Talk:Jews

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)

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

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)
Well, it has already been in the body of the article all time along, i should have noticed it already at the beginning though. In that case, there's no problem to add the sources to the section and mention it in the lead. Infantom (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I restored it, since Infantom is absolutely correct, that the Jews being a nation has been in the lead and body of the article for forever, and it is well sourced. Debresser (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Not worth dealing with. It is bad editing however. Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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