Talk:Jews

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Jew)
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Jews was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Go-jump.svg
For prior discussions of the infobox in the top right corner of the article, please visit Talk:Jews/infobox.


Individual reassessment[edit]

GA Reassessment[edit]

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

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

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

Disputed tag on periods of independence[edit]

Moving this here - is unsourced and disputed

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


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

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

That talkpage discussion shows unanimous consensus for the text as it stood. The tag was added in this edit with the edit summary "United Monarchy's existence is disputed", and no discussion followed. In view of the consensus of all 4 editors in the discussion, I think the correct thing to do is to restore the text and remove the drive-by tagging. To which I will proceed. Debresser (talk) 08:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
In case it isn't obvious, I dispute it. It is also unsourced as I pointed out above. Please source it per BURDEN but better just take it out so we can discuss it, as this section is intended to do. Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
That was not obvious. Okay, perhaps you yourself could find a source or two for this statement? Shouldn't be that hard. Debresser (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
The content is both unsourced and dubious. Most scholarly sources say that whether such a period as the one described in Judges is dubious, and even it it existed, whether the Israelites were independent or something else is unknown. You have now twice added unsourced dubious content to Wikipedia. Please don't do that. The WP:BURDEN is on you to show that the mainstream view is that the Israelites were independent during "the period of the judges". If you want we can hold an RfC as to whether this unsourced and dubious claim should stay in the article; I think you have been around long enough to know how that would turn out. Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Wow you restored it again. Terrible. Please justify the restoration under the policies. Thanks. Like I said, very happy to launch RfC, where your stance will be SNOW rejected. Do we really need that? I will wait til the end of the day and if this is not removed or extremely well sourced, I will launch the RfC. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Of course I restored it. There are 4 editors who agree with this version, and you alone disagree. In any case, since El_C protected the page (IMHO a bit overly protective), I won't be able to add the source till after the protection expires, so please give me till after the Shabbat. After all, what is the hurry; this was in the article for years. Debresser (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)\
You have time to edit war but not to comply with basic WP policies. Great. Please provide diffs of 4 editors "approving" this unsourced, highly dubious content in a putative Good Article. In the meantime I will start the complete waste of everyone's time RfC. This is one for the history books. Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

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

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

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

You will not be able to find good RS making claims that the Israelites were independent during a period (the "biblical judges") that mainstream sources say probably never existed.
The question about what kind of sources is fake in any case. You either have sources that support this statement (which you need to have per WP:BURDEN to restore it), or you don't. Bring sources now, or concede that the content comes out until there is actual consensus for it or an amended version of it. Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Could you please fix that first sentence? I don't understand what you mean. I am, however, surprised by your categorical statement ("you will not be able"). Regarding the period of the United Kingdom I have already found a good source. Also, please don't make any demands here. You are not the one to decide how things should work on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Contemporary historians strongly doubt whether "the period of the biblical judges" existed. Hence, you will not find RS discussing qualities of the Israelites during a probably-nonexistent period. One of the problems with the content is that it treats something that probably didn't exist as though it does. Please put up the sources you actually have to support your restoration of this content, or withdraw your demand that the content stay. If you do the latter we can have the article unlocked and I can withdraw the RfC below and we can get back to normal editing. (and please don't abuse edit notes in the future, as you did here).Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about "abuse edit notes". I do know that I have had it with you bossing people around. Please take a break from this article for 24 hours and calm down. After that, perhaps we can make some progress here.
You post above claims that historians "strongly doubt" and then continues to say "probably didn't exist". So now you have shown your POV. Unfortunately, that POV is not supported by academic sources. Which you will see when I add them. (Not that I have a problem with discussing them beforehand, but not as long as you put out demands. Don't want to retract your futile Rfc, leave it, it will anyways be redundant as soon as I can edit the article.) Debresser (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Please read the article on Biblical judges and the sources cited there. I have written this three times now; glad you are finally actually reading what i am writing. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
The purpose of the lockdown is to reach consensus. You have just expressed your intent to continue edit warring. If you have sources for this statement, please provide them so that we can try to reach consensus. Alternatively, please propose other content.Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Don't twist my words. I said I'll provide sources. Which should resolve the issue. No edit war from my side. Unless you intend to remove the text again after the block expires, in which case you will be edit warring. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
crickets. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

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

What change proposed here? You proposed nothing here. Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
How is this not a proposal? Debresser (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
As others have noted, the purpose of locking down a page during an editing dispute is for the editors to work out acceptable content and sourcing on the Talk page. You proposed nothing here. Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@El_C This repeated lie insults me. I linked to a diff showing a proposal in my previous post here. Please reprimand Jytdog or remove his last post. Alternatively, Jytdog could strike his post himself. Debresser (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Debresser, read WP:PREFER which is policy. Here I will quote it for you: "On pages that are experiencing edit warring, temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus." Not using the page-protection time to present your sources and discuss them, but rather waiting for protection to expire and then just making the changes, is not what protection is for. Please learn and follow policy. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Jytdog, did you read and understand what you just quoted? WP:PREFER says "administrators normally protect the current version", which is what l_C didn't do. That same paragraph also says "can force... to discuss". The operating words are "can" and "discuss". Nowhere does is say that that includes that I "must" discuss (although I did), or "reveal sources". Debresser (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

break[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are also sources and content in the article to which the content linked, Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy), about the questions with regard to historicity of the united kingdom which this content does not take into account or use. Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
To the contrary, the fact that the sources say specifically that (paraphrase) some of the facts in the Biblical narrative are disputed, but that there is nevertheless general agreement that there existed an independent United Kingdom, is precisely what makes it such a good source in this case.
The source is not contradicted by any of the sources you mentioned above, rather summarizes them and adds to them from other sources to come to an overview of the opinions of historians. Debresser (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
You ignored the sources at hand and your own sources to write content falls very short of NPOV. I cannot understand why you are insisting that a) the time periods of the blblical Judges and of the United Monarchy existed (the vast bulk of reliable sources make it clear that the existence of both is not certain) and b) that the Israelites were independent in some form during those two periods (which is like writing "Planets hosting life as we know it have no more than one moon" (we don't actually know if there are planets that host life as we know it; we cannot say anything about their actual qualities).
If we need to say something at this spot in the content, something like would be NPOV and well sourced:

The Israelites become visible in the historical record as a people between 1200 and 1000 BCE.[1] It is not certain if a period like that of the Biblical judges occurred[2][3][4][5][6] nor if there was ever a United Monarchy.[7][8][9][10] There is well accepted archeological evidence referring to "Israel" in the Merneptah Stele which dates to about 1200 BCE;[11] there is debate about the earliest existence of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah and their extent and power, but historians agree that a Kingdom of Israel existed by ca. 900 BCE[8]:169–195[9][10] and that a Kingdom of Judah existed by ca. 700 BCE.[12]

References

  1. ^ Spielvogel, Jackson J. (2012). Western civilization (8th ed. ed.). Australia: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning. p. 33. ISBN 9780495913245. What is generally agreed, however, is that between 1200 and 1000 B.C.E., the Israelites emerged as a distinct group of people, possibly united into tribes or a league of tribes 
  2. ^ For a bibliography of scholars who doubt anything like the period of the Judges ever occurred, see John C. Yoder (1 May 2015). Power and Politics in the Book of Judges: Men and Women of Valor. FORTRESS Press. p. 5. ISBN 978-1-4514-9642-0. 
  3. ^ Marc Zvi Brettler (2002). The Book of Judges. Psychology Press. p. 107. ISBN 978-0-415-16216-6. 
  4. ^ Thomas L. Thompson (1 January 2000). Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written & Archaeological Sources. BRILL. p. 96. ISBN 90-04-11943-4. 
  5. ^ Hjelm, Ingrid; Thompson, Thomas L, eds. (2016). History, Archaeology and The Bible Forty Years After "Historicity": Changing Perspectives. Routledge. p. 4. ISBN 978-1-317-42815-2. 
  6. ^ Philip R. Davies (1995). In Search of "Ancient Israel": A Study in Biblical Origins. A&C Black. p. 26. ISBN 978-1-85075-737-5. 
  7. ^ Lipschits, Oded (2014). "The History of Israel in the Biblical Period". In Berlin, Adele; Brettler, Marc Zvi. The Jewish Study Bible (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199978465. 
  8. ^ a b Finkelstein, Israel; Silberman, Neil Asher (2001). The Bible unearthed : archaeology's new vision of ancient Israel and the origin of its stories (1st Touchstone ed. ed.). New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-684-86912-8. 
  9. ^ a b Kuhrt, Amiele (1995). The Ancient Near East. Routledge. p. 438. ISBN 978-0415167628.  Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Kuhrtp438" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  10. ^ a b Wright, Jacob L. (July 2014). "David, King of Judah (Not Israel)". The Bible and Interpretation. 
  11. ^ Lemche, Niels Peter (1998). The Israelites in History and Tradition. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 35. ISBN 9780664227272. 
  12. ^ The Pitcher Is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gosta W. Ahlstrom, Steven W. Holloway, Lowell K. Handy, Continuum, 1 May 1995 Quote: "For Israel, the description of the battle of Qarqar in the Kurkh Monolith of Shalmaneser III (mid-ninth century) and for Judah, a Tiglath-pileser III text mentioning (Jeho-) Ahaz of Judah (IIR67 = K. 3751), dated 734-733, are the earliest published to date."
Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

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

...the fact that the sources say specifically that (paraphrase) some of the facts in the Biblical narrative are disputed, but that there is nevertheless general agreement that there existed an independent United Kingdom, is precisely what makes it such a good source in this case.
The source is not contradicted by any of the sources you mentioned above, rather summarizes them and adds to them from other sources to come to an overview of the opinions of historians. Debresser (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Reliable sources do not agree that a United Monarchy probably existed. There is serious doubt about that, as reflected in the proposal above. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Your "source" is Wikipedia, if you look at it, not those sources themselves. And even if you would find a few of them disagreeing, I have a reliable source that says otherwise, so per Wikipedia policies, it can be included. Debresser (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Nope. Content is all sourced above. In any case I have proposed more comprehensive new content down below to deal more generally with this section. 04:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Redux[edit]

Just starting a new section for clarity. Right; these are the two forms of words currently in dispute if I understand the situation correctly:

  • " Israelites enjoyed political independence twice in ancient history, first during the periods of the Biblical judges followed by the United Monarchy. After the fall of the United Monarchy..." -Jytdog's wording; and
  • "The Israelites were independent tribes during the time of the Judges,[63] and constituted an independent nation during the period of the United Monarchy.[64] After the fall of the United Monarchy..." -Debresser's wording.
So, what seems to be disputed here is the difference between a tribe having 'political independence' and being an 'independent tribe.' This seems to be the salient point; the stuff about whether the time of the judges etc, is ahistorical or not, doesn't seem particularly relevant, as both wordings above accept that there were such periods, even if, I assume, they are merely labels by which historians identify periods (Dark Ages, anyone?!). I have to say though, that right now, the distinction between the two phrasings is small. Of course, the one thing that does stand out in Debresser's version, is the phrase "and constituted an independent nation"; is it specifically this that is actually contentious, rather than the rest of the wording? Sorry if you've already gone over this, I just want to look at it from the beginning, being an 'outsider,' as it were, to the discussion. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 09:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

As I said in another section here, "By discussing a nation as such, the independence is implied. Sources would not often stress the fact of political independence of a nation as such." I think these are excellent sources for the statement in question. In any case definitely not "garbage sources", as Jytdog so rudely claimed[3] (without substantiating that claim). For that same reason I also hold that El_C should undo his removal of sourced statements, as I asked him to do in the section at the bottom of this page. Debresser (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

BTW, who are the four other editors I see mentioned elsewhere? — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 11:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
User:EyeTruth, User:Infantom, User:Flinders Petrie and Yours Truly. See Talk:Jews/Archive_26#1350_to_586_BCE. Debresser (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeeeeaas. Thanks for the link! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 13:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
In the mentioned discussion i was referring to the northern Kingdom of Israel and not the United Monarchy which it's historicity is indeed dubious. Infantom (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. Not a contradiction to the new source, however. Debresser (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

WT:JUDAISM[edit]

I notified WT:JUDAISM of this discussion, which so far has attracted surprisingly few visitors, perhaps because of the Passover Holiday. Debresser (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The "notification" is not neutral as it must be per WP:APPNOTE, but rather is CANVASSING. User:El_C I suggest you take that down since you are riding herd here. Jytdog (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
How about rewording it to something more neutral, Debresser? For example, telling editors to ignore the RfC represents your position, but not Jytdog's, so you can see why it can come across as partisan. El_C 16:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
It is not "my position" that RfCs are valid ways to solve content disputes. Telling people to ignore the RfC altogether is just bad. And what is written there asks people to bring sources supporting Debresser's position. I then re-instated it with sources, and your input and especially additional sources would be much appreciated. "Especially additional sources" (to the ones he added). Jytdog (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Ideally, "input and... additional sources" could mean any input and any additional sources, for or against his position. But I also do take your point. El_C 17:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Saying that the Rfc can be ignored is not making the notification less neutral, because 1. the notification is simply not about the Rfc. 2. ignoring the Rfc does not disfavor Jytdog's position, as incorrectly claimed. This is so, because I too agree that if the statement were unsourced, that it has to go. That is precisely why I said in my comment at WT:JUDAISM, that the Rfc was misconceived and stands or falls with the sources. If there are good sources, then the Rfc becomes redundant, if there aren't, then the information will surely have to go, and the Rfc is again redundant. Debresser (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC Jewish history[edit]

withdrawn. The trend toward no is clear, and even the one dissenting voice has acknowledged that content about this must be sourced if it is to be in the article. Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

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

The article currently includes the following content:

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

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

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

!votes (old)[edit]

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

Discussion (old)[edit]

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

No, that is not a relevant question here. The only relevant question is - should content be in a Good Article that is dubious (tagged so for over a year), unsourced, and in Wikipedia's voice? The answer to this is a complete no brainer. For content proposed on talk page, your question can be discussed at leisure; it is a different issue. Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh, calm down, will you. As I said, I will add sources after the page is unprotected. If you want to discuss this, you should have waited and discussed, instead of opening an Rfc in such a hurry. Not befitting for the experienced editor that you are. Debresser (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Not responding further - your remarks here remain offtopic. Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
The page can be unprotected early if sources are provided to everyone's satisfaction. Use the talk page for that. El_C 22:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
[I]f sources are provided to everyone's satisfaction, Debresser(!). El_C 09:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
That was said in relation to early unprotection of this article, which is not the case. The protection simply expired. Also, that is an arbitrary demand. Also, the sources were not contested on this talkpage, just called "garbage" randomly. Also, you too removed my fix of a reference error. Do you even read what I write when I edit? See the section below, that I have to insist you undo that. Debresser (talk) 10:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
You can insist, but it won't help. With your version up, it didn't seem you were motivated enough to present your sources, here, on the talk page. By all means, if there are unrelated fixes, please make a protected edit request (x to y format), and I will edit on your behalf. El_C 10:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
1. I didn't have to be motivated. There is no obligation to present my sources beforehand. 2. Now that my sources are revealed, there is no reason to remove sourced information. That is against policy. They were not even contested. They were simply called garbage, without any explanation or discussion, in a blatant violation of WP:LIKE and WP:OWN and WP:IDONTLIKEUSERDEBRESSER. 3. I am asking you once more to reconsider. If you do not present a valid reason, I will ask for admin review of that action on WP:ANI. Debresser (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
There are two competing versions and I didn't feel it was fair for just one to be offered the benefit of being up during the 4-day interval—interval in which for 3 days you seem to have not been motivated to do much at all. El_C 11:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Waiting for protection to lapse (1 day of activity, 3 days of inactivity), then adding (and edit warring over) the sources—rather than bringing them up for discussion on the talk page—that was the wrong move. Now instead of fighting for your version to be up during this protection interval, I expect you to present and discuss your sources, here, on the talk page. And again, gain consensus for their reliability and due weight. Now that should be your focus at this time, just as it ought to have been before. El_C 11:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
1. I would not have been in the slightest more motivated if another version of the article would have been protected. 2. Since I already revealed my sources, that reasoning is no longer valid. 3. Ergo, your argument is now only punitive, and that is not allowed on Wikipedia. 4. Nobody has seriously challenged these sources. Only one editor, with a vetted interested and a huge WP:POLITE problem, has removed them, not explaining anything since. You can't seriously support that. 5. The fairness argument is invalid, and is not what WP:WRONGVERSION comes to address.
I do appreciate your reply, and I hope you will again consider my arguments. I have no more interest in taking this to WP:ANI than anybody else, moreover, I have a huge lack of faith in WP:ANI, based on many years of experience. Which will not deter me from doing the utmost of my capabilities to receive what I think would have been the correct thing to do, nl., to reinstate information that was supported by 4 editors on this talkpage, then stood for two years, and is now also properly sourced, after which it was by an admin in an arbitrary way, against the rule that anything that is well sourced can not be removed without good reason. Reasons have been provided; good reasons haven't. Debresser (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
If you're opponent fails to explain why they maintain the sources fail to meet standards, I will consider switching back. El_C 13:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I think that would be the correct thing to do, if let's say he doesn't reply within 24 hours of his revert. I might add that a reply that is not substantially motivated, should also be considered sufficient reason to do so. Debresser (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I think you should focus on the sources, not what others are doing. What if Jytdog doesn't come back to this discussion? Their absence wouldn't automatically give any more credence or acceptability to what had previously been under dispute. Just a thought. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 13:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
To the contrary, if an editor claims to have a problem with my sources, and then disappears, even tough his point of view was unexplained and is being heavily challenged, that is almost like an admission that his problems were not founded in any serious policy-based objections. Regarding your suggestion to focus on the sources: nobody has said a word about those sources yet, apart from the unexplained and rude word "garbage", so what is their for me to focus on them about at the moment? Debresser (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
No disappearing happened. I just came back to WP after doing RW stuff for 12 hours, and my first edits back were here. You can see that in my contribs. No crickets from me. Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Not valid[edit]

@El_C, "It's Jytdog's turn to have his version up"[4] is not a valid reason to remove sourced information. Please undo your removal of sourced information. Debresser (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

H'mmm. Please see WP:WRONGVERSION :) — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 10:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I am familiar with that. Have been so for about 8 years. If somebody would have removed the sourced statements and by chance that version would have been protected, I would have said nothing. But protecting a version with sourced information, and then removing said souced information, and with the non-existing reason that it's somebody else's turn (??), that is too arbitrary. Debresser (talk) 10:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
You've had your version protected for four days, and it didn't seem to have greatly motivate you to engage on the talk page (you last comment being April 18)—hopefully, now you'll present your sources on the talk page to see that there's consensus they're both reliable and represent due weight. El_C 10:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
1. I didn't have to be motivated. There is no obligation to present my sources beforehand. 2. Now that my sources are revealed, there is no reason to remove sourced information. That is against policy. They were not even contested. They were simply called "garbage", without any explanation or discussion, in a blatant violation of WP:LIKE and WP:OWN and WP:IDONTLIKEUSERDEBRESSER. 3. I am asking you once more to reconsider. If you do not present a valid reason, I will ask for admin review of that action on WP:ANI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talkcontribs) 11:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I already explained why it was time for the wrong version—feel free to challenge my decision in any forum you see fit. Yes, I also expect your opponent to explain himself as to why the sources were termed "garbage" (a term I'm not happy with)—and, I ask that he maintains decorum. El_C 11:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I should not have called them garbage. My apologies. Would redact that if i could. Jytdog (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
It's appreciated nonetheless. Thanks for that. El_C 16:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Appreciated here as well.
IMHO you really should have explained on the talkpage why you think they are not good sources, right after reverting. That is something you have not explained still. You have explained why you disagree with them. You have not cast any doubt on the sources themselves.
@El_C since the sources have not been contested as such in over 24 hours, I propose you restore the information. Debresser (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
What about this analysis? El_C 18:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Quick note, El_C. The version you have up there, is not "my version", as it contains the unsourced content that is the subject of the RfC: "Israelites enjoyed political independence twice in ancient history, first during the periods of the Biblical judges followed by the United Monarchy.". That is Debresser's 1st version. - the one you protected originally. When I reverted Debresser's 2nd version, I reverted back to the version you had protected. "My version" is this one, with that sentence taken out. Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Copy that. El_C 18:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@El_C Please see above where WP:PREFER is quoted. You violated it once, now you violated it a second time, and all of that in the absence of any objection whatsoever to the sources. Your behavior here is highly un-evenhanded. Debresser (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I went counter to normally precisely to be even-handed. And also to motivate you to engage on the talk page—which you were failing to do when your version was up. I see noticeably greater engagement with the material on the talk page now, however. El_C 04:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
That is not because the other version is up, but because the page was unprotected and I could make my edit and add the sources. As I explained to you already. Why is it you keep repeating something that I have already explained to you is incorrect, when clearly you have no way of contesting it? Debresser (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Question about DS[edit]

User:El_C. In the Palestinian-Israeli Arbcom case, the "finding of fact" here notes that this is broadly construed. Does content about when and if the Israelites were independent in the land in ancient historical times, fall under the DS? If you are not sure I can take this to a clarification request. Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, we did choose to apply it to Jewish diaspora, so I am open to applying Ds here, yes. Though I'm not seeing ARBPIA politics influencing this dispute El_C 17:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I thought about it for a second earlier and came down with a firm "no". --NeilN talk to me 17:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for replies from both of you. It is hard for me to understand why it is so important that any content about something as complex as independence per se be in that section (even if unsourced and disputed), much less that it should emphasize the independence, or edit warred in so fiercely, outside of the context of that dispute. Biblical claims about the ancient Israelite presence and independence in the region are also central in some arguments about why there should be for example settlements in places like the West Bank. See Israeli_settlement#Reasons_for_settlements fifth and sixth bullets for example. See also the history at AE. This seems to me to be the background that is making a fairly routine issue of moving content to talk that is unsourced and was tagged disputed for over a year so .... hotly and strangely contested. Application of DS could help manage the situation. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
There are still some who think that having applied Ds to Jewish diaspora was a grave mistake—the kind that had opened the floodgates for Ds to other Jewish-related topics. I can appreciate that position. But ARBPIA politics does have a tendency to sneak in there in ever unexpected ways. El_C 17:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't see the connection. That is, I can see how it could be connected, just that I never saw anybody connect it. I personally think that DS are already overstretched. Debresser (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

New RfC[edit]

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

Do you mean the version I posted above, or Debresser's immediate post-page-protection? In either case, I would like to see how folks react to my proposal above. We may be able to just use it without going to an RfC, or put it through some tweaks in normal page discussion style. It would be useful to keep the page locked for a while to ... encourage that. Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
What proposal. You didn't propose anything. Debresser (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
See above. You placed a note under it in this diff just before you wrote the note above. Hm. Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
New RfC on the latest contested versions (Debresser's post-page-protection vs. the revision currently up). El_C 04:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC:Revised origins section[edit]

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

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

Versions[edit]

The content said, before all the current dispute began:

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

Modern archaeology has largely discarded the historicity of the Patriarchs and of the Exodus story,[1] with it being reframed as constituting the Israelites' inspiring national myth narrative. The Israelites and their culture, according to the modern archaeological account, did not overtake the region by force, but instead branched out of the Canaanite peoples and culture through the development of a distinct monolatristic—and later monotheistic—religion centered on Yahweh,[2][3][4] one of the Ancient Canaanite deities. The growth of Yahweh-centric belief, along with a number of cultic practices, gradually gave rise to a distinct Israelite ethnic group, setting them apart from other Canaanites. The Merneptah Stele appears to confirm the existence of a people of Israel somewhere in Canaan as far back as the 13th century BCE (Late Bronze Age),[5][6] while the Hebrew language is the last extant member of the Canaanite languages. In the Iron Age I period (1200–1000 BCE) Israelite culture was largely Canaanite in nature.[citation needed]

Although the Israelites were divided into Twelve Tribes, the Jews (being one offshoot of the Israelites, another being the Samaritans) are traditionally said to descend mostly from the Israelite tribes of Judah (from where the Jews derive their ethnonym) and Benjamin, and partially from the tribe of Levi, who had together formed the ancient Kingdom of Judah,[7] and the remnants of the northern Kingdom of Israel who migrated to the Kingdom of Judah and assimilated after the 720s BCE, when the Kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Neo-Assyrian Empire.[8]

Israelites enjoyed political independence twice in ancient history, first during the periods of the Biblical judges followed by the United Monarchy. [disputed ] After the fall of the United Monarchy the land was divided into Israel and Judah. The term Jew originated from the Roman "Judean" and denoted someone from the southern kingdom of Judah.[9] The shift of ethnonym from "Israelites" to "Jews" (inhabitant of Judah), although not contained in the Torah, is made explicit in the Book of Esther (4th century BCE),[10] a book in the Ketuvim, the third section of the Jewish Tanakh. In 587 BCE Nebuchadnezzar II, King of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, besieged Jerusalem, destroyed the First Temple, and deported the most prominent citizens of Judah.[11] In 586 BCE, Judah itself ceased to be an independent kingdom, and its remaining Jews were left stateless. The Babylonian exile ended in 539 BCE when the Achaemenid Empire conquered Babylon and Cyrus the Great allowed the exiled Jews to return to Yehud and rebuild their Temple. The Second Temple was completed in 515 BCE. Yehud province was a peaceful part of the Achaemenid Empire until the fall of the Empire in c. 333 BCE to Alexander the Great. Jews were also politically independent during the Hasmonean dynasty spanning from 140 to 37 BCE and to some degree under the Herodian dynasty from 37 BCE to 6 CE. Since the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, most Jews have lived in diaspora.[12] As an ethnic minority in every country in which they live (except Israel), they have frequently experienced persecution throughout history, resulting in a population that has fluctuated both in numbers and distribution over the centuries.[citation needed]

References

  1. ^ Dever, William (2001). What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did They Know It?. Eerdmans. pp. 98–99. ISBN 3-927120-37-5. After a century of exhaustive investigation, all respectable archaeologists have given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob credible "historical figures" [...] archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus has similarly been discarded as a fruitless pursuit. 
  2. ^ Tubb, 1998. pp. 13–14
  3. ^ Mark Smith in "The Early History of God: Yahweh and Other Deities of Ancient Israel" states "Despite the long regnant model that the Canaanites and Israelites were people of fundamentally different culture, archaeological data now casts doubt on this view. The material culture of the region exhibits numerous common points between Israelites and Canaanites in the Iron I period (c. 1200–1000 BCE). The record would suggest that the Israelite culture largely overlapped with and derived from Canaanite culture... In short, Israelite culture was largely Canaanite in nature. Given the information available, one cannot maintain a radical cultural separation between Canaanites and Israelites for the Iron I period." (pp. 6–7). Smith, Mark (2002) "The Early History of God: Yahweh and Other Deities of Ancient Israel" (Eerdman's)
  4. ^ Rendsberg, Gary (2008). "Israel without the Bible". In Frederick E. Greenspahn. The Hebrew Bible: New Insights and Scholarship. NYU Press, pp. 3–5
  5. ^ K. L. Noll, Canaan and Israel in Antiquity: A Textbook on History and Religion, A&C Black, 2012, rev.ed. pp.137ff.
  6. ^ Thomas L. Thompson, Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written & Archaeological Sources, BRILL, 2000 pp. 275–76: 'They are rather a very specific group among the population of Palestine which bears a name that occurs here for the first time that at a much later stage in Palestine's history bears a substantially different signification.'
  7. ^ Judah: Hebrew Tribe, Encyclopædia Britannica
  8. ^ Broshi, Maguen (2001). Bread, Wine, Walls and Scrolls. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 174. ISBN 1-84127-201-9. 
  9. ^ Julia Phillips Berger, Sue Parker Gerson (2006). Teaching Jewish History. Behrman House, Inc. p. 41. ISBN 9780867051834. 
  10. ^ The people and the faith of the Bible by André Chouraqui, Univ of Massachusetts Press, 1975, p. 43 [1]
  11. ^ The Hebrews: A Learning Module from Washington State University, © Richard Hooker, reprinted by permission by the Jewish Virtual Library under The Babylonian Exile
  12. ^ Johnson (1987), p. 82.

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

According to the Hebrew Bible narrative, Jewish ancestry is traced back to the Biblical patriarchs such as Abraham, his son Isaac, Isaac's son Jacob, and the Biblical matriarchs Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, and Rachel, who lived in Canaan. The Twelve Tribes are described as descending from the twelve sons of Jacob. Jacob and his family migrated to Ancient Egypt after being invited to live with Jacob's son Joseph by the Pharaoh himself. The patriarchs' descendants were later enslaved until the Exodus led by Moses, after which the Israelites conquered Canaan under Moses' successor Joshua, went through the period of the Biblical judges after the death of Joshua, then through the mediation of Samuel became subject to a king, Saul, who was succeeded by David and then Solomon, after whom the United Monarchy ended and was split into a separate Kingdom of Israel and a Kingdom of Judah. The Kingdom of Judah is described as comprising the tribes of Tribe of Judah, the Tribe of Benjamin, and partially the tribe of Tribe of Levi, and later adding other tribes who migrated there from the Kingdom of Israel.[1]

Modern archaeology has largely discarded the historicity of this narrative,[2] with it being reframed as constituting the Israelites' inspiring national myth narrative. The Israelites and their culture, according to the modern archaeological account, did not overtake the region by force, but instead branched out of the Canaanite peoples and culture through the development of a distinct monolatristic—and later monotheistic—religion centered on Yahweh, one of the Ancient Canaanite deities. The growth of Yahweh-centric belief, along with a number of cultic practices, gradually gave rise to a distinct Israelite ethnic group, setting them apart from other Canaanites.[3][4][5]

The Israelites become visible in the historical record as a people between 1200 and 1000 BCE.[6] It is not certain if a period like that of the Biblical judges occurred[7][8][9][10][11] nor if there was ever a United Monarchy.[12][13][14][15] There is well accepted archeological evidence referring to "Israel" in the Merneptah Stele which dates to about 1200 BCE;[16][17] and the Canaanites are archeologically attested in the Middle Bronze Age,[18][19] There is debate about the earliest existence of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah and their extent and power, but historians agree that a Kingdom of Israel existed by ca. 900 BCE[13]:169–195[14][15] and that a Kingdom of Judah existed by ca. 700 BCE.[20] It is widely accepted that the Kingdom of Israel was destroyed around 720 BCE, when it was conquered by the Neo-Assyrian Empire.[21]

The term Jew originated from the Roman "Judean" and denoted someone from the southern kingdom of Judah.[22] The shift of ethnonym from "Israelites" to "Jews" (inhabitant of Judah), although not contained in the Torah, is made explicit in the Book of Esther (4th century BCE),[23] a book in the Ketuvim, the third section of the Jewish Tanakh. In 587 BCE Nebuchadnezzar II, King of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, besieged Jerusalem, destroyed the First Temple, and deported the most prominent citizens of Judah.[24] In 586 BCE, Judah itself ceased to be an independent kingdom, and its remaining Jews were left stateless. The Babylonian exile ended in 539 BCE when the Achaemenid Empire conquered Babylon and Cyrus the Great allowed the exiled Jews to return to Yehud and rebuild their Temple. The Second Temple was completed in 515 BCE. Yehud province was a peaceful part of the Achaemenid Empire until the fall of the Empire in c. 333 BCE to Alexander the Great. Jews were also politically independent during the Hasmonean dynasty spanning from 140 to 37 BCE and to some degree under the Herodian dynasty from 37 BCE to 6 CE. Since the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, most Jews have lived in diaspora.[25] As an ethnic minority in every country in which they live (except Israel), they have frequently experienced persecution throughout history, resulting in a population that has fluctuated both in numbers and distribution over the centuries.[citation needed]

References

  1. ^ Judah: Hebrew Tribe, Encyclopædia Britannica
  2. ^ Dever, William (2001). What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did They Know It?. Eerdmans. pp. 98–99. ISBN 3-927120-37-5. After a century of exhaustive investigation, all respectable archaeologists have given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob credible "historical figures" [...] archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus has similarly been discarded as a fruitless pursuit. 
  3. ^ Tubb, 1998. pp. 13–14
  4. ^ Mark Smith in "The Early History of God: Yahweh and Other Deities of Ancient Israel" states "Despite the long regnant model that the Canaanites and Israelites were people of fundamentally different culture, archaeological data now casts doubt on this view. The material culture of the region exhibits numerous common points between Israelites and Canaanites in the Iron I period (c. 1200–1000 BCE). The record would suggest that the Israelite culture largely overlapped with and derived from Canaanite culture... In short, Israelite culture was largely Canaanite in nature. Given the information available, one cannot maintain a radical cultural separation between Canaanites and Israelites for the Iron I period." (pp. 6–7). Smith, Mark (2002) "The Early History of God: Yahweh and Other Deities of Ancient Israel" (Eerdman's)
  5. ^ Rendsberg, Gary (2008). "Israel without the Bible". In Frederick E. Greenspahn. The Hebrew Bible: New Insights and Scholarship. NYU Press, pp. 3–5
  6. ^ Spielvogel, Jackson J. (2012). Western civilization (8th ed. ed.). Australia: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning. p. 33. ISBN 9780495913245. What is generally agreed, however, is that between 1200 and 1000 B.C.E., the Israelites emerged as a distinct group of people, possibly united into tribes or a league of tribes 
  7. ^ For a bibliography of scholars who doubt anything like the period of the Judges ever occurred, see John C. Yoder (1 May 2015). Power and Politics in the Book of Judges: Men and Women of Valor. FORTRESS Press. p. 5. ISBN 978-1-4514-9642-0. 
  8. ^ Marc Zvi Brettler (2002). The Book of Judges. Psychology Press. p. 107. ISBN 978-0-415-16216-6. 
  9. ^ Thomas L. Thompson (1 January 2000). Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written & Archaeological Sources. BRILL. p. 96. ISBN 90-04-11943-4. 
  10. ^ Hjelm, Ingrid; Thompson, Thomas L, eds. (2016). History, Archaeology and The Bible Forty Years After "Historicity": Changing Perspectives. Routledge. p. 4. ISBN 978-1-317-42815-2. 
  11. ^ Philip R. Davies (1995). In Search of "Ancient Israel": A Study in Biblical Origins. A&C Black. p. 26. ISBN 978-1-85075-737-5. 
  12. ^ Lipschits, Oded (2014). "The History of Israel in the Biblical Period". In Berlin, Adele; Brettler, Marc Zvi. The Jewish Study Bible (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199978465. 
  13. ^ a b Finkelstein, Israel; Silberman, Neil Asher (2001). The Bible unearthed : archaeology's new vision of ancient Israel and the origin of its stories (1st Touchstone ed. ed.). New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-684-86912-8. 
  14. ^ a b Kuhrt, Amiele (1995). The Ancient Near East. Routledge. p. 438. ISBN 978-0415167628.  Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Kuhrtp438" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  15. ^ a b Wright, Jacob L. (July 2014). "David, King of Judah (Not Israel)". The Bible and Interpretation. 
  16. ^ K. L. Noll, Canaan and Israel in Antiquity: A Textbook on History and Religion, A&C Black, 2012, rev.ed. pp.137ff.
  17. ^ Thomas L. Thompson, Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written & Archaeological Sources, BRILL, 2000 pp. 275–76: 'They are rather a very specific group among the population of Palestine which bears a name that occurs here for the first time that at a much later stage in Palestine's history bears a substantially different signification.'
  18. ^ Jonathan M Golden,Ancient Canaan and Israel: An Introduction, OUP USA, 2009 pp. 3–4.
  19. ^ Lemche, Niels Peter (1998). The Israelites in History and Tradition. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 35. ISBN 9780664227272. 
  20. ^ The Pitcher Is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gosta W. Ahlstrom, Steven W. Holloway, Lowell K. Handy, Continuum, 1 May 1995 Quote: "For Israel, the description of the battle of Qarqar in the Kurkh Monolith of Shalmaneser III (mid-ninth century) and for Judah, a Tiglath-pileser III text mentioning (Jeho-) Ahaz of Judah (IIR67 = K. 3751), dated 734-733, are the earliest published to date."
  21. ^ Broshi, Maguen (2001). Bread, Wine, Walls and Scrolls. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 174. ISBN 1-84127-201-9. 
  22. ^ Julia Phillips Berger, Sue Parker Gerson (2006). Teaching Jewish History. Behrman House, Inc. p. 41. ISBN 9780867051834. 
  23. ^ The people and the faith of the Bible by André Chouraqui, Univ of Massachusetts Press, 1975, p. 43 [2]
  24. ^ The Hebrews: A Learning Module from Washington State University, © Richard Hooker, reprinted by permission by the Jewish Virtual Library under The Babylonian Exile
  25. ^ Johnson (1987), p. 82.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

!votes[edit]

  • accept as proposer. Started thinking about this when trying to understand why the sentence originally under dispute ("Israelites enjoyed political independence twice in ancient history, first during the periods of the Biblical judges followed by the United Monarchy.") was in the article at all, and noticed at that time that the content in this section mixes history and myth in unfortunate ways, just as the disputed sentence does. The proposed changes address the time periods mentioned in that sentence and deal with the larger issue of the flow of myth into history in this section. The proposed content is better-organized, well sourced, and reflects current ANE scholarship. It can surely be improved, but the goal here is just to get the section re-organized and placed initially on a more solid footing. Jytdog (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • accept well-sourced. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Partial agree partial disagree Partial disagree: The text must include the reliable sources that state that there is a consensus among historians that there were independent Israelite tribes during the period of the judges and an independent Israelite nation during the United Kingdom. As I mentioned in quite a few sections above. This is an important point that must not be ignored. Especially since the sources I provided fully acknowledge and include all points of view on this issue, as they state: "What is generally agreed, however, is that between 1200 and 1000 B.C., the Israelites emerged as a distinct group of people, possibly organized in tribes or a league of tribes, who established a united kingdom known as Israel". The only sentence which needs to be changed then is "It is not certain if a period like that of the Biblical judges occurred nor if there was ever a United Monarchy." The sentence to replace it should be "The Israelites were independent tribes during the time of the Judges,[1] and constituted an independent nation during the period of the United Monarchy.[2]" See this edit of mine. Partial agree: The rest is fine with me. Especially the split between the biblical narrative and the opinions of historians in the first two paragraphs is a good idea and was implemented well. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • accept well written, wording is inconclusive regarding the United Monarchy which makes it neutral. Infantom (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Accept seems reasonable given the mix currently. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

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

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

It is all explained above, between the two blocks of text. The changes are clear. Jytdog (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
One step at a time. I think we should return to this once the earlier dispute over the contested passage is resolved. That said, there is nothing wrong with research work (related or unrelated to the aforementioned dispute) leading to further additions. But we do need to prioritize tasks on the talk page. El_C 05:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I have been saying all along that the sentence doesn't really belong where it is. If you read the Origins section you will see what I mean. This arose because I thought about where the content I proposed above would go, and it doesn't fit anywhere due to the jumble between myth and history in the current content. This fixes it and incorporates the content I proposed above. I am considering doing an RfC on the above. I could add underlines and strikes to show the differences but it but it would be very cluttered. Jytdog (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh, okay. If it all connects, then that's a good idea. El_C 08:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree, the section needs a rearrangement and distinction between biblical and historical narratives (which are both important to the article). Infantom (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

In any case, before "There is debate about the earliest existence of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah and their extent and power, but historians agree that" there must be something along the lines of "The Israelites were independent tribes during the time of the Judges,[1] and constituted an independent nation during the period of the United Monarchy.", as I proposed above. The rest can be discussed after that issue is settled. Debresser (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Africa Bible Commentary: A One-Volume Commentary Written by 70 African Scholars. p. 295. 
As noted and sourced to death, there is significant scholarly opinion that a period like that of the biblical judges as it appears in the biblical narrative (namely, a messy period between conquering the land and there being a United Monarchy) may never have existed. it makes no sense to state as fact qualities like "independence" of a period that may never have existed. Modern ANE scholarship does draw a lot of the "emergence" theory from the apparent sociological background expressed in Judges by itself and some of Samuel (scattered, loosely aligned groups that come together from time to time in various ways) but not from Judges in the narrative framework of post-conquest/pre-monarchy. That might be part of the confusion here. Jytdog (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
That significant opinion is fully acknowledged by my sources, which incorporate it in their summarizing statement. And even if there would be a diference of opinion, the way to deal with that on Wikipedia is to bring all well-sourced opinions, per WP:NPOV. Debresser (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm pleased that the RfC highlights constructive additions that you both agree on, and which are somewhat incidental to the dispute. My position is that you refine what you disagree on and list an RfC about that, specifically, once this RfC is concluded. Drafting that RfC should be a mutual collaboration, however. Thanks. El_C 23:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
El_C, as I noted above here (which you acknowledged) the sentence that Debresser has fighting to keep was part of the myth/history mess, and when I came up with a sourced version of that sentence, I had no place to put it. The whole section needs to be re-ordered. Content expressing the nuance about these two periods only works in that context. I do not believe that Debresser is going to accept any content that questions the historicity of the Biblical Judges period and of the United Monarchy; I do not believe that the two of us can agree. That is not important nor required. The community can come to consensus on the organization of the content that reflects scholarly consensus. There is no need for a 3rd RfC at this time. There may be, after this one is closed. Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
We will have to determine in this Rfc if there is consensus for the new organization and decide on that sentence. Unless you'd remove the disputed sentence from his Rfc, they can not be separated. Debresser (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
OK. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Redrose64, I added a subsection break -- does that fix it? Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • El_C There is absolutely no need for a third Rfc, All issues scan be dealt with in this one.
  • User:Redrose64 This Rfc has been voted upon by two editors. It can not be changed any more at this stage. Debresser (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Again, it's best to list an RfC about just what you disagree on, in my view. But you can have a more convoluted format—that's certainly your prerogative. El_C 23:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Your last comment assumes to know what people agree on. That is precisely what this Rfc is here to find out. Debresser (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Not at all, this RfC will serve as step 1—refining what you agree on—leaving the contested bit you disagree on for the next RfC. That's my advise. El_C 00:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
That would be a bad idea. As I said elsewhere, it is highly unlike that first editors agree with this proposal, and then would agree to seriously review part of it. Unless, as I hinted to above, the contested sentence would be removed from this Rfc. Otherwise, one Rfc can easily handle both issues. Debresser (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
If there are unanswered questions when this one is resolved, we can try to address them via normal discussion and if they cannot be resolved through that, then if we need an RfC, we need one. We will see where things are in 30 days. Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. Debresser (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Jytdog, Debresser, okay. This is, after all, your show. I just thought hammering just the contested bit in an RfC would be best. Oh well. El_C 03:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Debresser: I wasn't asking for the RfC to be changed, just that a brief opening statement be provided (which Jytdog has done, Face-smile.svg Thank you). The thing is, Legobot (talk · contribs) picks up everything from the {{rfc}} template (exclusive) to the next timestamp (inclusive) and copies that to the RfC listing pages, so if there's a lot of text between those two points, a large entry will be added to the listings. Compare this with this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for the explanation. Debresser (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I though we were not supposed to make judgements. The currently popular view in some fields of archeology and historical and religious studies is I think just as jytdog has it, but al that really proves that we have read the same books. (As I understand it, the first securely dated individual is Omri). That this is the current hypothesis does not make it true, any more than the almost universal acceptance of the history quite different hypotheses in AD 1915 or 1815 or 1615 shows or ever did show that they are true. Personally, I think the current version is most likely, but there is no way I could convince a traditionally oriented religious scholar--the argument will always be, we merely have not yet found...,. The fact that the very large enterprises of traditionally minded scholars have found only a very few equivocal artifacts from the period makes it less and less likely, but it is indeed the cases that one or two clearly authentic discoveries could up-end the field at any time. We do at WP privilege to a great extent the scientific world view for questions of science. I do not see why we should privilege it for religion, and the fact that I or a majority of us here may share it is not a reason why we should. The scholars of a traditional religious background are scholars also--it makes them neither wrong or right, but it does give them equal time. The proposed wording states their view, but states it in such a way as to imply it is probably wrong, and we do not have the authority to do that. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Any chance you could be more specific about the words which "imply it is probably wrong, and we do not have the authority to do that". Making a decision about article wording based on what religious authorities say would lead to chaos. Scientology is a religion! Enthusiasts would argue that Intelligent design is handed down from religious authorities so their view must dominate the article. Johnuniq (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Articles must represent all non-fringe, sourced points of view. They must do so in a neutral way. The proposed wording does not represent a certain significant and academic point of view at all, namely that there existed a United Kingdom, and presents the opposite point of view in a non-neutral way, as though al historians would agree with that. That is why a sentence must be replaced,in the way I proposed above, to adhere to basic Wikipedia policies. Debresser (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • User:DGG i worded very carefully - "it is not certain..." with regard to Judges and the United Monarchy, and "There is debate about the earliest existence of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah and their extent and power, but historians agree that a Kingdom of Israel existed by ca. 900 BCE and that a Kingdom of Judah existed by ca. 700 BCE." Omri is around 900 BCE. And history is not religion... Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
You and I do not disagree on what we personally think is the "right" interpretation. But the "historians agree" has supported quite a range of positions in the last century. This is true also in other historical periods in which I am interested,; the study of history is a process of continuing reinterpretation. (Obviously so with new documents or archeological data, but also with closer study or wider comparisons with pre-existing information, or taking developments in other fields into account.) The most one can say is that according to the most widely accepted current viewpoint, most historians.... And to even say this one must not select sources, but need some way of proving that it is the generally accepted current viewpoint, which can be quite difficult. Sometimes one can say, as summarized in authoritative general sources--but these will usually be about 1 generation out of date; sometimes one can quote what ought to be considered as modern authoritative summaries, but often these will disagree. We cannot make judgments about whose summary is correct, and I am personally especially dubious about concluding that the summary I agree with is the correct one.
We cannot exclude historians who also have a religious interest from our statement of consensus. We must also take account of their arguments. That this particular historical period is closely involved with belief systems is not unique--other ones are involved with other sorts of biases, usually national or political or philosophical. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I think we should look to modern historiography for guidance—the kind which is based on sound social-science and archaeological findings. El_C 06:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
User:DGG...I don't really understand what you are saying; this is not about what you or I personally think. WP reflects relevant scholarship in fields like history and science; we don't put religious beliefs on par with scholarship. With regard to changing consensus, yes. WP would have had content about 'ether" if it had existed back in Newton's time; WP changes as the scholarly consensus changes and this is not a big deal. In any case it would be helpful if you proposed language that you would like to see. Thx. Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of nation[edit]

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

Thanks for opening discussion. In general it cause for pausing when somebody adds sourced content only to the lead. Sourced content should be added to the body and only if rises to the importance of the lead should it go there. The question to ask is - where in the body is this discussed? It needs to be discussed and supported there first. Then step back and see if that really should be in the lead. I think you could easily do that. But there should be nothing, and no source, in the lead that is not in the body somewhere. Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Do you have a suggestion where it could be mentioned? When i think about it now, a section about "definition of Jews" or "identity" is pretty constructive, especially when it comes to the varied identity of the Jews. Infantom (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Very high level articles like this are hard. A good place to start is word-search for "nation" to see where it already is. I found it at Who is a Jew?. But if you look there, there are two main articles linked, and per [{WP:SYNC]], that section should really just summarize the split off article (basically, it should be a copy of its WP:LEAD, with sources added), and should use its sources. (Doing this kind of meta-editing is so, so important to keep Wikipedia coherent across articles!) So that leads you to Who is a Jew? and Jewish identity, and if you look at those, this notion of "nation" is probably handled with the most nuance at Who is a Jew?. So I would zoom in there and see how it is handled, check those sources, see what goes in the lead, etc. Hard! Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)