Talk:Jews

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

Origins: a false equivalency where there is none

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

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

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

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

Reference material [1] [2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I've suggested before, why not propose your changes here and wait for other interested editors (not me, I just wanted you to stop adding unsourced and incorrectly sourced content) to comment? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Siefert: Whatever you may put in the article, please follow WP:REFPUNC with regard to having the punctuation precede the <ref>s. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

jytdog, this has been discussed here for weeks. My edits present the field on this topic the way it currently stands. This has been discussed. Please see above.Siefert (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Ur.. irrelevant?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Referencing

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

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

Recent edits

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

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

Changed to

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

Wasn't this reverted? Debresser (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

This is not a "change in tone". This is a completely different statement. Debresser (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

yes that is a good revert; not a valid edit. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a terrible edit. It appears to be sourced but there's no page numbers we can check. Pretty much pov original research. "More recently, some cultural and political criticism of the religious focus of archaeology has prospered an alternative interpretation" is clearly OR. And 'as discussed with Admins'? We can't make content decisions, and a quick look above suggests that some admins discussed it but didn't say go ahead. Doug Weller talk 13:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)