise and similar definitions of the Land of Israel (not Canaan, you are mistaken) and how they understand why, in the next paragraphs (Numbers 34:13-15), this land in given to only nine and a half tribes, the remainder being given land outside of it. Please enrich the article, don't censor it. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ezekiel's borders of the Land of Israel exclude Gilead but Ezekiel's borders are supposed to apply to end times when all tribes will receive parallel strips of land west of the Jordan - such borders have never existed in history. The passage in Numbers clearly uses the expression Eretz Kna'an for the borders it defines west of the Jordan given to 9 1/2 tribes. The expression Eretz Yisrael (Land of Israel) is not used in Numbers, it came into being at a later period to refer to all the land of promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My mind just blew. I am completely outgunned. Emmanuelm (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What about Milkhemet Mitzvah?

The article does not mention Jewish holy war, Milkhemet Mitzvah. Isn't it limited to the Land of Israel? This concept is not clarified in both articles. I know nothing about this, but would like to. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Page move

I'd request an explanation on why this article, introduced with [i], was moved to remove it's reference source. [1]

In Jewish belief, The Land of Israel (Hebrew: אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, Eretz Yisrael,) is the region of land which, according to the Hebrew Bible, was given by God to the Jewish people.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

New map of Greater Israel

After much procrastination, I finally produced a map of Greater Israel as defined in Genesis 15. It is very vague, to reflect the vagueness of this passage. If you can find a source that locates the tribes left unlocated, let me know and I will fix it. Oh, and for those who will, undoubtedly, think this map all wrong, please produce the "real" map or shut up. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Your map is almost the definition of original research. Sorry about all that hard Photoshop work, but it must be removed. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

From WP:NOR: Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy. If you feel you must go on with this threat, I will meet you at the images for deletion page. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a threat, just a friendly reminder of Wikipedia policies. Unverified research cannot be accepted and the map must go.

Image:Davids-kingdom.jpg is original research, deleted

To your relief, the map with the original research wasn't the one by you (I was misled by your link to a page with two maps), but the one lifted from the creationist site "Bible-history.com", purporting to show the extent of King David's Kingdom. I have removed the links to it from all articles. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I undid your deletions, for the same reason. I suggest you first discuss your concerns in the talk page of the image before posting it on the images for deletion page. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that even though I should have, I haven't deleted the image yet, only the links to it. The reason is not original research, as I stated because I got the impression you had drawn it yourself, but its provenance. See WP:RS and WP:V. "Bible-history.com" is a Bible-literalist creationist site and as such not particularly concerned with historical accuracy. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That itself sounds very POV MeteorMaker. Presumably one can be Bible-literalist creationist and still be concerned with historical accuracy. So let's just stick to the accuracy of this particular map. How about we restore it, and discuss it first. StAnselm (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's POV, but I personally wouldn't say a site with a mission statement such as this [2] qualifies as a reliable source:

"BIBLE HISTORY ONLINE BELIEVES ...

That the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are verbally inspired of God and are without error as originally written, and that they are the authoritative Word of God; the only infallible rule of faith and practice for the Christian life." [...]

"Our goal is to aid students and teachers of the Scriptures with Biblical and historical information for the purpose of furthering the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is our desire that He would be glorified and that He would equip the readers with an insight into discerning truth from error seeing that Biblical and historical studies delve into an area that has been researched by the scholarly community, whom many are unbelievers and seem to be antagonistic toward the evidence brought forth from the historical accuracy of the Biblical account, and attempt to persuade the unlearned that the Bible cannot be substantiated by history. On the contrary, historical evidence has brought many in scholarly circles to an awareness that the wealth of documentation found in both the Old and New Testaments, unparalled in history, along with the insights of the recent scenes discovered from the past, give a stirring hope to the soul that the Bible is indeed a God-Breathed Book".

MeteorMaker (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with StA on all points. Let us not be hasty in trashing this map. Since Biblical texts didn't come illustrated with graphics, there is no authoritative map. It seems to me that by the strict standard MM is attempting to apply, every attempt at depicting what is described in the scriptures would have to be disqualified as OR. The only question to consider should be whether this particular map fairly represents what is stated in the Biblical text(s), with reasonable accuracy. Provenance (mission statements notwithstanding) should not come into the picture. It would be useful to have the map back in the two articles to facilitate discussion purely based on accuracy. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no authoritative map, and for a very good reason. We simply don't know the extent of David's kingdom. There isn't even any extrabiblical evidence that he ever existed. Wikipedia should not make any attempts to create such a map or lend credence to one dreamt up by somebody with a self-admitted agenda. Scoffing at science because it doesn't share the view that the Bible is without error, and circular reasoning ("The Bible is correct about David's kingdom because everything it says is confirmed in the Bible") aren't exactly the hallmarks of a reliable source either. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And the guidelines for reliable sources here on Wikipedia are really vague, as I guess they need to be. The belief statement posted above hardly constitutes religious extremism - there would be millions of people who would accept that statement about the Bible. StAnselm (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You know what they say about flies and feces. Doesn't mean we need an article that promotes recreational coprophagy. Facts are facts and religious beliefs are religious beliefs. Wikipedia cannot begin to blur the line between the two just because millions of people happen to have taken unprovable things on faith. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

But are you disputing the facts of the map in question? Sorry, I just read your above comment. StAnselm (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The caption need not claim that "this was the extent of David's kingdom". It need only say "this is the approximate extent of David's kingdom per the Biblical account" — provided it is indeed reasonably faithful (no pun intended) to the latter. I leave it to the experts to determine whether that is so. The fact to be presented is that the map depicts the Biblical boundaries fairly (if it does). This makes no judgment of whether or not the Biblical account itself is factual or not, scientifically or otherwise. If, on the other hand, this map doesn't accord well with the text, then it would be time to look for a better map. Is the map accurate (according to the Biblical text, not according to extrabiblical evidence), or isn't it? Hertz1888 (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

For the reason pointed out above by StAnselm, "x is true according to the Bible" is likely to be read as "x is true, period" by millions of people, some of which may be using Wikipedia. That in itself makes endorsing Bible-derived information problematic. I have no problem with presenting Biblical material that has been corroborated by other historical sources or archeological finds. However, www.Bible-history.com's map doesn't even jibe with the Bible. It merrily incorporates large swaths of Turkey for instance, which is speculation I doubt any serious scholar would state as bald fact. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I am no expert on the subject. We have in Wikimedia another map of the same kingdom, also linked in the article. A Google images search for Kingdom of Israel returns many other maps. They all look similar to me, give or take the historical inaccuracy. Meteor, which one is the "correct" map? Emmanuelm (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You will note that I've left the links to that other map intact, because it's far less speculative and isn't entirely devoid of verifiability. Re the result of your Google search, I don't see one map that remotely corroborates Bible-history.com's. You probably agree that Wikipedia should maintain a higher academic standard than sites like Rapturechrist.com, Christian Churches of God and Les Amis d'Israël anyway. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I will now proceed to delete the links to the map and mark the image for deletion. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? I didn't think we'd reached a consensus. StAnselm (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not necessary to remove material that clearly violates WP rules. But by all means, if you can find academic support for that map, feel free to present it. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Meteor, please be constructive. Tell us which map will satisfy you. If none is good enough for you, take a pen and draw it yourself. If you need tecnical help, I will gladly help you. The wiki "ummah" will judge your work. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Inventing maps oneself seems to be the epitome of original research, so I politely decline your offer. :) MeteorMaker (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to repeat: From WP:NOR: Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy. Please look beyond this narrow argument. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You can probably see where that interpretation of WP:NOR would lead. Anybody could write any silly statement, take a screenshot of it, and upload it to WP and nobody would be able to correct it because "pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy". I doubt even you would be able to resist the temptation to delete a map that gives the precise location of Santa Claus's workshop as the North Pole. Invented maps clearly fall under WP:NOR. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There will be no problem to use such a map in an article talking about Santa Claus if that was an established fact about the Santa Claus story. Just like you have maps of MiddleEarth. Anyway, the Bible is not fiction or fantasy like you claim, it's your POV. take it elsewhere. THE MAP IS NOT INVENTED BY USERS. IT'S INVENTED/DESCRIBED/DETAILED BY THE BIBLE and THEREFORE FITS THIS ARTICLE EXACTLY. 79.182.116.232 (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't remember claiming that the Bible is fiction or fantasy and I apologize if I hurt your religious feelings. However, that map is not in the Bible, it's somebody's extremely loose interpretation of a few vague passages, which he has taken greater liberties with than anybody else who has tried to reconstruct the boundaries of David's kingdom. That somebody has posted it on a site that doesn't quite qualify as a reliable source, and the map is not verifiable, which is the reason it has to be deleted unless somebody can find at least one serious scholar that has backed it. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not religious, but you are anti religious, and it's the sole point of trying to erase factual data, i.e. the biblical description of the united monarchy. It's actually not loose at all. The conquests are detailed and described quite accurately from Levo-Hamath to the River of Egypt. The estimated borders of the monarchy appear like told you before in many maps and are an established WP:RS fact. We could use other maps [3], which were also used before, but not instead of, but in addition, as this one is actually better. 79.181.17.163 (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If so, could you please show me at least one map from a reputable source that corroborates the one lifted from "Bible-history.com"? The map you linked to, on the gov.il site, looks nothing like it - it does not extend deep into Turkish territory for one thing.

Re your assertion that "the conquests are detailed and described quite accurately", could you provide a source for that claim, or is it something you have taken on faith? When you say the Bible-history.com map is "better", what exactly do you base that judgement on? MeteorMaker (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

See below. The bible says that the Kingdon at David's time extended "מנהר הפרת בצפון ועד לעציון גבר שבדרום", that is the the River Prat (Eupherates) to Etzion Gever in the south. The map is therefore pretty accurate, and it says estimated. 79.181.17.163 (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Pretty accurate" in your opinion = totally contradicts the source in reality. See below. MeteorMaker (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem? The bible says "beyond Tipsah". It is a site on the western bank of the Euphrates. That's what the map shows. Amoruso (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

How silly to claim it is OR. This is a map from Bible History Online. Legitimate. This is a very nice map drawing the boundaries according to the Bible. The ridicilous claim that it's likely to be read as fact by people seems like missionary atheism. The guy Meteromaker is obviously claiming that the Bible is false, but it's not a place for that missionary work. He can do it in other sites. The readers can decide, and it's not even a question of tha there - it's simply a description of David's kingdom. Yes, David's kingdom in terms of its boundaries (there is little doubt that he existed after the disovery of the tel dan stele) is mostly derived from the bible. It was after all a long time ago. it doesn't matter. 79.182.116.232 (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read this section in its entirety and try to come up with a valid counter-argument to the arguments I presented. I don't think you got one thing right of what I said. Also, you may find this reading enlightening. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop with the rv fighting and the condescending behavior. You have no arguments to remove the picture. 79.181.17.163 (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

...besides violation of WP:RS and WP:V? I'd appreciate if you made a serious attempt to refute my arguments instead of just ignoring them. Thank you. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The one who's ignoring the facts is you. Btw, if you make a good argument to change this picture to the Israeli one, then good. You have to make an argument while the many maps from so many sources are wrong / alternatively suggest to change to one of them. You haven't done that. Fact is the borders are estimated according to the passages describing the extent of the kingdom, like I explained several times. You have no arguments, so you might as well cease now. Goodbye. 79.181.17.163 (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What maps, except the disputed one, have I said are wrong? The fact that you haven't been able to find a single one that corroborates it is telling. Again, when you say the disputed map is "better", what exactly do you base that judgement on? Do you have an interpretation of the Bible that other mapmakers don't? MeteorMaker (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem? The bible says "beyond Tipsah". It is a site on the western bank of the Euphrates. That's what the map shows. If you want another map, say so. Amoruso (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Where does the Bible say "beyond Tipsah"? It's not in my Bible. Also, the exact location of Tipsah is unknown. MeteorMaker (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

First, everyone calm down. Here are my thoughts:

• If this image is really from Bible-history.com, then isn't it a copyrighted image that can't be included on Wikipedia?
• I agree with Meteor that the map is walking the line of OR, though I guess all maps for this subject matter would be somewhat based on WP:SYNthesis of Biblical materials.
• Why does this article need as many maps as it does? Why is Image:Greater Israel map.jpg sufficient in itself?

This is just a starting point. Let's see what everyone else has to say. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the creator of the image has granted us the permission. Since it is from Bible-history, it presents no real OR issues at all. Worrying about copyright and OR at the same time is practically self-contradictory. Bible-history is allowed to do all the research and synthesis they want. I urge people to read the policies, confusing as they may be, and see how they are used by other editors before saying it breaks this, it breaks that. Emmanuelm's, Hertz1888's, StAnselm's and most of the anon's comments are in line with policy. Meteormaker is saying many things, some of them right, but some of them quite inconsistent with policy. E.g. the answer to a worry that "x is true according to the Bible" is likely to be read as "x is true, period" is SO WHAT. Meteormaker is mixing fact and belief. What we do is not present beliefs, but facts about beliefs, which is how the map should be presented.

To repeat others' (including Meteormaker at times) points: The question is, do the boundaries expressed in the map represent any sort of mainstream / non-insane view of what the bible says is true? Is it reasonable as expressing some kind of upper bound of the extent of the kingdom as described in the bible? A caption might say this is a maximalist biblical literalist interpretation of the kingdom's boundaries. This is quite different from trying to represent academic views as to what the actual extent of biblical Israel was. If this is satisfied, RS OR, etc is irrelevant. What may be relevant is neutrality, esp undue weight. We don't want to give excessive weight to fringe views, but this just amounts to asking the questions above. But let's not get engage in futile debates using inapplicable rules. John Z (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you find that granting of permission? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Click on the image. Amoruso got it from Rusty Russell at bible-history.John Z (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your views. Permission is not the issue, neither is OR (that stems from an initial misunderstanding who had drawn the map). As observed by John Z, the map clearly represents a fringe view (to the point of having no support whatsoever in established science nor from other fringe sites - at least no corroboration has surfaced), but the main issue is RS. Bible-history.com's mission statement explicitly dismisses researchers that don't share the site's position that the Bible is inerrant and infallible as "antagonistic unbelievers", whose false teachings the site says it doesn't want students to become "persuaded" by, and to this end provides and produces material to "aid students and teachers for the purpose of furthering the gospel of Jesus Christ". I think it would be difficult to find a less NPOV or reliable source. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are simply not true. As demonstrated, the map draws from biblical and Jewish law sources and make a very accurate estimation. It's what the comment says. Because it is a picture, it makes no difference what the views of Bible History are or whether you agree to them. With all due respect, NPOV or reliable have nothing to do with this. You are grasping at straws. See below. John Z is indeed correct. Since these boundaries are the mainstream view and interpretation of the bible, perhaps a bit drawing from the north west tip, but still very reasonable, the map is therefore perfect. I have no problem with adding "A caption might say this is a maximalist biblical literalist interpretation of the kingdom's boundaries.". Amoruso (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Further note to the respectable John Z and HelloAnnyong, just to remind that Bible History itself references their source for the map, and it is indeed a very reasonable drawing of the sources: "The erection of the new capital at Jerusalem introduces us to a new era in David's life and in the history of the monarchy. He became a king on the scale of the great Oriental sovereigns of Egypt and Persia, with a regular administration and organization of court and camp; and he also founded an imperial dominion which for the first time realize the prophetic description of the bounds of the chosen people. Ge 15:18-21 During the succeeding ten years the nations bordering on his kingdom caused David more or less trouble, but during this time he reduced to a state of permanent subjection the Philistines on the west, 2Sa 8:1 the Moabites on the east, 2Sa 8:2 by the exploits of Benaiah, 2Sa 23:20 the Syrians on the northeast as far as the Euphrates, 2Sa 8:3 the Edomites, 2Sa 8:14 on the south; and finally the Ammonites, who had broken their ancient alliance, and made one grand resistance to the advance of his empire." - this is from "© 2003 Smith's Bible Dictionary (David) by Search Works" You will notice the map's borders are indeed on the Euphrates. The difference contested by Meteormaker is frivolous. He wants it to be further down. As he pointed out himself though, he doesn't know where Tipsah is exactly, so what does he want? http://www.bible-history.com/map-davids-kingdom/map-davids-kingdom_david_smith_s.html Amoruso (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Calm down, Amoruso. :) Again, the map does not jibe at all with the only presented source so far, the Bible. It clearly says the northern boundary of the dominions was Tiphsah, and - contrary to your claim - not one mile "beyond" it. If you have an additional source to support your view with, feel free to present it.

In fact, by showing the unprecedented liberties Bible-history.com's mapmaker has taken with the sources, you help exposing it as an unreliable source. Again, no material has been presented that remotely supports his map. The passage you quote, which incidentally doesn't support the mapmakers conjecture at all that large tracts of Turkey were part of David's kingdom, is taken from - Bible-history.com. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Relevant passages for meteormaker

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09a05.htm "For he had dominion over all the region on this side the River, from Tiphsah (see below) even to Gaza, over all the kings on this side the River; and he had peace on all sides round about him" http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09b14.htm "He restored the border of Israel from the entrance of Hamath unto the sea of the Arabah, according to the word of the LORD, the God of Israel, which He spoke by the hand of His servant Jonah the son of Amittai, the prophet, who was of Gath-hepher." http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09a09.htm And king Solomon made a navy of ships in Ezion-geber, which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom. http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09a22.htm Jehoshaphat made ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir for gold; but they went not; for the ships were broken at Ezion-geber

Entrance of Hamath/Levo Hamath signifies the promised land's northern border of Israel according to halacha: It is mentioned for example here - "So they went up, and spied out the land from the wilderness of Zin unto Rehob, at the entrance to Hamath." http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0413.htm hence the full extension of the promised as detailed here: "So Solomon held the feast at that time, and all Israel with him, a great congregation, from the entrance Hamath unto the Brook of Egypt, before the LORD our God, seven days and seven days, even fourteen days." http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09a08.htm, that is the meaning of "He RESTORED the border of Israel from the entrance of Hamath unto the sea of the Arabah, according to the word of the LORD, the God of Israel".

It's not for you or me to challenge Jewish law, halacha, wikipedia just quotes it, and uses the established estimated maps of these places in the north (hamat and as you can see also "http://scriptures.lds.org/bd/t/38" TIPSHA Thapsacus, on the western bank of the Euphrates, the river being at that point fordable; a boundary of Solomon’s dominions (1 Kgs. 4: 24); and in the south - Ezion-geber, Eloth, Red Sea....

Not too complicated.

Case closed. Don't RV again. 79.181.17.163 (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me as ironic that you yourself provide the sources that prove the disputed map utterly wrong. I suggest you look up the exact geographical location of Hamath (which "signifies the promised land's northern border of Israel"), then compare it to the map.

You said it: "It's not for you or me to challenge Jewish law, halacha, wikipedia." Nor is it for "Bible.history.com". Hence the deletion. MeteorMaker (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Not Hamat, but Tiphsah. Taken both points, the map is astonishingly accurate. Amoruso (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your own source [4] says "The place of this name mentioned in 2 Kgs. 15: 16 is probably within the kingdom of Israel; its site is unknown". Try again. MeteorMaker (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Tipsha is this region on the border between turkey and syria: Carchemish. That purple area near the sea shows the estimated northern conquests/battles at that point, overlapping syria in the south and a little of north from the turkish side. So you see, Hamath and then Tipsha. Draw the lines. Amoruso (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, unknown, that's why estimated. But there is actually a wiki article on the place Thapsacus identifying it with Charchemish, sorry... so it's not known but estimated to be there? The same source you say "try again" says it's on the river, on its west... the bible says "beyond this place".... need I go further? Amoruso (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"For he had dominion over all the region on this side the River, from Tiphsah even to Gaza" (1 Kings 5:4). Well, first of all, that passage doesn't refer to David, it's about his father Solomon. Second, "dominion" seems to indicate regions not in the kingdom proper. Third, the identificaton of Tiphsah with Carchemish is merely conjecture. Fourth, even if you were right, Carchemish is far southeast of the border on the disputed map, which makes it incorrect even with the extreme stretch of your interpretation. MeteorMaker (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

David's conquest, and Salomon his son, is still David's conquest, because Salomon is not the one who did the fighting. This is the empire he received. You should know this basic fact. It's why Salomon built the temple because he didn't have blood on his hands. Anyway, the source you quoted yourself says "iphsah I.e., Thapsacus, on the western bank of the Euphrates, the river being at that point fordable". Western bank of the river. Right on the mark... pretty basic stuff. [5] and anyway, Jewish Law supports the view that David's kingdom stretched and even surpassed the promised land's borders. This is by itself enough, as the concept is not reformist and Halacha counts here as Common Law. Amoruso (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the paternality confusion. :) You have not addressed the other points I made: Why dominions should count as parts of the kingdom proper, who has identified Tiphsah positively with Carcemish, why huge tracts of land northwest of the point the Bible gives as the northernmost point of the dominions have been incorporated by Bible-history.com's frivolous mapmaker. It bears repeating: His map is unique and nobody has been able to find support for it in mainstream or fringe science. It's not even supported by the Bible. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The possible reference of Tipshah to Carchemish is all in the Thapsacus article. If you bothered to read it, you wouldn't ask the question again :) Sorry, but I think we're being repetitiv e here. I have nothing more to add, simply I'll summarize by saying that I've effectively proved that the map is an accurate estimation of the border of David's kingdom, that other maps are very similar and they all draw from the bible and the Jewish law aka Halacha, pertaining to the fact that David Kingdom's strecthed all the way and even beyond the borders of the Promised Land. Biblical scholars and other professors, such as Israel Eldad frequently referred to this. It's how religious Jews view the situation. It doesn't have to be true.. btw. Wikipedia is not here to be "truth". This might all be false, but it's still correct for Wikipedia. You have provided no shred of a valid wikipedia to remove the picture. G'day. Amoruso (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, even if that were a proven fact and not just one theory of many, the map would be inaccurate. You keep repeating that other maps are "very similar" when in fact they disagree completely with the disputed map. For instance, no other map claims that David's kingdom encompassed a good part of southern Turkey, complete with the Mediterranean coast. That is purely the invention of Bible-history.com's mapmaker and not supported in any of the material that has been presented, nor in the Bible. I don't know why you keep insisting the opposite when your claims are so easily checked and disproven. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, completely frivolous. The map extends to the western banks of Euphrates. It's a long river. If you don't know where Tipsah is yourself, you have no argument. Amoruso (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And again: Regardless of which hypothesis you support re the location of ancient Tiphsah on the western bank of Euphrates, the mapmaker has casually and frivolously included a huge tract of Turkey to the northwest of it, about a third of the total area. No other mapmaker has done that, or included areas the Bible names as dominions in the area of the kingdom proper. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Bible-history.com map: RFC

Comments on the dispute detailed in the above two sections welcome. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think this map is one of several interpretations of the Bible and should be shown, along with others, in this and other articles. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, Meteor, so far you have posted more than 60 comments in 5 days in various pages about this image. Stop obsessing about it, I am worried you are making yourself sick. You are also disrupting Wikipedia; from WP:POINT: In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after it has been discredited, repeating it almost without end. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't make this a personal issue, please. The point is, neither you nor Amoruso (the map's original uploader) nor 79.181.17.163 have been able to show that the map has one shred of credibility. The site it's taken from is apparently a one-man effort, with little content besides a large repository of links to often anti-science and partisan sites. It makes no secret of its agenda. It misrepresents the historical sources with merry abandon (case in point: the disputed map, which has no support in the Bible or elsewhere). It's the very antithesis of a reliable source. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Request for Comment tag seems to have been overlooked by the bots, so I just renewed it added it to the list manually. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)MeteorMaker (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of comments in support of "Bible-history.com" and the disputed map from it, I postulate we have consensus to remove the "David's Kingdom" map for good. To the already perfectly valid reasons WP:RS, WP:V and WP:UNDUE, I would like to add WP:FRINGE:

We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. [...]

In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.

MeteorMaker (talk) 08:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

MeteorMaker , I don't think you understand how the process works. You asked for a 3rd opinion, and got one, from John Z, that said you are wrong. Not content with this, you opened an RfC, and got another comment, from Emmanuelm, that said the map is ok to use. In the face of the consensus to keep the map, you can't just declare your desired conclusion to be the result. Please drop this issue. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

John Z did not say anything to that effect, though he did do a fine job of demolishing the OR claim - that neither I nor anybody else has been behind since the initial 10-minute confusion over who drew the map. I believe he got the impression I somehow advocated "suppressing" material from the Bible, but that isn't the case either - the issue is simply, is the map verifiable and not fringe science, is the site it was borrowed from a reliable source, and would including it constitute giving undue weight to a hypothesis that nobody has been able to find one shred of academic support for. And the RfC yielded nil responses from people who hadn't been involved in the discussion already. Besides an attempt to drag the debate down to a personal level, Emmanuelm contributed nothing new to the discussion with that post. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

From RFC: If a reasonable dispute about the boundaries on the map were raised, there may be more of an argument here. A map giving the boundaries of David's kingdom after his death, according to the areas given in the Bible, is relevant to several Biblical and Israel topics whether one believes David was a historical figure or not. My opinion is the map should not be removed. Brando130 (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If the map indeed were according to the areas given in the Bible, that argument would be valid. That doesn't appear to be the case though (see long discussion in preceding section). Also, no corroboration for Bible-history.com's somewhat unorthodox hypothesis has been produced yet. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And not necessarily related to the RFC itself: MeteorMaker, You can go through here one by one and discredit everyone's opinion that doesn't agree with yours, but that doesn't override their opinion or create consensus. And RFC's may take a little while to generate responses. You posting the RFC on 8:17, 16 April 2008 and declaring that you "postulate we have consensus to remove the "David's Kingdom" map for good" at 08:07, 17 April 2008 is a laugh. Good day. Brando130 (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, compared to the rapid influx of posts the day before, a day with no reponses at all seemed a little dull, but I agree it may have been a little premature to declare victory. However, I believe the discussion would benefit from fewer opinions and more serious efforts to produce evidence. Fact-wise, we still don't have anything else than Bible-history.com's mapmaker's original conjecture and a few people's opinion that he must be right. No solid evidence has been presented in support of his idea that David's kingdom encompassed large swaths of Turkey, including the Mediterranean coast, and that dominions, contrary to the account in the Bible, were part of the kingdom proper . MeteorMaker (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MM that the thing to do now is to present evidence. I think the questions to be asked are, in order - (1) Is bible-history an RS itself? - look at the site and the people associated with it in the usual way to check this. If so, the map should probably go in. But there's a good chance the answer to this is no. If we can't agree, go to RS/N (2) Does its specific borders correspond with any biblical scholarship from other RS's? If so, it doesn't matter whether it is an RS itself or not. We just care about what the map "says". This needs more expertise to answer. (3) Does its claim to be supported by the bible in any way hold water. I.e. are there passages that correspond to the borders? This is getting closer to OR but still probably isn't. I think we need people who have contributed here before to help. (4) Do we want to put it in with the disclaimer that this is an (extreme) maximalist biblical literalist interpretation that "includes areas the Bible names as dominions" in addition to "the kingdom proper" - i.e. caption it as kingdom+ dominions? (5) Do we want to use the liberty we may have with images to modify it a bit if we all agree that MM is right that it goes beyond the bible or anyone else in some areas? I've contacted a couple of knowledgeable editors who've contributed to the page, hope they can give some aid. John Z (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks John Z. My answers to the questions based on evidence presented above will be: (1) Probably so, for a biblical site. (2) Yes, of course. (3) Yes, passages posted by the website support the map. Also shown before. (4) Probably not, there is already a disclaimer. (5) Could be also a solution, but not necessary IMO. Amoruso (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And the main problem with the evidence presented, as I've pointed out, is that it's non-existent. We still don't have anything else from the supporters of the map than their opinion that it must be accurate.

Unless we can find at least one reliable source that supports the map, it must be deemed fringe science and the site it's from, consequently, unreliable. As I've shown above, there is not exactly a shortage of other reasons to reject it as an RS: It's a one-man website, outspokenly anti-science and fundamentalist Christian, it explicitly states its mission to counteract the teachings of "antagonistic" and "unbeliever" historians that don't share the site's belief that the Bible is without error. Against that background, it's doubly ironic that the map so totally contradicts the biblical account. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the evidence already exists and was shown to you time and again. Amoruso (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Outside opinion- I don't see a problem with including this map. Israel is mentioned in the bible; this is showing it's approximate boundaries as named, for historical purposes. I need to point out a problem with the {{fact}} and the WP:RS/WP:V concerns- it is sourced; the source is the Bible. The map is "boundaries according to the Bible", ergo, the only way to verify it is to simply make sure the map follows the bible chapters. The chapters/verses are in the map key, and can be verified through an online bible verse site. For example, Numbers 34:1-12, for the red line, and Ezekiel 47:13-20 for the blue line. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, if it followed the Bible- no problem. The problem is, it doesn't. Again: When the Bible says "He restored the border of Israel from the entrance of Hamath unto the sea of the Arabah" (2 Kings 14:25) , the mapmaker frivolously extends the kingdom's territory more than 300 km to the north. When the Bible says "For he had dominion over all the region on this side the River, from Tiphsah even to Gaza" (1 Kings 5:4), the mapmaker merrily ignores the fact that this area was stated to be one or more dominions and incorporates it in the kingdom proper - plus a large part of Turkey to the northwest of even the northernmost possible location of Tiphsah known to conventional science. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit: I noticed there is still some confusion which map we are discussing. This one is the disputed one, not the one with the red and blue line. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoops; I mixed them up. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's YOUR WP:OR: "the mapmaker merrily ignores the fact that this area was stated to be one or more dominions and incorporates it in the kingdom proper". The mapmaker has the liberty of taking the biblical phrase like all people who read the bible do, except you, that is includes Tipsah, which is on the west of the Euphrates river. Where is Tipsah? We don't know, except that it is on the west of the Euphrates, therefore the map is accurate. End of story... Amoruso (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A hobbyist mapmaker can take any liberties with the sources he likes, but the moment he departs from accepted science and invents new continents or new parts of a historical kingdom on a whim, his work becomes fringe science and has no place on Wikipedia. And for the third time, Amoruso: Regardless of which hypothesis you support re the location of ancient Tiphsah on the western bank of Euphrates, the mapmaker has casually and frivolously included a huge tract of Turkey to the northwest of it, about a third of the total area. No other mapmaker has done that, or included areas the Bible names as dominions in the area of the kingdom proper. And again, the discussion would benefit if you refrained from telling us your opinion over and over and instead tried to find academic support for your map. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, nothing more to say. Since Thapsacus (Hebrew: Tiphsah [תִּפְסַח]), was along the western bank of the Euphrates, the map is an excellent estimation. Why are you going in circles and repeating yourself? Nobody agreed with you. The estimation seems very accurate especially since many associate Tiphsah with Carchemish which is partly in Turkey. Btw, that small area in Turkey you can paint away with paintbrush if you don't like it. It's estimation from biblical passage, you're making such a huge deal for some odd reason known only to yourself. Amoruso (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason I have to repeat myself is evident in your above post and many others. Again: Regardless of which hypothesis you choose to believe where the ancient Tiphsah was, the mapmaker has casually and frivolously included a huge tract of Turkey to the northwest of it. No other mapmaker has done that, or included areas the Bible names as dominions in the area of the kingdom proper. That your map is "an excellent estimation" is merely your personal opinion and you have been repeatedly requested to provide academic support for it - so far without result. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What you said makes no sense. Your request for citation also makes no sense. Stop playing the fool. Tipshah is somewhere on the western bank - an estimation will be anywhere along that bank. Anywhere. That part of turkey is still on the western bank of the river. And you can paint brush it if you feel it's a bit too much into turkey. I have to say it's really a waste of time discussing this with you, no offense, since I don't know if you geniunely don't understand or simply trying to do something vicious. By WP:AGF I'd say that you're just not getting it, but it's getting stranger, what with the insensible fact tag (?!)... Amoruso (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Relax, take a pause, read this, come back after a few hours. :) Posting in anger does not help discussion.

Now, we are trying to establish the amount of support your map has in the sources. We have found that our only historical source, the Bible, does not support it: It clearly states that the kingdom's northern border was Hamath (modern Hamah in western Syria (2 Kings 14:25). North of this, the Bible speaks of dominions (1 Kings 5:4). The northernmost point of these dominions is given as "Tipsah", which has not been positively identified but probably is somewhere on the Euphrates (a number of candidates ranging from Carcemish in the north to Deir ez-Zor in the east have been proposed.) Your map not only includes all land between Hamah and Tipsah, but also, unsourced and highly speculative, a large part of southeast Turkey far beyond Tipsah, including the Mediterranean coast.

So much for the claims. However, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether we think it is true. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not angry, just tired of repeating myself. We have established none of what you said. The Bible says the kingdom reached to Tipshah, and the map shows it.. it doesn't say how west of it it could have gone, so the map is still accurate. Again, if that small part you don't like you can paint brush it. Too frivolous to touch. It's an estimation for biblical phrases and a very reasonable one. That's the bottom line. It is your WP:OR to say that they got the bibilical phrases wrong by misreading it. You presented no facts to say that according to the bible, it's not true to say that it reached TIPHSAH somewhere on the western bank and all the way to the west from that angle to the sea. Actually, it's very reasonable to thing that Tipshah wan't some isolated fort, nobody said it was, but it was the eastern boundary. This is all reasonable and an estimation. That's the last thing I'm going to say on the subject.... you still don't have one person to agree with you after RFC etc, so i think it's over. Amoruso (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

John Z agrees entirely with me that the map's proponents need to show how well it corresponds with established science and that the source, Bible-history.com, should be evaluated for reliability. Others who have replied have operated on the faulty assumption that the map is an accurate representation of the biblical account, but have so far failed to refute the point that it depicts a kingdom more than twice the size of what it actually says in the Bible.

For instance, Amoruso, where in the Bible does it say the kingdom reached to Tipsah, as you claim? You now seem to have retracted your earlier claim that "the bible says 'beyond Tipsah'" and agree that there is in fact no support in the sources for the claim that it encompassed large swaths of Turkey. If I understand you correctly, you now claim that the lack of such support is a license to dream up a fantasy map and claim it's "accurate"? MeteorMaker (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, nobody agreed with you, but you keep going and going. You hardly even agree with yourself. Here you posted a map which is exactly the map from another link, to support your claim. Very strange. [6] (you can add that it includes an allied kingdom maybe). How can I argue with you when you keep contradicting yourself? Try to get some support for your contradicting claims, because right now you're alone, and you keep making damages to articles... also, I'll say it one last time, because you keep ignoring what I say. This map is from Bible History Online, which is WP:RS for pictures. It's based on the biblical phrases they posted. If you think they got that some small part of Turkey wrong (although it can be interpreted through Tipsah to the west), then by all means you can add tag to clarify or edit the picture. You can also add that this part was probably an allied kingdom like you posted. Amoruso (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, don't post in anger, you will just regret it later, and please try to resist the temptation to go personal. The facts, which is what we should be discussing:

• You have posted a map in Wikipedia Commons.
• That map is from a one-man Christian fundamentalist site and a stated agenda to counteract "unbeliever" historians' teachings.
• The map, contrary to your claim, has no support in the Bible, as I have shown. If you want to try to refute this, a relevant Bible quote would be helpful, and yet another rehashing of your opinion will not.
• The map has no support neither from established nor fringe science, at least none that has been presented. You are still free to try to find academic support for it.
• The map, contrary to your claim, has no support in the Google search you refer to. None of the maps show an area larger than half of the area your map claims for the kingdom.
• The map you tried to link to in your post above (this one) shows David's kingdom in magenta, plus conquered kingdoms in yellow, for a total area of less than half of your claim. The other colors denote allied and vassal kingdoms, which aren't part of David's kingdom any more than Israel is part of the United States (or vice versa). Additionally, it doesn't show any part of Turkey as being even an ally. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not angry, maybe you are? :) Strange you repeat that. Anyway, I finalized my ideas, but you keep making contradicting facts, and false accusations, so I'll just respond to this one last time one time....

• You have posted a map in Wikipedia Commons: True.
• That map is from Bible History Online: Your accuations over fundamentalism are False. Your WP:OR. And Irrelevant.
• The map has the full support from the bible like I've shown time and again.
• The map is extremely similar to all other maps on the subject. It's even exactly the same to one of the maps you posted.
• This maps you posted (this one) shows what you dispute as an allied kingdom. It's very similar thing.
• Again, if you disagree with a small part of the map, just state it under the picture or alternatively you can edit the picture and post it again. Since it's in commons it's possible to do that. I can get permission for that too. Take initiative and color that northern part if you like. These are the only two options. Please read this carefully because I won't repeat it :) . Amoruso (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Bible-history.com makes no secret of its fundamentalism, particularly its belief in the Bible's infallibility, so I don't understand how you can dispute that, or claim that it's a reliable source. As about your claim that the map is supported by the Bible, I hoped I had made it clear to you that just stating your well-repeated opinion still one more time doesn't cut it. Please tell us where in the Bible you think it says David's kingdom extended north of Hamath. Also, if you think the map is "exactly the same" as any other map, please post a link to that map, and I will redraw your map to conform exactly to it, like you so generously grant me an opportunity to do. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So belief in Biblical inerrancy is now a "fringe theory"? Ridiculous, and if you would like to differ I suggest an education in these matters that goes beyond infidels.org and googling "bible contradictions". Pretty much every Christian outside the mainline denominations (and many within them) believe in exactly the same thing, and even many those that do not hold to inerrancy still see the Bible as a set of texts that deserve to be taken seriously.

(This is Lewis Collard from the Commons by the way, I hate it when WP bullshit gets brought over to the Commons. This is exactly the kind of crap I was trying to get away from when I left here.) 91.125.101.92 (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)