Talk:Jewish history/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Jewish history stub:

Welcome and please use where applicable the new {{JewHist-stub}}. Thanks. IZAK 10:51, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hasmonean Dynasty Dates

What's the correct date for the rule of the Hasmonean Dynasty? The main article gives it as 140 to 37 BCE; this article says 165 to 63. A source would be preferable. --Simetrical 00:40, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

167 - 37 BCE see [1] 216.99.54.249 (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

announcing policy proposal

This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

History of Judaism

Is there a History of Judaism page? There is a consensus arising from discussion of the History of Christianity that there is scholarly debate as to the extent of the indirect influence of Zoroastrianism on Christianity. Since the influence was indirect, via Judaism, it was agreed that a reference to this issue should be made in History of Christianity, with the different POVs as to the extent of the Zoroastrian influence being mentioned in the history of Judaism. I put the appropriate material in this article, but on reviewing the talk page, it appears that this may be the wrong article. If my additions should be moved, I would welcome having them moved, as long as they can be properly referenced in History of Christianity. Robert McClenon 15:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Historical persecution by Jews?

Just to warn readers of this page than an entry named Historical persecution by Jews full of antisemitic spam has been created. It should be either deleted either merged with this article, allowing for a NPOV. I hope Wikipedians will react quickly to such weak attempts at revisionism. Kaliz 19:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Same comment for Contemporary persecution of non-Jews by Jews

If it existed why should it be deleted. Facts can't be POV. 12.220.47.145 17:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
There are similar articles for persecution by many different religions (Christian, Muslim, and Hindu that I know of for sure). The article appears to be relatively NPOV. Although it is tagged, and may contain some POV stuff that I just don't recognize. That article doesn't appear to be very antisemitic at all. I also don't see any attempts at revisionism, there is no references to the holocaust at all. I don't know much about ancient history (i'm a western hemisphere history buff myself) so maybe i'm just missing something here. --MateoP 18:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for addition

Big fan of the "History of the Jews..." series. It is well covered. One place that is not covered, however, is Haiti. Here are a few sources to start out, if anyone is interested in writing an article (i will do so myself, eventually). Note that the article which appears in Jewish Social Studies is available on ebscohost. --MateoP 20:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/haiti/misctopic/ethnic/jewsinhait.htm http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/haiti/misctopic/ethnic/jewshistory.htm http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/haiti/misctopic/ethnic/listjews.htm

Glad you like the series. Great idea to add Haiti, it would probably best fit under History of the Jews in Latin America, which currently covers the Carribean as well. Why don't you start adding material? --Goodoldpolonius2 20:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, good, I wasn't aware of that article. That would be a good starting point until enough information is compiled to warrant a full article. --MateoP 01:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Romania

Unfortunately there's no refference to the history of Jews in Romania. Much of the community is nowadays gone but a rich history exists,which many of you might be interested to discover.Anyone up for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radufan (talk • contribs) 12:31, 30 January 2006

References

"Of critical importance to the reshaping of Jewish tradition from the Temple-based religion it was to the traditions of the Diaspora was the development of the interpretations of the Torah found in the Mishnah and Talmud." -

Does anyone have any references, or factual proof that "the interpretations of the Torah found in the Mishnah and Talmud" reshaped Jewish tradition, and were not the actual Jewish tradition which was passed on through the generations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.11.106 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 19 September 2006

Jewish WIKIVERSITY

NEW: On Wikiversity there is now a "Jewish Studies School." Will it become a "duplication" of many things on Wikipedia? What should it's goals and functions be? Please add your learned views. Thank you. IZAK 09:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Objection to the use of this image

I object to the use of the image containing the map of the Hasmonean Kingdom set against the background of the so-called present-day borders of Israel. The image is also being used in the articles on Hanukkah, on Maccabees, on Judas Maccabeus, on Hasmonean and on the Golan Heights. But these are not the internationally recognised borders of Israel. The image suggests that the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem are integral parts of the state of Israel, whereas this is subject to international disputes. To present these borders as undisputed facts, is to lessen the quality of information provided by Wikipedia. I therefore decided to remove this image. In a (very swift) reaction by a Wikipedia administrator, he accused me of "blatant vandalism". That is absurd. I'm in the habit of using Wikipedia as a source of factual, unbiased information. Ocasionally, I make a small contribution to try to enhance the factual accuracy of an article. To enhance an article is not vandalism. It is what I thought Wikipedia was all about. There are undoubtedly many images available that could be used in these articles that depict the borders of Israel, while clearly marking the disputed Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights as disputed entities. Why would an unbiased encyclopedia, out of of all the available options, choose an image that is provided by the Israeli Foreign Ministry? If it is Wikipedia's standard policy to discourage user participation in this agressive way, then in my view, it fails in its stated purpose. --82.215.24.131 13:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Change "six thousand" to "four thousand"

The Khazar conversion theory has been refuted by genetic testing of Kohanim that show no genetic link between those Kohanim from the Khazar and the rest of the Jews.

I have changed the opening "nearly six thousand years" to "nearly four thousand years". Nothing in any way meaning "Jewish history" can go back to before Abraham, by all traditional and modern systems at 1900 Before Present at the earliest. The "Six Thousand" number seems to confuse the beginings of Jewish histroy with the Hebrew calendar date.

Sukkoth 18:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Should be "at least 2,900 years"

Well I haven't read the whole article yet, so I won't even attempt to edit it, but Sukkoth clearly didn't go far enough. In short, see Hebrews#Hebrews_vs._Israelites_vs._Jew

More specifically, if we're talking about a particular ethnic group, rather than the history of Judaism - let's call them Hebrews, for the sake of argument (and there's room for discussion on that point also) - then that history could "arguably" start at around the beginning of the fourteenth century BCE, with the tribal movement of what would become (biblical) Israelis into the northern hill country from Transjordan. Such an event, if accepted as the start of a people known as Hebrews, would make the history under discussion around 3500 years old. Not "over four thousand years".

Either way, when Israelites emerged in the land, they didn't come pre-equipped with a Jewish faith, which they developed (or adopted from interaction with a neighbouring tribe moving into what would become Judah from the northern Negev) much later.

If we're talking about Judaism as a system of religious thought based in a group of people living in said hill country, then there is a very well received scholarly viewpoint (as expressed in, for instance, the Oxford Illustrated History of the Bible, pp. 7-10) that we would have to move several hundred years forward in time to find the distinct existence of anything unequivocally linked to Judaism. This would be the inscription of Mesha, king of Moab, from around 850 BCE, which mentions both the Israelite king and YHWH. Any scraps of evidence before that date are both sparse and speculative.

This inscription testifies to the existence of Transjordanian outposts of Israel, where YHWH was worshiped, and from this fact we can safely assume the likely existence of the worship of YHWH in Israel at least as early as the tenth or eleventh century BCE, but nothing outside the Old Testament can take us remotely as far as 4,000 years ago. Danny Dayus (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Skipping too much

There is too much of a gap between ancient Jewish history and modern--as if the culture went directly from Moses to the modern day with no diversions. I think there has to be some more attention paid to the period between the destruction of the Temple and the modern era (1800- onwards). Too much general history is missed. The article on the History of the Jews and the Crusades is woefully inadequate, I would use as example.

Cheers to all, nonetheless: this is a good looking article.

Varangian 14:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Reworded for consistency

I reworded some of the phrasing here to be consistent with other parts of the article. The passage under Islamic history first states it to be a bloody one, and then calls it relatively benign compared to Europeans. Characterizing the former as ethnic cleansing does discredit to events occuring among the latter, and widespread killing of Jews in these regions did not occur. --Shlomo Mizrahi 06:31, 28 Jan 2007 (UTC)

Jewish history overview

Originally posted to Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines

While the contents of this article are nominally correct the tone of the evil Persian and Roman Emipires singling out the Jews for cruelty is a little too much. They did this to everyone who challenged their tax base. The author(s) really are writing with a post Nazi slant that is detrimental to the quality of the article. While not an expert I know enough about Roman Imperial history to react to this choice of wording. The Jewish Messiah movements characterized by John the Baptist and Jesus son of Joseph? and Mary among others threatened the status quo of both the wealthy Jews and the Romans and as a result were ruthlessly (by modern standards) put down. To imply this was special treatment is just wrong. A purely historical Jewish history would be refreshing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.254.145.206 (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Write one then. Jake the Editor Man _(talk) 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference problems

There are exactly 8 sources mentioned in the footnotes, and most of the article is completely unsourced. I have tagged the article with {{unreferenced}} because most of the material remains unsourced and unattributed to sources.--Sefringle 03:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I think a problem here is that the article was created before footnote style sourcing got into widespread use, so most of the sources are in the "references and further reading" section, and the footnotes cover only a few additions. I believe if the "references and further reading" section is included the sources do cover the material. However, I agree moving completely to footnote-style sourcing is important to making this a high-quality article. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit needed

Kielce pogrom --HanzoHattori 10:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Land?

Is there any source outside of the Old Testament that can confirm that the Israelites occupied "The Land of Israel?", because it seems to me that it is just inferred in this article (there are no citations I can see) and I'm just genuinely curious. --Nimnom 03:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

New discussions are usually added at the bottom. There are plenty of finds from archeological excavations such as seals, bullas, coins, as well as historical chronicles such as Merneptah Stele, etc. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Jews in India, China, Yemen, etc.

I'm not sure how to include it, but even before the Arab period there were Jewish traders in India ( and Yemen (there was even briefly a Jewish kingdom in Yemen, although I doubt it created many conversions, likely only among the elite). Later on there were Jews in China as well. To get a complete overview of Jewish history I think this should be included, but again, I'm not sure how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

41 years

41 years wandering in the wilderness, not 40? zafiroblue05 | Talk 14:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Khazars

I am troubled by this edit, accompanied by the edit summary "Nothing in DNA research indicates any Mongol or Turkic ancestry in Ashkenazic Jews". It's hard to prove a negative of this sort ("nothing in DNA research...") and the claim in the summary isn't cited. I've left the edit alone, however, because there's no cite for anything in the paragraph anyway, and the Khazars article isn't very helpful in this regard either. Still, I think we can do better and I'd love to see some cleanup on this section. Any takers? :-) Isaacsf (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Disabilities (disambiguation)

Help! Apparently some think that the express "Jewish disabilities" means that there's something wrong with the Jews! --Ludvikus (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC))

"Shattering a 'national mythology'" about 70CE and 135CE expulsions

I'm sure there is good historical evidence for the exiles under the Roman and that information obviously belongs in the article. Nevertheless, it would appear from this Haaretz book-review that many modern historians believe the exiles did not happen. I'd like to insert the following (or something similar, at a suitable position) since it appears to be a fair representation of a significant (perhaps major) thread of modern Israeli historical understanding:

Tel Aviv University historian, Professor Shlomo Sand, under the influence of other historians who have dealt with the same issue in recent years, argues that the Roman exile of the Jewish people is actually a Christian myth - divine punishment of the Jews for having rejected the gospel of Jesus. In his book "Matai ve'ech humtza ha'am hayehudi?" ("When and How the Jewish People Was Invented?"; Resling, Hebrew, March 2008), Professor Sand sets out to prove that the Jews now living in Israel and other places in the world are not descendants of the ancient people who inhabited the Kingdom of Judea during the First and Second Temple period. He says that the Romans did not exile entire populations and physically could not have done so in any case.^[1]

^ When and How the Jewish People was invented? Book Review (Hebrew). Haaretz 21st March 2008. Verified 9th May 2008.

Can anyone see any objection to the insertion of such a passage, or see an objection to the phrasing I've used? PR^talk 18:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the content itself, as I am unfamiliar with the subject. However, I think the "under the influence of other historians who have dealt with the same issue in recent years" is a direct quote from the book review and sounds like weasel wording to me. I also question using a book as the source of any material by quoting it indirectly from a review of the book, but I'm not sure what the policy is on that. Frank | talk 14:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The very source you used for this edit says "in his new book he deals with periods that he had never researched before, usually relying on studies that present unorthodox views of the origins of the Jews. " (My emphasis) . Sounds like WP:UNDUE, or even WP:FRINGE. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Jewlomko?

totally relevant to the introduction. He was present at the Mossad and was a KEY figure in the Zionist movement to establish the glorious state of Israel.^{[citation needed]}203.63.118.241 (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC) DONT CENSOR ME! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.63.118.241 (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits to Israelites article

The Israelites article was mass-reverted, a Full Protection requested and a Request for Comments posted in its talk page. Please visit the Talk:Israelites page. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Too focused on the "passive" history of Jews

I have read much of the article and think it is too much focused on the pasive aspect of the Jewish history. I mean: activity by Jew peoples are almost always mentioned in positive sense, while the rest of the article (in fact, most of it) is centered only in the suffering and persecution of the Jews. I don't know, but it seems the article needs a more balanced historical vision: the involvement of Jews in wars, economic interests, social movements, etc. After all, this wasn't a peaceful and isolated people who happened to be persecuted many times, but a people who lived in one of the most unstable and strategic regions of the world. The section about the Jews in Europe, for example, only focuses good aspects of the Jew people: they were cleaner, healthier, their laws more humane, the life of Christians entirely miserable and unworthy, etc. I know there are true aspects in those statements (Jews were always been much more literate and economically free than the Christian Europeans), but such example shows the article must be more balanced and, well, scientific.189.13.11.33 (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The Holocaust

The last sentence of this section needs revision as it makes no sense, "it became clear that it's impossible to let the Jews in the fate of the nations of the world any more", beyond this the whole paragraph is bereft of reference and offers little more than an opinionated statement.

It has already been mentioned that this whole article discusses the passive history of the Jews and therefore I suggest that the title of this article should reflect that. I have never deemed a Wikipedia article worthy of comment and unfortunetly I feel readers will find little of value here. I have the impression that the article was written with a political standpoint on the matter which is a shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.29.89 (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

My latest additions

I will add smaller contributions from now on so that everybody can have time to discuss the changes. What do you think of the latest adittions? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't change the era style from BCE/CE to BC/AD. Consult WP:ERA. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional graphics, which appear to be an enhancement. The smaller edits (introduced a few at a time) do make it easier for others to follow & participate. If you could habitually use edit summaries to indicate what you are doing, that would also make it easier to track changes. Please take care to keep the era dating style consistent with the article's existing style (in this case BCE/CE). Hertz1888 (talk) 07:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Ancient history section

As tagged by the editor literally uses the bible or torah as though it is fact which is disputed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed#Origin_of_the_Israelites Please can someone who is knowledgeable on the subject of the history please edit it and please take all references to yahweh out he is not a historical figure. He's part of the jewish mythology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kungfukats2 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats exactley what I was thinking. All this writing about the Bible as if it was fact. Its made up mythology. I wanted to know the true origins of the jew. How did white people emerge in an area surrounded by brown people? This is wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbrother64 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This section suffers from a severe lack of quality control due to the political bias of many wikipedia administrators. The inclusion of a source in an article about history, in this case the bible, without actually listing the source under references is a clear breach of wikipedia policy. Furthermore the bible is generally not recognised as a credible source, although some parts of it are supported by other sources. The distinction as to whether the various claims might be credible or not is covered well in the relatively high quality article History of ancient Israel and Judah. By contrast this article uses heavily loaded phrases such as "Children of Israel" and is clearly an attempt at hijacking wikipedia for political purposes. I intent to delete this section in its entirety except for the link to the higher quality article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.209.191 (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing your concerns here, instead of edit-warring over them. Do you have specific constructive suggestions concerning the section in question, or are you here to rant about the "political bias of many wikipedia administrators"? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Besides the obvious point of political bias, the other obvious point is that the section essentially contradicts existing wikipedia articles including the aforementioned History of ancient Israel and Judah, The Bible and history and History of the Levant. In particular the article implicitly presents as credible the various accounts in the bible predating the so called "United Monarchy" period despite a complete lack of supporting evidence. It also fails to discuss the various texts involved, instead using a rather insipid phrasing to avoid proper referencing. In all the quality of this section is too low to warrant inclusion, especially with the existence of a higher quality article which is already linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.209.191 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 8 August 2010

Question

Can someone tell me for a page that I'm writing, when exactly Jews were first allowed to own land in England and by what law. I have two published sources giving different dates - one as late as the 1850s - which I know is wrong. In th meantime I will try and google it, but I have rather lost faith in sources and prefer to have a date that's accepted here. Thanks Giacomo Returned 10:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Giano, you've been around long enough to know this isn't what the talk page is for. Take it to the Village Pump. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I do appologise. When I have written a page, I am always delighted to answer drop by questions on the subject on the talk page. I thought everybody was the same - not to worry. I won't trouble you again. Giacomo Returned 22:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, on further reflection, I was unnecessarily snarky. I suppose wp:jew or Wikipedia:WikiProject_Jewish_history might be better places for this question, too. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Classic Judaism

Should Classic Judaism be merged into this article? P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 18:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so....this article speaks to a growing attempt to recapture the halachic openness of predenominational Judaism. So, I think it is a separate thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikaelswayze (talk • contribs) 12:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the article should be inserted into anything. It is pure POV/COI; it should be deleted or rewritten NPOV.Mzk1 (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess I didn't read enough of it. I'm not terribly familiar with the topic area and I probably should have sought more input before suggesting the merge. The content has also changed in the las few days, so removed the mergeto tag. Regards, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 13:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Prostitution in Jewish History

Given the number of times prostitutes were mentioned in the Hebrew bible as well as the Christian bible, what was the situation with prostitution among Hebrew women throughout their history? Was prostitution quite common among the Hebrew women? Given that for various times the Hebrews/ Israelites were a slave people, and we know among slaves in other societies very often the females were taken by their masters and kept as mistresses or used as prostitutes, was it ever any different amongst the Hebrew slaves? And given even nowadays, women from what we regard as virtuous societies and cultures such as those of Japan, Korea, China, India, and even Islamic countries, enter prostitution quite willingly, was it any different for the Hebrew women? Obviously the slaves propagated their numbers, but was it because marriage was allowed amongst the slaves, or did their masters made it a free for all? Jewishness is transmitted through the mother, and an explanation was that you can be sure of who the mother was but never the father, even though the religion itself claims a descendence from male patriarchs, due to the fact that many Hebrew women in history had a reputation for having multiple sexual partners, which was not common or acceptable among the women of the other contemporary peoples? 86.177.126.72 (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Heading links

The links that I added in to the article have been removed. WP:HEADING says tha tlinks should not normally be used, it does not say that they should never be used. I suggest that the links be restored, as the term LOI is a biblical term, and it needs both linking, and a definition aded in. The links ar e useful, and clearly not vandalism.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC).

I recommend you get consensus for doing something contrary to the MoS before going on a WP:POINTy rampage again. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I recommend that you withdraw the pointy allegation. The recommendation against links from headings is only a recommendation, it is not a rule. In this article, the refernce to LOI has caused a great deal of discussion in the past, and the wikipedia article on LOI has been linked to there. Why did you remove the links, why not leave them in, and discuss their removal here. Since this biblical concept is so essential to this article, there should be links to LOI in here. Your personal objection to the phrase biblical may not be shared by others. I think that you may have removed just to make a point. I am now looking for agreement on either restoring the links, or adding in a definition of the term LOI? Which would you prefer? Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Dldd, as with all of the guidelines, WP:MOSHEAD is advice that should normally be followed unless there are exceptional reasons not to - and you quite obviously have presented none. WP:OVERLINK is also relevant. Furthermore, your little war against the phrase "Land of Israel", which has involved removing it,[2][3][4] then editing this article to say that it presents a "Jewish religious view of history",[5][6] and now linking the phrase in multiple section headings,[7][8][9] is the very epitome of WP:POINT, as is the bad faith comment you made immediately above. If you really think Malik is removing the links "just to make a point", I strongly recommend you immediately take him to WP:AN/I for sanctioning, so that I can enjoy the inevitable WP:BOOMERANG. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding links to land of israel can hardly be described as a litle war. The reasons for linking the phrase have been given by me, you may have missed them. If you check the discussionpage, then you see that the use of this biblical term has caused much discussion. The term should be linked so that is beter understood by those using the article. If it is nit to be linked then a definition should be added, otherwise the meaning of this important phrase will not be apparent. I can see no reason why this informationshould not be included. Linking to the term in no way affects its usage here and is in no possible way linked to its removal,or replacement. There is no link between these two concepts. Why would a t em that is clearly not understood by many not be explained? Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

HOw can WP:OVERLINK be relevant here? Can you find one link from this page to LoI? I cannot find one. For an article called Jewish history not to contain any note of what is meant by the term LOI is a clear oversight. An alternative way to fix this would be to add a small new section which is linked to the main article, and add a small definition there. Does anyone want to propose a wording?Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

When you link the same phrase in 3 different section headers, both WP:MOSHEAD and WP:OVERLINK are obviously relevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Jewish history.

Please see this source, http://www.academy.ac.il/data/reports_data/49/Final_Report.pdf. Pgs 14 to 16 for an explanation of how Jewish History is differentiated from other forms of history, in Jewish studies. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion, "Jewish history is the Jewish history of the Jews..." is so outrageous on its face that it should be considered vandalism. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, the result of that edit was a sentence that was so egregiously malformed that I just could not make myself believe that it was anything other then a deliberate attempt to make Wikipedia worse (the definition of vandalism). Sorry if I got that wrong. By the way, what is "haitory"? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

can we now please discuss the topic? Jewish history is a separate branch of history, it is taught separately. How do we want to capture this. General history would not use biblical concepts such as the land of Israel without pointing out that this is amythical biblical concept. How are we going to reflect this?Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 08:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Since neither the source you link to nor any other reliable source says that this is "amythical (sic) biblical concept", we're not. We're going to leave your personal opinions out of the article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

wikipedia itself says that the Land of Israel is a biblical concept, so it is your opinion that you are quoting. I suggest that we add in links to this article, and also add in a ddefinition of what the term LoI refers to. This term is very important to this article.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

A biblical concept? Could you show me where it says that? I see that it's a biblical name that has been in use for more than the past century. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Instead of discussing this,why not put in links to where the term comes from? Or are you prepared to discuss adding in a definition? Would you like to come up with a denition?Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be the only person who's confused and needs a definition. Why don't you read Land of Israel? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I am certainly not the only one, see the discussionpage for evidence of this. Why not link to land of israel, or define the biblical term? I cannot see any reason why that should not be acceptable. It could easily go inthe first line, i.e. Jewish history is the history of the Jews, their religion and culture, within and outside of the Land of Israel...... What is wrong with that? Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I am awaiting feedback on this proposed additional wording.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Still awaiting feedback on this proposal before I make the change.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You haven't been clear about what change you want to make. The link you posted at the beginning of this thread establishes nothing except that Jewish history and "general" history are separate departments in Israeli universities. That tells us nothing about the history itself and isn't a reason to change anything in the article. It's a little like the difference between rocks and geology. If this thread isn't sufficient to make it clear to you that there's no support for what you've told us about your thinking on the subject, I don't know what would be. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The suggested change is clear, and it is as follows, The first para will begin 'Jewish history is the history of the Jews, their religion and culture, within and outside of the Land of Israel......' The use of the term LoI here will allow a link to the wikipedia LoI article. My thinking on the subject is that the LoI is a contested phrase, as shown by the discussion history, and that is partly because the article does not properly explain the origin of the term, as a biblical term.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

"...within and outside of the Land of Israel"? Sorry, it looks superfluous to me, as if responding to a question nobody but you asked. As far as I can see, the existing lead sentence is sufficiently broad and encompassing. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If you look above in Remove occurrences of the LoI you will see that you have already directed someone to the wikipedia article. 'Neither modern nor propagandistic. A biblical term in use for thousands of years in religion and culture. You can read about it at Land of Israel. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)' Rather than having to direct someone to another article a link or a definition should be added in here. If this article is going to include biblical terms then they should be explained. I can not see any reason why either a link or definition should not be provided, in order to assist the reader in finding out what is meant by such a phrase.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

if no response is received to this suggestion, then i will have to take this to dispute. Either a link to LoI article, or a defintion of LoI should be provided. No Reason has been given otherwiseDalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I've linked the Land of Israel in the article, per your request. That should solve the issue you're having with Steven, Malick and Hertz1888. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Title

Why isn't this page "History of Judaism"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.15.94 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 4 February 2005

Jews are a people, Judaism is a religion. This is a history of the people, not the religion. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

yeah, a people who follow a religion - judaism. believing that your lineage is special, going back to moses talking to a god on a mountain, saying that they are special people, that is a religious belief. someone saying they are jewish means they believe the religion of special lineage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.163.176 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 12 December 2006

Not all Jews would say that Judaism is just a religion. Another definition is that Judaism is the history and culture of the Jewish people. Religion is just a small part of this, and therefore it would be perfectly acceptable to call this article History of Judaism, or even History of the Jewish people. Does anyone else accept one of these proposed titles?Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Awaiting comment on proposed change to title of article.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't accept that it would be "perfectly acceptable" to call this article by either of those proposed titles, or acceptable at all. I especially don't accept the logic that it would be acceptable because religion is (supposedly) "just a small part". There is no need to create artificial boundaries between the various inseparable aspects of Jewish history. I see no reason to abandon the existing title, which is nicely generic, appropriate, and where a reader is likely to look for such an article. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

the title History of Judaism would certainly not create artificial boundaries. Since the majority of Jews are not religious, you would have a hard job showing that it would.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Please re-read Jayjg's comments and mine. "This [article] is the history of the people." The existing title fits. There is no need to shift its focus or narrow its scope. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

your claim that the title change would narrow the scope of the article is purely your point of view. Please re read my comments as what Judaism actually is.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Why would your "comments as what Judaism actually is" be relevant? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

why would your claim that Judaism is a religion be relevant to this discussion? The present title is limiting, and should be changed. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Remove occurrences of "Land of Israel"

"Land of Israel"/"Eretz Yisrael" is an ideologically charged modern designation that has no place in an article about history. The use of "Land of Israel" in a historical context when no political/territorial entity called "Israel" existed, is propagandistic at best. This is no place for expressing Zionist land claims. The occurrences of "Land of Israel" are to be replaced with the designations used in the respective time period. ≡ CUSH ≡ 00:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Neither modern nor propagandistic. A biblical term in use for thousands of years in religion and culture. You can read about it at Land of Israel. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Cush is right, the article is headed "Jewish history", not "History of the land of Israel". If you concentrate on what's going on inside the land for the last 2000 years, you'll miss the immense achievements and contributions of Jewish culture in Europe and elsewhere - and I'm afraid that's what's missing from this article. (Just personally, what impresses me about the Jews and their history is the way a people, cut off from most sources of employment - from government in Christian kingdoms, from the Church, even from education - managed to do so much! Where's all the Jewish medical scientists who contributed so much to the Islamic golden age, where's Rashi and his friends, where's everyone?)PiCo (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing impressive about Jews except their urge to fabricate gods and history. "Land of Israel" is above all a Zionist term to designate the exclusive claim of Jews to the land of what today is Israel, the Israeli occupied territories, and Jordan. An ancient political entity named Israel has only existed for 300 years, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Judaism or Jews of today. The use of "Land of Israel" in this article is nothing but thinly veiled religio-racism and propaganda. ≡ CUSH ≡ 05:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

As opposed to the racism in your comment, which is not veiled at all. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You clearly don't know the definition of racism. While I wouldn't deny that those comments are not conducive to a calm and reasoned discussion I'd also like to remind you that denial of a religion isn't racist. In fact, denial of religion as a "good thing" is a key component to the beliefs of a lot of atheists. It's in no way racist. Celynn (talk) 07:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Denial of religion isn't racist, but denial of ethnic identity and history often is. You have failed to distinguish between the two. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

As per the wiki definition: "Racism is the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination. In the modern English language, the term "racism" is used predominantly as a pejorative epithet. It is applied especially to the practice or advocacy of racial discrimination of a pernicious nature (i.e. which harms particular groups of people), and which is often justified by recourse to racial stereotyping or pseudo-science.

I've failed in nothing. Even if you could make the argument that "Jew" is a race it doesn't change the fact that the above poster was harping on their religion. Attacking religion is not, by any sane definition, racist. I get it, you want to discredit my comment and sound patronising while doing it. However, your point succeeds only in the later and not the former. Celynn (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The comment in question of 05:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC) had almost nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with ethnic identity - and specifically, denying it. When one starts a comment with "There is nothing impressive about Jews", one is talking about Jews, not Judaism. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That's an assumption that "Jew" is referring to a secular definition of Jew rather than the religious adherents of Judaism. If he was referring to the Jewish people as religious adherents then it isn't, and never will be, racist to dislike their religion. "Jew" does not necessarily mean Jewish People, though. What he said could be similar to claiming that "Catholics are a force for evil." Certainly it would be an offensive (and inaccurate) thing to say but not racist by any definition. I think the problem is Jews seem to be exempt from any criticism due the genocide they suffered in World War II. However, religion is completely open to criticism and one should not be subject to calls of "racism" for sharing them. Celynn (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the "land of Israel" does not represent the historical reality of the area and hence should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.198.249.72 (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Land of Israel is POV, and should be removed. There was no land of Israel in most of the periods to which the phrase is used.86.176.133.69 (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

We are referring to Jewish history here. The equivalent of "Palestine", a Greco-Roman colonialist term specifically invented for putting down the Jews, is Eretz Israel in Hebrew, which is how the State got its name. (For a random example, I have here an unabridged Hebrew dictionary from Yehuda Gur, 194, "Printed in Palestine", "Nidfas B'etetz Yisrael". The Land of Israel is used by the Mishna, and those people lived there. As far as "Cush" is concerned, his anti-scientific, ahistorical religious bigorty has no place in Wikipedia, or indeed anywhere in modern civilized society.Mzk1 (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is called Jewish history, it should therefore cover all Jews, including the non religious majority, and all countries in which Jews have lived. If you want to use the POV term Land of Israel then it needs to be explained as to why that term is used, and a specific reference needs to be added to the Mishna, in which case call this what it is A religious Jewish 'history' of Judaism according to religious texts. Otherwise Land of Israel has to be removed, as it is POV, and would probably not be accepted by most Jews as relating to periods in which there was no land of IsraelDalai lama ding dong (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I will be referring this to WP:NPOVN for a ruling, as it appears that agreement cannot be reachedDalai lama ding dong (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Where will you notify?Mzk1 (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

But there is another issue you must take into account - use of "Judea" in Roman times is not accurate, as it does not cover the Gallilee.Mzk1 (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

No that is not relevant unless you want to call this article religious Jewish claims to 'the of Israel.' The sections should be divided into time periods that do not relate to a specific geographical area, otherwise this is not Jewish history, (which is the history of all Jews, everywhere.)Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand the relevence of your commnent to mine. The section is discussing several Roman provinces together; so using Judea is not accurate. I do not see your "dispute resolution" mentioned anywhere.Mzk1 (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The Land of Israel does not describe a historical place, therefore you should remove all references to it, and just use the dates.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't you think we should try that "dispute resolution", perhaps by a link on the Judaism/Jewish History project pages? It's a historical area; there was a "Poland", an "Italy", and a "Germany", even when no such political entity existed - although my history is not good enough to tell you if there were technical jurisdictions by that name, but this is what they taught me in grade school. Jews often referred to areas other than the official political ones; I have referred to the term in the Mishna (and Talmud), and in many places they mean it in a geographical sense (Mikvaot; Gittin 2B). It's not simply ritual law, for example its use in divorces (Gittin 2B). I sincerely doubt that the Hasmoneans did not consider themselves as living in the "Land of Israel", even if they called the political entity "Judea". It's basically similar to Palestine, without the colonialist baggage.Mzk1 (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hasmonean revolt

Dalai lama ding dong keeps inserting a sentence that the Hasmonean revolt "is often described as a civil war between hellenized and orthodox Jews." Yes, it is, and it's also described as a war for religious freedom and a war of religious repression. What is the point? The first two sentences of the paragraph make the point already:

A deterioration of relations between hellenized Jews and orthodox Jews led the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes to impose decrees banning certain Jewish religious rites and traditions. Consequently, the orthodox Jews revolted under the leadership of the Hasmonean family (also known as the Maccabees).

Is there really more that needs to be said? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

a revolt is not a civil war. It is not pointy to add in references when a previous entry is removed on the grounds that the sources are not RS,especially as there are no sources for the present wording. since most modern historical and academic opinion is that this was a civil war, then why would you remove those words? A revolt is not a civil war. The words civil war should be included. Please suggest how ths can be done.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No, Malik, there is nothing more that needs to be said. The insertion replicated information already in the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

as per the header I have removed the unsourced claim, and replaced it with a sourced one.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed your edits, using better sources. Your version appears to unduly emphasize this as a civil war; as Malik points out, the war was a lot of things, which included inter-Jewish conflict, a war for orthodoxy, and a war against foreign rule. The current wording better captures those elements. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

good now that you have provided some sources for the claim that this was a revolt, we can discuss how we rectify the absence of the words civil war. How would you like to restore my sources and the reference to the well attested claim that this is also regarded as a civil war. We should not leave the undue POV that this was a revolt, as that only represents one POV. Would you like me to come up with a wording?Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:UNDUE. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Too much myth, not enough fact

The Bible is being portrayed as fact in this article, with only very small caveats about the completely contradictory archaeological and historical record. Is this supposed to be an article about the historical Jewish people, or a summary of the events of the old testament? If it is the latter, then perhaps the title of the page should be changed accordingly, as the very interesting 'real life' history of the Jews is nowhere to be found in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.70.14 (talk) 11:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Only a small part of the article deals with the Biblical period. Which parts do you believe do not accurately reflect actual history? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

True; I should have said I was talking specifically about the Ancient Israelite section--up to the section on the Hellenistic period (which itself is also lacking a diversity of sources). Almost all the information provided before this point comes from Jewish religious tradition; there is no discussion of what was actually going on in these remote times.

In the medium term it would be good to see a more realistic perspective on the biblical 'history' in the form of more caveats. For example, the scale of the temple of Jerusalem (the picture shows a 'reconstruction' which is highly exaggerated); but especially things like the Exodus from Egypt; there is a short caveat stating that it is not a historical event, but then the article continues discussing it as if it were fact in the subsequent sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.70.14 (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Edomites

Are the Edomites considered a tribe that is associated with Jewish ancestry? Twillisjr (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Jewish history

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Jewish history's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "lewis":

From Crusades: Archibald Ross Lewis (1988). Nomads and Crusaders: AD 1000–1368. Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-20652-7. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
From Dhimmi: Lewis, Bernard W (1984). The Jews of Islam
From Judaism: Lewis (1999), p.131; (1984), pp.8,62

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Jews come from the Yemen?

There was a theory that the Jews did not come from Caanan/Israel at all, but originated in the Yemen (southernmost part of Arabia). They arrived in Caanan c. 1500 B.C. Displacing an indigenous Arab population, according to this, and the whole of their history before the Second Temple (really, the first ever) is mythical.

I first became aware of this idea reading parts of an unpublished paper by Dennis Wheatley called 'The Sword of Gideon', which deals with how the UK might raise a Jewish legion to fight Hitler. Wheatley mentions how prospective volunteers might be attracted with promise of a Jewish homeland, but states they can't be offered Caanan, now Palestine, for the reason given above. He states it as though it is a simple fact, but I never heard of it. Unluckily, I could not read the whole thing to see if there were notes or references, so: where does this idea come from? Who expounded it, what is its history? I think it should be properly sourced and put in the article for what it is worth.

I have heard Wallis Budge promoted the notion, but have got no further. Anyone have any ideas? 85.255.234.194 (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Archaeological evidence of Egyptian colonialism in the Levant

I have read of archeological evidence that Egyptians made war in the Levant, kept forces in the ancient Levant, and people (not necessarily Egyptians themselves) may have gone so far as to establish an Egyptian temple in the 18th or 19th dynasty in the Jerusalem area. Scarabs are known to be found among the archaeological recoveries - and scarabs are often associated with Egypt. The Egyptians are known to have been at Tel Megiddo. There was considerable Egyptian influence in the land of Israel; Egypt may even have colonized ancient Israel. Someone please reconcile that with Finkelstein's "no evidence of Egyptian bondage/exodus" statement. Google "Egyptian temple in Jerusalem". 192.12.88.41 (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The presence of Egyptians in what is now Israel is well documented in history and archaeology; Ramses II conquered the whole region there is no mystery surrounding the "Egyptian temple in Jerusalem". There is lots of evidence of Egyptians in the lands of the Jews, but how does this evidence refute the "no evidence of Egyptian bondage/exodus" statement, which is accepted by almost all scholars, not just Finkelstein? Egyptians in Israel = true, Jews in Egypt = false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.70.14 (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The user above me is absolutely correct, the Egyptians controlled Canaan at least until the end of the Bronze age, and since according to the bible the Exodus had to happen in the Bronze age, it's inconsistent, for the Israelites to leave Egypt for Canaan is like Jews trying to escape Nazi Germany by going to German occupied Poland. It's inconsistent, what is consistent is that the Israelites/Jews trace their origins to the native Canaanite peoples of Canaan, this is consistent with archaeological, cultural, linguistic and religious evidence showing the closest proximity most likely to the Phoenicians, another Canaanite people from whom the Israelite language (Hebrew) and culture derived from. Guy355 (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

This is Mythology

Why is this called "History" when comparable stories from other cultures are described in Wikipedia as "Mythology"? Religious people in other cultures also believe their myths represent historical events but Wikipedia does not call them "History". Keith McClary (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I would agree, as long as we're talking about the earliest history. This section relies heavily on the Bible, which is not an WP:RS for history. What is said in the Bible could perhaps be summarized in a couple of sentences, but cannot form the major part of a section of an article called history.Jeppiz (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Jewish history

Cyberbot II has detected links on Jewish history which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.bible-history.com/maps/israel_judah_kings.html
Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Jewish history

Cyberbot II has detected links on Jewish history which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.bible-history.com/maps/israel_judah_kings.html
Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Contentious Statement

I'm going to remove the following unsourced contentious statement from the article: "In the Soviet Union, many Jews were involved in the October Revolution and belonged to the communist party." While it may be true, it is not decidedly notable. Further, it was used in Nazi, anti-semitic and anti-communist propaganda, therefore such claims should be approached cautiously. It should be considered to be a topic of a sensitive nature and if it can be backed up, it should be done in a specific manner and with reliable sources. --Typenolies (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It is notable, certainly. There was a higher percentage of commissars of Jewish origin than in the population of the Russian Empire as a whole; this is not in dispute. As to its relevance, there is a view widely shared by many historians ( divergent as Sidney Hook and Paul Johnson ) which sees the rise of Stalin as partly a reaction to this situation, elements in the Army and the population as a whole being anti-Semitic. There is room for expansion on this subject. But, as ever, nothing should be put in Wikipedia without properly sourcing it. 95.147.120.9 (talk) 08:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jewish history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928051923/http://www.theforgottenrefugees.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66&Itemid=39 to http://www.theforgottenrefugees.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66&Itemid=39

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

"Between ... and"

While "and" seemed right to me, I did some searching, and concluded that it is right.

— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Needs reliable sources

It is unclear from this article which of its sources are historical, and which are biblical, cultural or otherwise religious. Any sources that are not historical should be removed, and the information that relies upon them either removed or validated from a proper, undisputed source.

Example: reference 10 is to [מרדכי וורמברנד ובצלאל ס רותת "עם ישראל - תולדות 4000 שנה - מימי האבות ועד חוזה השלום", ע"מ 95. (Translation: Mordechai Vermebrand and Betzalel S. Ruth - "The People of Israel - the history of 4000 years - from the days of the Forefathers to the Peace Treaty", 1981, pg. 95). It is unclear what this history is, or the sources upon which it relies, as I have been unable to track it down online. Similarly, a link to an article in www.haaretz.com - which is apparently Israel's oldest daily newspaper. This is not necessarily a reliable source on the history of Israel, and in fact the linked article page features links to other articles that contradict it.

Would it be possible please for someone who knows the subject to begin trawling through some of the references? Ambiguosity (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Not a new problem. This article has a template since 2010 which points out: "This article improperly uses one or more religious texts as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. Please help improve this article by adding references to reliable secondary sources, with multiple points of view. "

I'll take a look on some of the sources, though I am not familiar with all of them.:

Citation 3 is taken from the public-domain International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edition 1915. It does not seem to be a good source. The editor was James Orr (1844-1913), a fundamentalist theologian and a founding father of the fundamendalist movement. He did not believe in Biblical inerrancy, but he did advocate "the infallibility of the Bible". The articles of this encyclopedia were written by writers associated with Evangelicalism. It is far from a secular or objective look at the Bible.
Citation 5 is taken from the works of Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na'aman (with his name misspelled in the citation). Finkelstein (1949-) is a famous archaeologist and has published works on the contrast between the Bible and the archaeological record, and on the possible identities and motives of the human writers behind several books of the Biblical canon. Na'aman (1939-) is a professional historian who spend decades teaching Jewish history at the Tel Aviv University. They are experts in their field and seem like quality sources to me.
Citation 7 is a long quotation from a 2002 dictionary of archaeology, describing various historical theories on the identity and origins of the Israelites. It is a secular source and seems to be of decent quality.
Citation 8 is a quotation of Ann Killebrew, which concerns the ongoing debate about the "scarcity of pig bones" in a number of highland sites researched by archaeologists. Whether it points to some kind of taboo against eating pigs or was based on other factors. It is a secular source and seems quite objective.
Citation 9 links to an Israeli website. It uses the Torah (Bible) as a historical source and treats Joshua, David, and Solomon as historical figures. They could be clueless or biased, but this in not an expert source.
Citation 18 links to the Secret History by Procopius. It is a 6th-century Byzantine history by one of the most famous historians of his era. But it primarily expresses his hatred and frustration with emperor Justinian I, empress Theodora, general Belisarius, and the general's wife and imperial favorite Antonina. It contains vivid descriptions of the Empire under their control, and their scandalous personal lives. The reliability of the work has been much debated.
- Procopius even claims that Justinian was not human, but a demon in human form: "That Justinian was not a man, but a demon, as I have said, in human form, one might prove by considering the enormity of the evils he brought upon mankind. For in the monstrousness of his actions the power of a fiend is manifest. Certainly an accurate reckoning of all those whom he destroyed would be impossible, I think, for anyone but God to make. Sooner could one number, I fancy, the sands of the sea than the men this Emperor murdered. Examining the countries that he made desolate of inhabitants, I would say he slew a trillion people. For Libya, vast as it is, he so devastated that you would have to go a long way to find a single man, and he would be remarkable." See: http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/proc/shp/shp21.htm
Citation 21 links to a History of the Byzantine State by George Ostrogorsky (1902-1976). Ostrogorsky was one of the most famous Byzantinists of the 20th century. His works were secular, but may now be a bit dated. Note that Ostrogorsky was Russian, but spend most of his career in Yugoslavia.
Citation 22 links to an Oxford History of Byzantium (2002), reportedly edited by Byzantinist Cyril Mango (1928-). Mango is a leading historian when it comes to Byzantine history and seems to be secular. Note that Mango is British, but spend part of his career teaching in the United States. He used to teach at the University of California, Berkeley. Dimadick (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Jewish history. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jewish history. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jewish history. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2018

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Jewish history has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change "In Poland," to "In German-occupied Poland," in order to describe historical realities accurately, to preserve consistency of terminology used (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland_(1939%E2%80%931945)#German-occupied_Poland ) and to prevent readers' misinterpretation and/or confusion. Zbigniew Radzikowski (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I assume you're referring to the second mention of Poland in the third paragraph. The text earlier in that paragraph makes quite clear that Poland was occupied at the time, so this seems redundant. In any event, it is a fact that this happened in Poland, and Wikipedia must take care not to alter its content based on trends or prevailing political attitudes. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The argument “The text earlier in that paragraph makes quite clear that Poland was occupied at the time” is not valid. The text earlier reads: “…and until 1941 Hitler occupied almost all of Europe, including Poland” does not make clear that Poland was occupied well beyond 1941, that is until 1945 (End of WWII) to be precise. Therefore, the proposed usage of commonly recognized and used term, also in Wikipedia, "German-occupied Poland" will make text accurate, prevent misinterpretation and confusion. Zbigniew Radzikowski (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment. Thank you for following up. I agree that the "until 1941" wording is potentially confusing, but I'm not confident that the best way to resolve it is by changing "Poland" to "German-occupied Poland". I'll leave your request open and see what others think, and I would suggest that (per my earlier response) consensus be established before effecting a change. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I think a larger issue is that the paragraph in the lead is nearly identical to the content of the Holocaust section. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

If, for some difficult to understand reasons, the expression “German-occupied Poland” cannot be used then, as an alternative proposal, the sentence could be rephrased as follows: “More than one million Jews were murdered in gas chambers at the Auschwitz concentration camp alone, see the full List_of_Nazi_concentration_camps.” This way provided information is acurate without any ambiguities. Zbigniew Radzikowski (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Editing restrictions for new editors

I'm still unsure about the intended scope of the WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. Do these sanctions affect all articles about Jewish history, including this article? Jarble (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jarble. The short answer is no, the restrictions in WP:ARBPIA and WP:ARBPIA3 don't generally apply to articles about Jewish history. They do apply, however, to articles about Jewish history that intersect with the Arab-Israeli conflict. For example, no restrictions apply to editing an article about a Jewish organization in 19th-century Europe, unless it was a Zionist organization, in which case it's probably best to assume the restrictions apply. In a long article on a subject not directly related to the conflict, such as this one, the restrictions only apply when editing sections related to the Arab-Israel conflict (e.g., no restrictions apply when editing the sections on the Middle Ages, but assume they apply when editing the sections on Zionism or the establishment of the State of Israel). I hope that makes things a little clearer. If you have any specific questions or concerns, I recommend asking one of the administrators who is active in enforcing the restrictions, posting a question on the talk page of the article in question, or just editing conservatively (a special 24-hour 1RR restriction applies to ARBPIA articles) and discussing controversial edits. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I do have a problem with this line.

“The archaeological evidence of the largely indigenous origins of Israel in Canaan, not Egypt, is "overwhelming" and leaves "no room for an Exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness".[5]“

This line argues that there is no room for the Exodus story however, I have seen some non-religious sources shed some light for the Exodus.

Like some scholars have compared the story of Exodus to the Shasu people.

(They do admit the evidence might have problems thought.)

I am basically just throwing this idea out there. CycoMa (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

See The Exodus: there were one or more historical events which served as basis for the Exodus story, but it is mythologized history. It is not reliable historiography, as told in the Bible. So, yeah, they saved the Exodus, but ruined the Bible. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to throw that out there. CycoMa (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

NPOV

This article would benefit from additional support from authors and editors to make it useful. As it stands I don't feel comfortable with recommending people read this as a background in the subject... and so it stands out to me as an example of a page that needs help. The primary source text for much of the history is the Hebrew Bible, and it makes sense that the Biblical account should be included, and then critically contrasted with what is known from other sources. There is an attempt to do this—for example the section on the origins include the lack of archaeological evidence showing an Israelite presence in Egypt... yet fails to include linguistic evidence (such as the word "amnan" in Hebrew, related to the Egyptian god Amen) nor the context of the time, i.e. the end of the Amarna Dynasty in Egypt and its associated monotheism. I don't know how to go about improving the quality. I fear that every change will be reverted as political. I wonder what the best way is to proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.78.162.145 (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Canaan was occupied by Egypt, so that explains the origin of that word: the ancestors of the Hebrews learned it from their occupation forces. Yup, the correspondence between Canaanite leaders and the government in Egypt has been found and analyzed. The Hebrews were the offspring of the Canaanites, they did not come from Egypt and they did not build the pyramids. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Cyrus's decree

Grabbe, Lester L. (27 July 2006). A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period (vol. 1): The Persian Period (539-331BCE). Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 355. ISBN 978-0-567-21617-5. The alleged decree of Cyrus permitting—even commanding—the Jews to rebuild the temple and permitting them to return cannot be considered authentic. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

"Ancient history" section omits oldest information, has other issues

This article completely omits Monarchic period Yahwism and the collapse into monotheism. It also has a ten-year-old notice stating that the article contains information from a religious text that is not backed up with secondary sources; the religious story is still presented first as though it is the historical version. The article also uses "YHWH" instead of the word Yahweh. There seems to be some religious bias baked into the article. I might try to fix some of this later if I decide that going through the headache is worth it... Ikjbagl (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it would be good to include the theological shift, though more specifically it is not so much a shift from, say, pantheism to an exclusive monotheism but, as the Hebrew religion is by definition monotheistic, rather it was a gradual transition from a potential polytheism (El and Yaweh, distinctly, among other gods) , to a henotheistic or monolatristic theology (Only El/Yahweh is worshipped as a single deity elevated above other gods) and ultimately to exclusive monotheism (El/Yahweh as the only, singular, extant deity).

As to the "baked" in religion, though the religious heritage of Jews cannot be fully extricated from the cultural one, it does not automatically designate their religion-filled historical documents as unreliable on their own. Now, I gather you're not claiming exactly that, but one must take care to avoid falling into the popular practice of discounting the historicity of Abrahamic writings simple because they have a religious context. For example, had Josephus Flavius not completely rejected his supposed, priestly, Jewish heritage and defected to Rome as a full citizen, I do not doubt that he never would have become such a relatively trusted historical resource for modern scholars. But there is a tremendous hypocrisy in this, as modern historians love to cherry picky from his works. If something sounds too Biblical it is -- right or wrong -- easily discounted. Julius Caesar's most famous works were written while he was pontifex maximus, and yet this supreme religious role seems to have no bearing upon the historicity of those works. Yet, Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civil are given far more credibility than the Jewish Bible. The corroborating evidence for his works is also Roman and by people under the same or extremely similar religious beliefs. Historians have not been as coldly scientific as we'd like to believe. That fact is, there is just not a lot of non-religious material in our possession for such corroboration with the Bible and most of the arguments against its historicity are hypocritical and rife with broad extrapolation or even speculation. I'm not at all saying we should accept the Bible as unequivocal history, but rather discounting it because it both is religious and lacks sufficient corroboration does not jive with the apparently far more comfortable way in which non-Abrahamic history passes muster. Jyg (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Dubious source

Solomon (Shlomo, 970–931 BCE), who built the first Temple in Jerusalem as prescribed in the Tanach (Old Testament). — the Tanach simply did not exist at that time. Neither did the Torah. How could Solomon obey a book which did not exist yet? Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You have misread that quote. It is not conveying that Solomon received the prescription through the Tanakh. It is simply stating the the prescription Solomon was received was subsequently recorded in the Tanakh. By the way, I do not see this quote within the article. Did you single-handedly remove it based upon your personal understanding? Jyg (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Slaughter of Canaanites

Can I add the following immediately after "According to the Bible, after their emancipation from Egyptian slavery, the people of Israel wandered around and lived in the Sinai desert for a span of forty years before conquering Canaan in 1400 BCE under the command of Joshua."

"According to Andrew S. Jacobs, a lecturer at Harvard Divinity School, it is estimated that around 100,000 Canaanites were killed in this conquest. Jacobs says that according to the Bible, under orders from YHWH, the Israelites slaughtered the people of every town conquered. Jacobs says that the Bible mentions that in 1 city 12,000 residents were killed, and it also mentions 8 other cities that were completely destroyed.^[1]

Shakespeare143 (talk) 09:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Except that would not be history, but mythology. The sources on this page and the sources at Book of Joshua clearly state that the exodus from Egypt never occurred, and that there was no 40 year pilgrimage from Egypt to Canaan. The Book of Joshua does not provide a factual account of history, and the whole idea of a conquest of Canaan was likely nationalist propaganda by the kings of Judah and their claims to the territory of the Kingdom of Israel. The scholarly consensus is that the Conquest of Canaan is myth. Chariotrider555 (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

You could add that to the Book of Joshua wiki page, "Entry into the land and conquest" section. But its not history, see the "Historicity" section of the page Bilto74811 (talk) 06:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

References

^ Matthew White, 'Atrocities: The 100 Deadliest Episodes in human History' (New York, 2011), p. 192.

Actual History vs Religious History

As might be expected, so much of this page, and thousands like it, I'm sure, are full of the history people tell about themself not actual history. This indiscernable mixture of mythological history and scholarly history may be fine on more lay and general pages, but I'm just gonna come right out and say it: the Bible is not a Wikipedia-friendly source. Nobody's coming to this page to hear what rabbis CLAIM the history of the Jewish people is, they're interested in actual history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.196.219 (talk • contribs)

Well, owing to doubt are just the pre-Monarchic and early Monarchic stages. The rest is pretty well documented. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 9 December 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: WIthdrawn. Interstellarity (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC) Interstellarity (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Jewish history → History of Judaism – This is a more format title for an encyclopedia. In line with other articles like History of Christianity, History of Buddhism, History of Hinduism, and History of Islam. Interstellarity (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Per bellow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spider241 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. Not really comparable to the other quoted articles. The scope of this article is not limited to Judaism (religion), but rather encompasses the history of Jews (ethnicity/nation). Walrasiad (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. Not comparable to the other quoted articles. The scope of this article is the history of Jews.--Partynia (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. This article is about the Jewish people, not the Jewish religion.--Dalaufer (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
oppose the article is about the people not just the religion—blindlynx 14:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose: As above. The article is a history of Jews, not of Judaism. –Ploni (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose The field of Jewish History is much wider than just the history of Judaism (the Jewish religion). It includes it also, but is much larger, as has been pointed out repeatedly above. The other possible correct name would be "History of Jews," but the name "Jewish History" has been used in scholarship for many decades already, at least the entire second half of the 20th century.
One small additional note. The modern, post-Enlightenment, 11 volume major opus of "Jewish History" was published by Heinrich Graetz in German between 1856 and 1870, It was called "Geschichte der Juden." The 5 volume 1895 English translation by The Jewish Publication Society of America was called History of the Jews. warshy ^(¥¥) 23:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
אַנטקעגנשטעלנ זיך per discussion, שניי Randy Kryn (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Cool! The spelling could have one correction, if you wish - אַנטקעication גנשטעלן זיך

Thanks for teaching me. Google translate, for some reason, gave more/better options with your spelling rather than mine. Oh well, זאל זיין warshy ^(¥¥) 22:53, 10 December 2021 (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.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abbieberman.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ally kaplan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Kingdom of Israel and Judah section

Ref Recent excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa, however, support the existence of a centrally organized and urbanized kingdom by the 10th century BCE, according to the excavators. I removed the first RS, as there is nothing in that source that refers to this claim. The closest is this text 'The excavations at Khirbat Qeiyafa clearly reveal an urban society that existed in Judah already in the late eleventh century BCE. It can no longer be argued that the Kingdom of Judah developed only in the late eighth century BCE or at some other later date'. Therefore the RS could be used to justify a claim about dates but not a claim about a kingdom.Pngeditor (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@Pngeditor in any case, I don't find "centrally organized" or "urbanized" in its article. That's a big problem. Doug Weller talk 11:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller - I didn't find that text either, however, as a newbie I thought it best to state what I did find, and let others say if that was close enough to the claim. Please note that the other source Garfinkel, Yosef (May–June 2011). "The Birth & Death of Biblical Minimalism". Biblical Archaeology Review. 37 (3). Archived from the original on September 8, 2011. Retrieved July 5, 2012. is not available from the links. Only the description of the article is available, and that does not contain any text that supports the claim either. I know that KQ is a controversial issue, and I can only find 'religious, or biblical archeological' sources that appear to back this claim about the size and organisation of a Kingdom of Judah. Also other sources such as https://www.academia.edu/es/22864181/Israel_vs_Judah_The_Socio_Political_Aspects_of_Biblical_Archaeology_in_Contemporary_Israel refer to other claims that KQ is more likely to be associated with the Northern Kingdom of Israel. I wonder if this Judahite claim about KQ should a) be atributed to named individuals b) it should be clearer that there is a dispute about the findings at that site, c) it should be more specific to a single site, and not abstracted to findings about a Kingdom. I don't find such a claim at the Debate on United Monarchy section in the wikipedia page on KQ. Regards Pngeditor (talk) 11:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

This was part of a major overhaul.[10] Doug Weller talk 11:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The 'overhaul' states that it is a copy and paste job drawn from other wiki articles. This is widespread but a dangerous practice that serious editors should avoid (there are numerous problems like talking of 'the kingdom' of David). I note the sources go back to 1990s-2012, as if nothing had happened in Israeli archaeology over the last decade, despite its very rapid strides in excavating numerous new sites.I read Avraham Faust's 2020 some time ago) He refrains from the controversy as to whether the 'highland (nota bene, not 'Northern' i.e. Davidic) 'polity' was Israelite or not.

(See Avraham Faust,'Between the Highland Polity and Philistia:The United Monarchy and the Resettlement of the Shephelah in the Iron Age IIA, with a Special Focus on Tel ʿEton and Khirbet Qeiyafa,' (2020) for example. On p.116 (from memory.)

The thickening of settlers from that northern polity is not a matter of urbanization or an expression necessarily of a 'centralized' state. Khirbet Qeiyafa was a brief quiet experiment in fortification that was quickly destroyed. Faust sees only a growing infiltration of highland demographic flow not visibly directed from some centralized polity in which local Canaanite labour and cultural conversion played a role, down to the edges of Philistia, which subsequently withdrew to concentrate on its maritime trade. The language of that edit seems to spin things as verification of biblical historicity, reflecting one set of sources (maximalists), but this is a highly charged world, and rather that quote the POVs apropos excavations as pro or contra the bible, far more work should be done on simply detailing site by site the latest excavation results. Nishidani (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

[1] When and How the Jewish People was invented? Book Review (Hebrew). Haaretz 21st March 2008. Verified 9th May 2008.

[2] Matthew White, 'Atrocities: The 100 Deadliest Episodes in human History' (New York, 2011), p. 192.

[1]

[1]