Talk:Israelites/Archive 5

Removed section asserting that the prevailing opinion is that various groups are "the authentic remnants of Israelite populations"
First, there are no sources listed that I read that state that this is the prevailing opinion.

There appears to be an assumption that Y-chromosomal Aaron (referred to in the article as the "Cohen Modal Haplotype" proves Israelite ancestry, despite our article stating that it doesn't.

There's inappropriate use of sources. We never refer people to our own articles. Feldman's "The Genetics of the Samaritans and Other Middle Eastern Peoples." doesn't seem to have ever been published. And Goldstein doesn't say that the Samaritans are descended from the Israelites. He says " Recent genetic testing has shown that Jews and Samaritans, as well as the previously mentioned ethnic groups, share a unique Y-DNA signature that can be identified as variants of the Cohen Modal Haplotype, strongly indicating a common paternal lineage from a single recent Semitic male ancestor." That's not the same thing. He also says "A 2004 genetic study of living Samaritans by Marc Feldman, Peter Oefner, and colleagues (Shen et al., “Reconstruction of Patrilineages and Matrilineages”) found evidence of ancient Samaritan and Cohen ancestry." Again, no mention of Israelites. Neither the YouTube video or the article in Israel National News are reliable sources by our criteria. (If anyone disagrees, take it to WP:RSN.) You can't use a source that says "High-resolution Y chromosome haplotypes of Israeli and Palestinian Arabs reveal geographic substructure and substantial overlap with haplotypes of Jews" to back "and 85% of Palestinian Arabs,[23][24] are the authentic remnants of Israelite populations.[25][26][27]". It doesn't say that. It doesn't even mention 85%. What does Goldstein, David B. Jacob's legacy: a genetic view of Jewish history. say about Palestinians? And page numbers for books are required.

"The 19th century discovery of the Paleo Hebrew script and the Gezer calendar demonstrated that the Samaritan Pentateuch is in fact preserved in an ancient variant of the pre-exilic Hebrew script seen in artifacts such as the Siloam inscription, lending further credence to the authentic Israelite origin of the Samaritans independent of the Jews" has no source at all, just "The Newly Discovered Phoenician Inscription, New York Times, June 15, 1855, pg. 4. Jump up" (Jump up? Why?) which whatever it says can't be used as a source for the sentence, which appears to be original research. Dougweller (talk) 11:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Totally agree with this. On your latter point, I have made a few amendments to the article tidy this up (and request missing cites). On the Israelite DNA connection to a variety of modern groups, I think that should be completely removed from the article. Firstly as you say we have no sources making the connection. Secondly, common sense says it is impossible to prove any connection via DNA to the Israelites, because there are no known Israelite human matter to take DNA samples from. Any connection between a common Semitic gene and the Israelites would be conjecture at best. To my mind such conjecture has no place in this article unless it is widely reported, which we have not shown. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

‎ "There appears to be an assumption that Y-chromosomal Aaron (referred to in the article as the "Cohen Modal Haplotype" proves Israelite ancestry, despite our article stating that it doesn't." You are correct that the CMH in ITSELF does not prove Israelite ancestry. It is the 12 marker CMH, in combination with a tradition of being descended from the Israelites (like the Lemba or Bene Israel), or historical ties to the Israelites, Jews, or Samaritans (like the Marranos and various Anusim like the Palestinians), that conclusively proves Israelite ancestry. I think you do not fully understand the precision of modern Y-DNA testing. Matches do not happen by accident, not over a large number of markers. A 12 marker match does not mean two people share a common ancestor 15,000, or 8,000 years ago, but only a mere 3000 years or so. The CMH was originally a 6 marker haplotype, but has been extended to 12. The 6 marker match, which it appears you are referring to, by itself and with no history of Israelite extraction only proved that someone's ancestors originated in northwestern Arabia. The presence of the 12 marker CMH, even without an Israelite tradition, proves either Israelite ancestry, or descent from a closely related ethnic group. In the future as geneticists continue to sequence the living Israelite populations mentioned in this article, a 36, and eventually a 111 marker CMH may be identified. If that is the case, you would not even need a Hebraic tradition to verify Israelite ancestry, as the extended CMH would be proof in itself. For now however, the 12 marker CMH in combination with a historic link to the Israelites is sufficient to confirm descent from them. When the 12 marker CMH is combined with historic evidence linking a group to the Israelites either through Hebraic customs, a tradition of having Israelite ancestry, or a historic paper trail linking that group to either Jews, Samaritans, or the Israelites, it does indeed unambiguously verify an Israelite origin.--Newmancbn (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

‎ "There's inappropriate use of sources. We never refer people to our own articles. Feldman's "The Genetics of the Samaritans and Other Middle Eastern Peoples." doesn't seem to have ever been published". You may need to get the study from Stanford, I have no problem removing them.--Newmancbn (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

‎ "And Goldstein doesn't say that the Samaritans are descended from the Israelites. He says " Recent genetic testing has shown that Jews and Samaritans, as well as the previously mentioned ethnic groups, share a unique Y-DNA signature that can be identified as variants of the Cohen Modal Haplotype, strongly indicating a common paternal lineage from a single recent Semitic male ancestor." That's not the same thing." -No he didn't. I wrote that, and yes it does. Cohen ancestry necessitates Israelite ancestry, or in this case the CMH in combination with historic ties to the Israelites, indicates Israelite ancestry.--Newmancbn (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

‎ "He also says "A 2004 genetic study of living Samaritans by Marc Feldman, Peter Oefner, and colleagues (Shen et al., “Reconstruction of Patrilineages and Matrilineages”) found evidence of ancient Samaritan and Cohen ancestry." Again, no mention of Israelites." Perhaps you don't know what a Cohen is. The Kohanim are the descendants of Aaron the brother of Moses who served as the priestly cast in ancient Israel. Cohen ancestry is Israelite ancestry, from the tribe of Levi. A Cohen is a type of Israelite. That is like saying "being descended from Cyrus the great doesn't prove Persian ancestry' or 'Korean ancestry doesn't prove Asian ancestry' or 'Human ancestry doesn't prove ape ancestry'. The Kohanim are a division of Israelites.--Newmancbn (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You are confusing two orders of discourse or analysis. The Bible is not an historical document, it is a mythistorical document, so when you write:
 * "The Kohanim are the descendants of Aaron the brother of Moses who served as the priestly cast in ancient Israel."
 * You are implying that an historical group are descendents of two mythical figures, since Aaron and Moses are mythical figures. At best you can only write: Kohanim claim descent from Aaron (an historical claim is not evidence of a connection with reality, here some component of the pre-exilic 'Israelites'. While the Pentateuch exalts the Aaronic line, the rest of the Tanakh does not, and textual scholarship argues that the showcasing of this line, as opposed to the Zadokites and Levites, is 'post-exilic', and stems from a retroscriptive romance of the line's antiquity during the Second Temple period when they assumed prominence. You cannot relate genetics to myth and retain any credibility. Nishidani (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

‎::: You are missing the point, the historical existence of the biblical Aaron is irrelevant. The studies don't demonstrate they are descendant from the Aaron of the Hebrew Bible. The point is, whether you call him Aaron, or Teshimitsu, there is a real founder of the Israelite priesthood who lived around 3500 years ago, and we have his DNA marker. He is the founder of the Jewish Kohanim, and either him, or some of his immediate Hebrew family members, are the patrilineal founders of the Samaritans, Bene Israel, 50% of the Buba clan, and extremely high segments of the Palestinian people. Since his DNA is tabernacled uniquely among ethnic groups with a tradition of being descended from the Israelites, it can be safely asserted that he, and his close relatives, were indeed actual ancient Israelites, regardless of the veracity of the biblical narrative, and we know they founded the extant peoples listed above. The presence of this highly specific Israelite genetic signature among those ethnic groups, in combination with their long established traditions of explicitly being descended from Israelites, proves, definitively, they are of actual Israelite origin.--Newmancbn (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

‎ "You can't use a source that says "High-resolution Y chromosome haplotypes of Israeli and Palestinian Arabs reveal geographic substructure and substantial overlap with haplotypes of Jews" to back "and 85% of Palestinian Arabs,[23][24] are the authentic remnants of Israelite populations.[25][26][27]". It doesn't say that. It doesn't even mention 85%". The DNA results are a piece of the puzzle putting together the origin of the Palestinians, the other work citied, which you want to remove, is what, in combination with the DNA results, verifies that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians, 85-90% according to anthropologists, are descended from Israelites via the Jews and Samaritans of the Second Temple period. You ask for the citations to be removed and then claim there is no evidence, I'm sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.--Newmancbn (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

‎ "Secondly, common sense says it is impossible to prove any connection via DNA to the Israelites, because there are no known Israelite human matter to take DNA samples from. Any connection between a common Semitic gene and the Israelites would be conjecture at best". With all due respect, you could not be more incorrect. We do have 'known human Israelite matter' to take DNA samples from, the Jews and the Samaritans. Are you claiming the Jews are the descendants of Khazars, or some other group of converts, or that Samaritans descend from Assyrians who were settled in Samaria? Those myths have been rejected by all respected scientists, scholars, anthropologists, and geneticists. Only politicized movements like antisemitic groups, or certain religious groups like the Hebrew Israelites, continue to claim the Israelites are not the ancestors of the Jews. Since Jews and Samaritans both share the exact same unique and very rare haplotype that originates in the area where the Israelites are traditionally thought to be from, their DNA in combination with their tradition of Israelite ancestry going back thousands of years, and their strong historic ties to ancient Israel, does indeed conclusively, and without ambiguity, prove they are in fact the living children of Israel. I realize the concept that Jews and Palestinians, and far flung ethnic groups like the Lemba of Zimbabwe, are descended from Israelites, is jarring to many people, but there is conclusive irrefutable evidence for it. There is irrevocable genetic, historic, cultural, linguistic, and textual evidence linking the Jews and Samaritans indisputably with the Israelites, which confirms that their 12 marker CMH (which alone does not prove Israelite ancestry, but only in combination with an Israelite tradition or a historic link to the Israelites) is indeed Israelite DNA. When their Y-DNA is compared to other groups with an Israelite tradition, and there is a match, then boom, thats where we are.--Newmancbn (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It all boils down to what reliable academic sources explicitly state that the Palestinian Arabs have been proven to be of Israelite descent. WP:RS and WP:VERIFY determine what are reliable sources - familytreedna doesn't qualify. WP:NPOV determines the use of those sources and we would almost certainly have to attribute them, ie not state as fact the relationship is proven. There is another big problem. You are using the Bible/Torah as part of your evidence. That's a primary source and can't be used this way. You also need to read WP:NOR. YOU think there is irrefutable proof that the Lemba are descended from Israelites, but the evidence is against you here. Not only that, writing about the Lemba has to reflect what Lemba people says, not contradict it. The Lemba are descended from a Middle Eastern population, but Wikipedia cannot be used as a platform to assert that it is without doubt an Israelite population that they descended from. Dougweller (talk) 07:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * ‎ Doug, did you not bother reading the some 10 or 12 separate peer reviewed scientific papers cited as sources? You are mentioning Family Tree DNA, a source I cited a single time because it has a nice chart showing timetables of common descent, while every single other source cited is from scholarly papers, you are straw manning the evidence. Obviously the Hebrew Bible can't be used as a stand alone source, this evidence is not based on the text of the Torah, it is based on genetics and anthropological research. Sometimes real scientific and archeological work happens to overlap with the biblical narrative, that is no reason to dismiss a scientific reality. I do not think the Lemba are descended from Israelites, its these scientists who do:


 * Le Roux, Magdel. "The Bhuba: a paternally inherited Jewish priesthood in Southern Africa?." Ekklesiastikos Pharos 92 (2010): 286-304.


 * Parfitt, Tudor, and Yulia Egorova. "Genetics, history, and identity: the case of the Bene Israel and the Lemba." Culture, medicine and psychiatry 29.2 (2005): 193-224


 * Thomas, Mark G., et al. "Y chromosomes traveling south: the cohen modal haplotype and the origins of the Lemba—the “Black Jews of Southern Africa”." The American Journal of Human Genetics 66.2 (2000): 674-686.


 * And so does the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8550614.stm


 * And PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/israel/familylemba.html


 * If your article on the Lemba people is in conflict with these peer reviewed scientific studies and news reports, then maybe its time to correct your article on the Lemba.--Newmancbn (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You mean our article on the Lemba. The latest study is and says " While it was not possible to trace unequivocally the origins of the non-African Y chromosomes in the Lemba and Remba, this study does not support the earlier claims of their Jewish genetic heritage." The BBC can't be used for scientific claims. Dougweller (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

‎::::: The study you citied looked at the Y-DNA of 76 Lemba men and found that 10 had the CMH, concluding that the majority of the Lemba are not descended from Israelites. This has been known from earlier studies, the CMH is not found among the general Lemba people, but only among the Buba clan, their priests, of whom 50% have the 12 marker CMH. The oral tradition of the Lemba is that their priests, the Buba clan, came from ancient Israel thousands of years ago, and settled in Yemen, and then journey to southern Africa. That is why the article explicitly states 'the Buba clan among the Lemba people...' and not simply 'the Lemba people', because the Lemba as a whole are not descended from Israelites, it is their priestly clan which is of Israelite origin.


 * If you want to see studies on Palestinians here they are, they are also in the article.


 * Nebel, Almut, et al. "High-resolution Y chromosome haplotypes of Israeli and Palestinian Arabs reveal geographic substructure and substantial overlap with haplotypes of Jews." Human genetics 107.6 (2000): 630-641.


 * Lucotte, Gérard, and Géraldine Mercier. "Y-chromosome DNA haplotypes in Jews: Comparisons with Lebanese and Palestinians." Genetic testing 7.1 (2003): 67-71.


 * Nebel, Almut, et al. "The Y chromosome pool of Jews as part of the genetic landscape of the Middle East." The American journal of human genetics 69.5 (2001): 1095-1112.


 * News sources in addition to the ones already discussed:


 * http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/01/shared-genetic-heritage-of-jews-and.html


 * http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Features/The-lost-Palestinian-Jews


 * Doug's call is correct in that it conforms to policy, and we have no place for anything that smacks of WP:OR here. There is a serious problem (as there is in the field of Israeli archaeology) between DNA research on origins that make inferences about prehistoric or early historic populations. The confidence that one can establish things confirming a biblical story or historic priestly tradition or meme by DNA has been shaken time and again by results that overthrow or significantly modify inferences made as recently as several years earlier than the latest paper. All the more reason to demand that, on a page dealing with history, the dominant concern should be to establish carefully what historical scholarship argues (and its range of often conflicting views) rather than to resort to inferences about history by geneticists who, in this regard, are notoriously unfamiliar with the niceties of historical and philological reconstructive models.Nishidani (talk) 10:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

‎::::: I would have no tolerance for it either. What is presented above is not original research, but peer reviewed genetic studies, anthropological studies, and respected news articles. I'm sorry, what is the problem with Israeli archeology and DNA research on inferences about prehistoric and early historic populations? There are no other means to which we can turn for knowledge about the world beside science and archeology, from where else do you suggest we get our information? You mention something about confirming biblical stories and priesthoods, the information in this article is about confirming which extant populations are the actual descendants of the ancient Israelites (yes, who really did exist, as verified by archeology) and not about validating the Hebrew Bible. I agree the information on the page should conform to historical scholarship, and in this case there is not a 'range' of conflicting views, no respected scholars claim the Jews or Samaritans are not descended from the historic Israelites. Similarly, no respected scholars claim that the Buba clan, or Bene Israel, or the Palestinians are not of significant Israelite origin. I refer you, and everyone else, once again to the massive number of studies citied on this subject in the article. We should not take inferences about history from geneticists? Y-DNA testing is one of the most accurate and unambiguous fields of scientific research, unlike archeology where one often has to guess what something dug up from 5000 years ago is and what implications it has, genetic testing is definitive, it can be calculated through examining protein strands of DNA, to the degree of a few generations, how recently two people share a common ancestor. The ethnic groups mentioned in this article have historic ties to ancient Israel and posses highly specific Y-DNA signatures that are distinctly of Israelite origin. That is why they are listed in this article. That is also why there is scholarly consensus that these groups are the actual descendants of the historic Israelites, and why all of the available scientific papers and news articles demonstrate that opinion, and finally, why there are no cited sources on this page which show that Jews, Samaritans, the Buba clan, Bene Israel, or Palestinian Arabs, are not descended from the Israelites, because it would be an impossibility, given the evidence of their genetic results and their ties to ancient Israel. If you can show me a single scientific study demonstrating otherwise, I'll show you a mausoleum in Agra I want to sell you. --Newmancbn (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You are so profuse in your bizarre opinions, that answering each of them is a waste of time, You suffer from conceptual confusion of the most elementary kind, speak of a 'scholarly consensus' (H Soodyall, Lemba origins revisited: Tracing the ancestry of Y chromosomes in South African and Zimbabwean Lemba,Molecular Genetics, December 2013, Vol. 103, No. 12) you cannot document, and employ terms in a manner that shows ignorance of basic distinctions and historical data.
 * 'It is the 12 marker CMH, in combination with a tradition of being descended from the Israelites (like the Lemba or Bene Israel) '
 * You fail to distinguish Israelites from Jews. You have zilch knowledge of the complexities of history if you persist in thinking that Jews and Israelites (post and pre-exilic ethnic groups) are interchangeable.
 * The Lemba do not claim descent from the Israelites: they have various conflicting traditions, some, including the Zimbabwean offshoots, claim Arab descent. Others say they hail from from Middle Eastern Jews in Sena, which their own traditions can't finger as either Yemen, Egypt, Ethiopia or Judea (for all we know given the Himyarite kingdom that could mean even converts to Judaism). Idem for the Bene Israel, who do not claim descent from the Israelites, but from Jews, 1,500 years after the falling into desuetude of 'Israelites' as an ethnonym.


 * I said a group claiming descent from a legendary, i.e. non-existent person, does not descend from that person. The example was Aaron. Your reply was disingenuous. 'It wasn't Aaron' but someone else who lived, according to DNA studies, 3,500 years ago. i.e. exactly the traditional priestly date of fundamentalists for Aaron (ca.1,500BCE). So the Bible just got his name wrong, 'cos I guess that section of it was written a thousand years later! This is bizarre special-pleading.
 * Genetics tells you nothing of what an historian understands by history.
 * "The Cohen modal haplotype is found also in non-Jewish men. 'As such ' it is not a test for whether or not a particular man is a Cohen any more than it is a test for whether or not a particular Lemba man is a Jew. For that matter, it cannot be used to determine whether or not the Lemba as a group are Jews. Genomic facts of generational connecion and halakhic traditions of both priestly status and of Jewishness are and must remain distinct, researchers insist'. (Nadia Abu El-Haj,The Genealogical Science: The Search for Jewish Origins and the Politics of Epistemology,University of Chicago Press, Jan 13, 2012.p.190)"
 * Given that it is a new science, studies date rapidly, and all your sources are, technically, antiquated (as well as using science to try and prove a national myth). To take the example of the study published last year, it concludes:
 * "Overall, this study has shown that Y chromosomes typically linked with Jewish ancestry were not detected by the higher resolution analysis conducted in the present study. It seems more likely that Arab traders, who are known to have established long-distance trade networks . .are more likely linked with the ancestry of the non-African founding males of the Lemba/Remba.' p.1043."
 * So much for you 'scholarly consensus'. The field of genetics has all too frequently proved to be hopelessly confused when its researchers descant on history. It's not their field, and when a historian analyses this aspect, much of it looked, and has proved to be, inane with the results contaminated by the result much of the research undertaken was specifically designed to find. Until there is some refinement and real consensus, we should use great caution in using such provisory genetics papers, given the way a 'consensus' is overturned every couple of years or so.Nishidani (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I will respond to this later.--Newmancbn (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure which study on the Lemba that is, but which says " it was not possible to trace unequivocally the origins of the non-African Y chromosomes in the Lemba and Remba, this study does not support the earlier claims of their Jewish genetic heritage." Also found Nadia Abu El-Haj, the Genealogical Science: The Search for Jewish Origins and the Politics of Epistemology By Samra, Myer | The Australian Journal ofjewish Studies, Annual 2012 which says "Surprisingly, however, this haplotype has been found among members of the Buba clan of the| Lemba, at a frequency-i3.5%-higher than that among ordinary Israelites. The Lemba are Bantu speaking community from South Africa and Zimbabwe, who have long maintained a claim of Jewish ancestry. Y-chromosome studies tend to support the proposition that some of their male ancestors had come from the Middle East, and even the possibility that they might have Jewish roots (p.187). Whilst this does not make the Lemba Jewish, it has apparently sparked interest in them from a number of Jewish organisations, such as South African Jews" In other words, the recent research in no way shows a consensus that the Lemba are descended from the Israelites, indeed it casts doubt upon that suggestion. Dougweller (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The study you are cited above, Lemba origins revisited: Tracing the ancestry of Y chromosomes in South African and Zimbabwean Lemba, looked at the Y-DNA of 76 Lemba men and found that only 10 had the CMH, concluding that the majority of the Lemba are not descended from Israelites. This is not surprising, and has been known from earlier studies, the CMH is not found among the general Lemba people, but only among their priestly Buba clan, who strictly disallow any non-Buba men from entering the clan, of whom 50% have the 12 marker CMH. The oral tradition of the Lemba is that their priests, the Buba clan, came from ancient Israel thousands of years ago, and settled in Yemen, and then journey to southern Africa. That is why the article explicitly states 'the Buba clan among the Lemba people...' and not simply 'the Lemba people', because the Lemba as a whole are not descended from Israelites, it is their priestly clan which is of Israelite origin.--Newmancbn (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I wrote in response to you that:
 * "The Lemba do not claim descent from the Israelites: they have various conflicting traditions, some, including the Zimbabwean offshoots, claim Arab descent. Others say they hail from from Middle Eastern Jews in Sena, which their own traditions can't finger as either Yemen, Egypt, Ethiopia or Judea (for all we know given the Himyarite kingdom that could mean even converts to Judaism)."
 * You now repeat a meme, ignoring my comment.
 * "The oral tradition of the Lemba is that their priests, the Buba clan, came from ancient Israel thousands of years ago"
 * The ethnographic work, as I showed (it can be sourced) says no such thing. This means you are talking past editors, and repeating yourself, citing selective accounts as though they were a 'truth'. The inability to address editors' concerns, and reply cogently to them, is one reason why you are, and will continue to be, reverted.Nishidani (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The reason I repeated my self is because the study was brought up before, and I responded that it is only the Buba who have a confirmable Israelite origin, and then the same study was brought up by again in a different section with the same assertion, which is fine, I don't care about having to repeat things. Obviously they are not going to know with absolute certainly where they are from, they left Israel most likely 2000 years ago, and because in the 21st century they don't know whether Sena was in Yemen or Egypt that somehow has any kind of imaginable bearing on the authenticity of their Israelite origins? It is pretty remarkable they could even retain the name Sena down through the centuries. Do you know what city your ancestors or my ancestors were in in the year 400 CE? Sena happens to be located in Yemen, one of the places they have a tradition of migrating from. They practice the Shabbath, kashruth, brith milah, sheita, they worship one god, have no pagan customs, have no concept of the devil or Jesus, no tradition of Muhammad, and have the exact same highly specified 12 marker Y-DNA signature found in Jewish Kohanim and Samritans. You tell me where they come from. Many Jews don't practice all of those customs and don't have the Cohen gene. It is not just on wikipedia, the Buba have been told they are not of Israelite origin, they have faced rejection from all sides. They obviously have just as much evidence of Israelite ancestry as any other group descended from Israelites, but the information is continually met with fierce denial. Why? Is it possible people are so viscerally opposed to the idea of a Sub Saharan African being a descendant of the Israelites, they can't see the evidence? I think it must be a similar phenomenon when it comes to Palestinian Arabs as well. The idea is so intrinsically horrifying to certain people, that nothing could connivence them. I reference you to the fact that neither the Israelite origin of Bene Israel, the Marranos, Jews, or Samaritans was ever contested in the article, although the evidence across the groups is the same. If we found the bones of the kings of Judah and a burial site of ancient Kohanim, and tested their DNA, and it was the same exact 111 marker haploype found in large groups of Palestinians or people from the Buba clan, I fear the response would be the same.--Newmancbn (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyu2jAD6sdo--

More on sources
For the Buba having a proven Israeli ancestry we have which I can't read but the abstract says " It demonstrates how DNA tests which happened to support the possibility of the communities' legends of origin affected their self-perception," Note the word possibility. As I've said, we have sources that make it clear there is no consensus, but I'd love to see quotes from this saying the Israeli ancestry of the Buba has been proven. For the Lemba I see something published in "Ekklesiastikos Pharos", a "peer-reviewed and accredited theological as well as philological-humanistic journal," by a professor of biblical studies and biblical archaeology. Not a scientific paper on genetics so shouldn't be used for genetics, we need the original work presumably cited in the paper - this author isn't qualified to make pronouncements on genetics. Dougweller (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The study, Genetics, history, and identity: the case of the Bene Israel and the Lemba, which you are referring to was published in 2005 which appears to be based on the less accurate 6 marker CMH discussed in length above, which was done before the new testing based on the extended, and highly specific, 12 marker CMH.

I don't get it, in one post there is a complaint that these genetic studies mean nothing without historical evidence (which I agree with) and then here there is criticism for referring to a historian along with the geneticists, because apparently a historian isn't qualified to make pronouncements on this subject. Magdel le Roux is a professor of archeology and ancient Palestine at the University of South Africa. He is an expert in archaeology and Iron Age in Palestine, the Hebrew Bible and Africa, the Lemba (so-called "Black Jews of Southern Africa), Judaising groups in Africa, and the period of the Judges. I think he's qualified to weigh in his two cents about the origin of the Buba clan, dontcha think?
 * Maybe, attributed, and not as an expert in genetics. But that really should go at Lemba people first. Then we can summarise it here. See WP:SUMMARY. I've cited a 2012 study mentioning the Buba but still saying only possibility. You keep talking about something citing a 12 marker CMH - is that MG Thomas - 2000? If so, it's older than the 2012 study so can't be used to refute it. Then here is Himla Soodyall. "Lemba origins revisited: tracing the ancestry of Y chromosomes in South African and Zimbabwean Lemba." South African Medical Journal 103 (12 Suppl. 1) (October 11, 2013): pages 1009-1113. This study uses higher resolution testing of extended haplotypes (notably the 12-marker extended Cohen Model Haplotype, beyond the 6-marker CMH previously searched for) to test the Lemba of South Africa and the related Remba people of Zimbabwe. The author now believes that the results are inconsistent with any Jewish origins for either the Lemba or Remba, though they do indeed have partial ancestry from outside of Africa. (Probably Arabs from Yemen?) That's the one I've been citing. Do you know for a fact it didn't study the Buba?


 * Oh hell, just looked at that Thomas study. I should have looked earlier. It doesn't say what you claim it says. "The CMH has been suggested as a signature haplotype for the ancient Hebrew population, and it may be performing that function in this study (Thomas et al. 1998). Further support for Lemba oral history comes from the Buba/CMH association. However, it is possible that the Lemba CMH Y chromosomes are a consequence of a relatively recent event that, in Lemba oral tradition, has acquired a patina of antiquity." "The genetic evidence revealed in this study is consistent with both a Lemba history involving an origin in a Jewish population outside Africa and male-mediated gene flow from other Semitic immigrants (both of these populations could have formed founding groups for at least some of the Lemba clans) and with admixture with Bantu neighbors; all three groups are likely to have been contributors to the Lemba gene pool, and there is no need to present an Arab versus a Judaic contribution to that gene pool, since contributions from both are likely to have occurred. The CMH present in the Lemba could, however, have an exclusively Judaic origin." None of that supports your use of it to say that the Lemba or the Buba are "authentic remnants of Israelite populations". Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

"These genetic results, in combination with the historic links each of these respective ethnic groups has to ancient Israel, strongly indicates they have an authentic Israelite origin"
Your sources must explicitly state that. Please add quotes from them showing that they do. We shouldn't be using blogs or familytreedna. epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/ is some sort of blog. Or newspaper articles. For books you need page numbers. Your choice of sources shows that you aren't familiar yet with our policy on sources, and I still believe that your use of them suggests you don't understand our policy on original research at WP:NOR. Worse, you are presenting one pov as though it is consensus, despite any change in wording, and in the case of the Lemba ignoring the recent research in favor of stuff as old at least as 2000. And take one of your sources:. In that article you need to stick to the stuff in bold letters. It ends with "In contrast, Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel) and Indian Jews (Bene Israel and Cochini) cluster with neighbouring autochthonous populations in Ethiopia and western India, respectively, despite a clear paternal link between the Bene Israel and the Levant. These results cast light on the variegated genetic architecture of the Middle East, and trace the origins of most Jewish Diaspora communities to the Levant." However, it is being used as a source for strongly indicates they have an authentic Israelite origin". We are not supposed to use sources that way. As I said, you need to show that your sources make that explicit, you cannot use deductive reasoning here. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I will provide the exact sentences from the sources listed that say the results indicate Israelite ancestry. This is a good deal of research spanning five separate ethnic groups, and it's easy to get confused if you're not familiar with this topic. The Beta Israel Jews of Ethiopia, in contrast to other Jews, the Bene Israel of India, and the Buba clan, have no indication of Israelite ancestry in their DNA, despite having a tradition of being descended from Israelites. The same is true for the Bnei Menashe of India. The massive majority of Bene Israel carry the 12 marker CMH on their Y-DNA, and indigenous Indian haplotypes on their mtDNA. The article could also state Jews, Samaritans, Palestinians, Bene Israel, and the Buba clan share strikingly high percentages of variations of the Cohen Modal Haplotype, and traditions of historic ties to ancient Israel, without stating it is proven they descend from Israelites, and let people make up their own mind. I will return with the specific references you are looking for, at which point I hope this information can be published, unless God forbid, there is a conspiracy to disallow evidence that Africans and Palestinians could be descended from Israelites. I notice no one took issue with the Bene Israel, Jews, Samaritans, or the Marranos being descended from Israelites, although they have the same genetic results and cultural ties to ancient Palestine as the Buba and Palestinians, is it possible there is a subconscious undercurrent of racism in vehemently rejecting these Africans and Palestinians as living children of Israel, in spite of overwhelming evidence?


 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyu2jAD6sdo--Newmancbn (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh for heaven's sake! Of course there isn't racism. Until we can deal with the problems with the way you use sources and the sources you use there is no point in looking at anything else. As for the Bene Israel, their lineage isn't proven so far as I know and I've said that before. But one step at a time. Newmancbn, have you read WP:NOR yet and if not why not? Dougweller (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm glad to hear that. Yes, I read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmancbn (talk • contribs) 18:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Israelite origin of the Palestinians
79.180.3.225 stated in their edit: "Palestinians are in their vast majority are ARABS and other muslims! those of them with any connection to the Israelites are few in number". The idea that Palestinians are not descended from people who have inhabited the Land of Israel since antiquity, but instead are a mixture of Arabs who moved there because of job opportunities generated by Zionism, is a myth that was promulgated in the early days of Zionism in part because of bad research and partly to discredit the Palestinians and their connection to the land. Anthropologists and scholars reject the assertion that Palestinians immigrated there in last 200 years from other Arab nations. We now know conclusively those theories are false because of the records left by the English about immigration into the Mandate of Palestine, and because of Y-DNA testing. Tsvi Misinai is Israel's leading researcher on this subject. In addition to the DNA studies being done by geneticists, his organization The Engagement, has sought to exhaustively document the presence of Jewish customs, traditions, and history among the Palestinian Arabs. His findings are rather remarkable. Palestinian Arabs circumcise their sons after the first week of life, in contrast to other Arabs who wait a few years, they light candles at grave sites, a tradition not found among any other Arab ethnic groups, they have the tradition of sitting in mourning (shiva) for a deceased relative for seven days, in contrast to other Arabs who mourn for three days. In addition to this the Palestinian city and place names west of the Jordan river are Arabizations of the Hebrew names for the same places in the Tanakh. On the east side of the Jordan, in ancient Moab and Ammon, the Hebrew names for places were replaced by totally different Arab words. However, the conclusive proof came in the 21st century with the advent of Y-DNA testing. Palestinians have extraordinarily high frequencies of the Cohen Modal Haplotype for a supposedly Arab ethnic group. This is a gene found among Jewish kohanim and Samaritan men. In addition to this the unique combination of non J1a haplotypes among Palestinians matches that of Jews. Meaning that both Jews and Palestinians share strikingly similar percentages of odd ball 'foreign' haplotypes in T, J2, G, E1b, and others. Indicating the famous multitude of converts to Judaism during the Second Temple period from around the Mediterranean are to be found among both Jews and Palestinians. See this Israeli mini documentary: www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQCr7GaVMWA. See this article as well, http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Features/The-lost-Palestinian-Jews. For DNA research see Nebel, Almut, et al. "High-resolution Y chromosome haplotypes of Israeli and Palestinian Arabs reveal geographic substructure and substantial overlap with haplotypes of Jews." Human genetics 107.6 (2000): 630-641. Also see --Newmancbn (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why do you think that the fact the "palestinians" have Haplogroup-J makes them Israelites in origin? this material is common all around the Middle East and as history tells us the vast majority of the Arabs nowadays calling themselves "palestinians" are descended from work immigrants from various backgrounds (mostly Saudi, Egyptian and Levantine Arabs) who came after 1850 and who may all carry this gene. Only several "palestinian" families are descendants of Jews & Samaritans who were converted into islam and married Arabs invaders. BTW Tsvi Misinai is a fraud by most genetics and historians in Israel.--DXRD (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe I wrote too much information and you did not bother to read it. Studies have not just shown they have high percentages of haplogroup J, or J1a, but that they have a high frequency of an extremely specific 11 for 12 and 12 for 12 marker Y-DNA signature known as the Cohen Modal Haplotype, which is only found in high frequency among Jews, Samaritans, Palestinians, the Bene Israel, and 50% of the Buba clan of the Lemba people. That is what indicates their Israelite ancestry, not just the generic semitic haplogroup J. It is a myth, and a lie, that they descend from Arabs who immigrated there after Zionism, that would be very convenient for Israel (a nation which I love) wouldn't it? Well, it is not that easy. They indeed are descendant from people who populated the region since antiquity (before the Roman and Byzantine occupation of Judea), we know this from the data on immigration to the region from English and Ottoman records, as well as Crusader, Islamic, Byzantine, and Roman history. Does that make sense now?--Newmancbn (talk) 06:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As I explained earlier, I do not agree with your claims about their origin, there are vast evidance for the Arab and non-Arab muslim descent of most "palestinians" living in the Land of Israel today. Hope you know Hebrew cause this source deals with this issue: "Are Palestinians originated in Ancient Israelites? No, No, No says many Israeli Historians" And those are in English: Genealogy of Palestinian surnames & Origins of the "palestinians" proves them to be descendants of Arab tribes, other Levantine and North African Muslims, Sudanese Afro-Arabs, Jewish-Samaritans & European forced converts to islam, Bosniaks, Chechens, Turks, Indians and Kurds.--DXRD (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

79.180.3.225
79.180.3.225 I reverted your edits on the Palestinians from Nablus and Hebron being the only ones who are largely descended from Israelites. You are absolutely correct that studies have shown the majority of Palestinians around Nablus are descended from Samaritans and not Jews as you asserted in your edit. However, the Palestinians descended from Jews are not just focused in Hevron. You are referring to a village called Sachnin, which means 'wine-makers', in the area of Ma'arath HaMakhpela where the Arab residents are descended from Jews who converted to Islam only a few centuries ago. While this is indeed an interesting case, it's not what's so remarkable about the genetic studies and the historical research by Tsvi Misinai, which has concluded that not only this small village, but the vast majority of Palestinians, 85-90%, are desceded from the 'Amei HaArez', peasant Jews who remained in Judea and the Galilee after the Roman exile.

The issue is also not about haplogroup J1a, which is generic to all of northwest Arabia, but a specific haplotype within J1a called the Cohen Modal Haplotype which the Palestinians have in an impossibly high frequency if they are not descendants of Israelites.

This genetic information alone does not offer conclusive proof of their Israelite origin, it is in combination with this historic fact: neither the Romans, nor the Byzantines, the Islamic conquerers, the Crusaders, Saladin's armies, the Ottomans, or the English, settled their people en mass in the Land of Israel. So the obvious question arises, from whence come the Palestinians? If they are not descendent from any of the Empires who conquered Israel, and if the land was totally emptied of all Jews by Hadrian (sheḥiq ạṣmoth) in 135 CE, who are they descendent from?

A rumor is they come from Arabs who moved to the Land of Israel during the beginning of Zionism. The English kept records of who immigrated and there was no massive immigration. Instead what happened was the English built hospitals and roads, and plumbing, and infrastructure in the land, paid for by Jewish taxes, which caused the Palestinian birthrate to skyrocket and the infant mortality rate among Palestinians to plummet compared to other surrounding people. So 200,000 Palestinians in 1800 turned into literally millions by 1947.

So we know today's Palestinians are descendant from people who were there before Zionism. It has already been established none of the successive nations that controlled the land over the last 2000 years have populated it with their people, so it only leaves one possibility, they are descendent from the last group of people to completely populate Palestine, who of course are the Jews and Samaritans before the Roman occupation. They cannot be descendent from the pre-Israelite peoples like the Canaanites and Philistines, because those nations vanish from history by the time of the Hasmonean kingdom. Their oral traditions, and many cultural customs, which I listed above, lend supporting evidence to that fact. The high frequency of the Cohen Modal haplotype among the Palestinians is the coup de grace in the theory. When it is all tied together, we see the whole picture. Peasant Jews who were not zealots were left in the land by Hadrian (sheḥiq ạṣmoth) as long as they converted to Roman paganism, these people eventually converted to Christianity under Constantine and then to Islam after the Islamic conquest of Syria, and today are called the Palestinians.--Newmancbn (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why do you think that the fact the "palestinians" have Haplogroup-J makes them Israelites in origin? this material is common all around the Middle East and as history tells us the vast majority of the Arabs nowadays calling themselves "palestinians" are descended from work immigrants from various backgrounds (mostly Saudi, Egyptian and Levantine Arabs) who came after 1850 and who may all carry this gene. Only several "palestinian" families are descendants of Jews & Samaritans who were converted into islam and married Arabs invaders. BTW Tsvi Misinai is a fraud by most genetics and historians in Israel.--DXRD (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe I wrote too much information and you did not bother to read it. Studies have not just shown they have high percentages of haplogroup J, or J1a, but that they have a high frequency of an extremely specific 11 for 12 and 12 for 12 marker Y-DNA signature known as the Cohen Modal Haplotype, which is only found in high frequency among Jews, Samaritans, Palestinians, the Bene Israel, and 50% of the Buba clan of the Lemba people. That is what indicates their Israelite ancestry, not just the generic semitic haplogroup J. It is a myth, and a lie, that they descend from Arabs who immigrated there after Zionism, that would be very convenient for Israel (a nation which I love) wouldn't it? Well, it is not that easy. They indeed are descendant from people who populated the region since antiquity (before the Roman and Byzantine occupation of Judea), we know this from the data on immigration to the region from English and Ottoman records, as well as Crusader, Islamic, Byzantine, and Roman history. Does that make sense now?--Newmancbn (talk) 06:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually this is an inappropriate use of the talk page. You are using the talk page to discuss the subject rather than to discuss sources, etc, treating it as a forum. None of what you say is actually relevant here. Again, what you need are sources that explicitly link named groups with Israelite descent. That is absolutely vital. Editing here is very very different from writing a paper for an academic journal. What you write above would be ok for such a paper, but we need explicit sources. I've asked you for quotations several times and I don't think you've responded, although it's hard to tell sometimes. We need those responses. Dougweller (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand, I'm gathering the exact references from the cited studies that say the data indicates these groups have Israelite ancestry. It will take a little time, but I'll return with the precise sources.--Newmancbn (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As I explained earlier, I don't agree with your claims about their origin, there are vast evidance for the Arab and non-Arab muslim descent of most "palestinians" living in the Land of Israel today. Hope you know Hebrew cause this source deals with this issue: "Are Palestinians originated in Ancient Israelites? No, No, No says many Israeli Historians" And those are in English: Genealogy of Palestinian surnames & Origins of the "palestinians" proves them to be descendants of Arab tribes, other Levantine and North African Muslims, Sudanese Afro-Arabs, Jewish-Samaritans & European forced converts to islam, Bosniaks, Chechens, Turks, Indians and Kurds.--DXRD (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * Trash the RfC Respectfully, the question is too broad to be useful.  There are contexts where "god" would be appropriate (the god of the Isrealites), places where "Yahweh" would be appropriate (discussion of a name for a god that monotheistic israelites worshipped or that was part of a pantheon for polytheistic isrealites) and places where "YHWH" would be appropriate, namely orthography, jewish religion, etc...   A more narrow RfC would be something like: "Should all instances of "Yahweh" be replaced with "YHWH", which seems to be the issue. Jytdog (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Or even more specifically, "Should all instances of "Yahweh" be replaced with "YHWH" in topics relating to the Hebrew Bible, Judaism, and Samaritans"--Newmancbn (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * would you please consider withdrawing the RfC and reframing it so it can be productive? Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for simplification
User:Newmancbn, thanks for your contributions. You clearly have a lot to add to wikipedia. Since this is a collaborative project, could I ask you to condense your position here in a summary form for a simple reader like me? I have not been able to follow all the "walls of text" above, and would like to understand your position clearly. Rather than just bringing hundreds of sources, perhaps select the most powerful (and short) quotes from two or three of your highest quality sources. As i've said above, the idea that DNA can prove Israelite descent does not seem intuitive to me, so i'd like to understand where the most reputable scholars have specifically made that exact claim. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'll provide a brief summery soon.--Newmancbn (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)



Definition in lead. sourcing
I've removed the stupid remark that Israelites were Hebrew-speakers in Canaan from the 15th century BCE onwards, because it is WP:OR and defies all linguistic commonsense, since it antedates as a distinct language, a semitic dialect as a distinct language, attributable to one tribe which however was a congeries of tribes probably from different regions, several centuries before the language is attested.

As to the sourcing, as has been noted, pagination is required, and preferably links to google books. Writing: is fraudulent, since Finkelstein does not hold that the 'Israelites' are as defined in our sentence. The Merneptah stele attests Israel in Canaan by 1207 BCE. Earlier mentions speak of the Apiru as invasive brigands on the periphery of Canaan's settled world. Other scholars speak of Israel as emerging from within Canaan as fringedwellers who formed a distinctive settlement in the highlands. What looks probable is that they had mixed ethnic and linguistic origins, variously to Egypt and Edom (cf.Shasu)
 * Finkelstein, Israel. "Ethnicity and origin of the Iron I settlers in the Highlands of Canaan: Can the real Israel stand up?." The Biblical archaeologist 59.4 (1996): 198-212
 * Finkelstein, Israel. The archaeology of the Israelite settlement. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1988.
 * Finkelstein, Israel, and Nadav Naʼaman, eds. From nomadism to monarchy: archaeological and historical aspects of early Israel. Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1994.
 * Finkelstein, Israel. "The archaeology of the United Monarchy: an alternative view." Levant 28.1 (1996): 177-187.
 * Finkelstein, Israel, and Neil Asher Silberman. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Isreal and the Origin of Sacred Texts. Simon and Schuster, 2002
 * Editors ask that contributors either give links, or where queried, the actual statements deemed relevant from the generically cited sources be transcribed to verify the correspondence of what is written with the source cited. Don't plunk in sources without providing either.Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The 15h century BCE is when the beginnings of the archeological remains in the foothills of Judea and Samaria begin which would later become the famous '250' hilltop Israelite settlements of the 13th century with 'no pig bones', discovered by archeologists in the second half of the 20th century and discussed at length in the above mentioned sources. Again, this is a topic so elementary I would expect an encyclopedia community to already know this, and I should not have to go around collecting widely known information, but I will gather the exact sentences from the sources for you, as I will do for the linguistic analysis of YHWH, the history of the Roman exile by Josephus, and the genetic and historic ties to ancient Israel demonstrated among the Buba, Bene Israel, and the Palestinians. Here's one for starters: Finkelstein and Silberman write: "These surveys revolutionized the study of early Israel. The discovery of the remains of a dense network of highland villages — all apparently established within the span of few generations — indicated that a dramatic social transformation had taken place in the central hill country of Canaan around 1200 BCE. There was no sign of violent invasion or even the infiltration of a clearly defined ethnic group. Instead, it seemed to be a revolution in lifestyle. In the formerly sparsely populated highlands from the Judean hills in the south to the hills of Samaria in the north, far from the Canaanite cities that were in the process of collapse and disintegration, about two-hundred fifty hilltop communities suddenly sprang up. Here were the first Israelites." Finkelstein and Silberman (2001), p. 107--Newmancbn (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That is what I wrote. They were speakin of events three centuries after 1,500 BCE. That means I was correct and those sources did not justify the sentence.Nishidani (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
The name of the god of Israel in the Masoretic text is יהוה, yod he waw he, YHWH. The vowels indicated in the Masoretic text are Yehowah but scholars have asserted they are only the vowels of Adonai. The two sets of vowels are not identical, as evidenced even in the English transliterations, and Yehowah is supported by its use in theophoric names, Yehoshua, Yehoshafat, Yehohanan, Yehozadoq, Yehonathan, et cetera. The pronunciation Yahweh is widely acknowledged by scholars as a guess, and is an agreed upon pronunciation when speaking the name YHWH in academic settings, rather than Jehovah. Yahweh is a particularly unlikely pronunciation because it in itself violates the rules of Hebrew grammar outlined in the Tiberian vocalization and explained in Aaron ben Moses ben Asher's authoritative text on the Tiberian writing system, Diqduqei Ha-Te'amim. 'Yahweh' is not Hebrew. The root word is 'howa' meaning to exist, the vowels a-way can't be derived from it. Other theophoric names, Eliyahu, Yeshayahu, Hezqiyahu, Yerimeyahu, et cetera may indicate Yahuweh, or Yahuwah, which could theoretically be compatible with the semitic root 'howa'. Not only is Yahweh not a real Hebrew word, it is not semitic. Northwest semitic languages have a distinct vowel pattern. Some things just don't sound authentically Arabic or Hebrew. Like if you wanted to invent the name meaning 'YHWH is compassionate', Yeho-Hesed or Hesed-Yahu, as a proper name, it would need to be changed to Yehohasad or Hasadyahu because that is just how Hebrew works. Yahweh does not sound like TIberian Hebrew, it sounds like 'either my way, or Yahweh', its linguistically retarded. Rendering the name as YHWH eliminates the entire issue of the mysterious vowels by taking them out all together. When you visit the Shrine of the Book or the Israel Museum, explanatory placards don't read 'Yahweh' but 'YHWH'. The only appropriate scholarly use is when someone must pronounce the name, like when giving a lecture, or in discussions of Christian 'sacred name movements', or of the theorized pre-Israelite Canaanite deity 'Yahweh' (El), and not of the name as it relates to the Hebrew text or Judaism. Use asinine Hebrew on wikipedia if you want to, but it looks unscholarly and stupid. Frankly, the way I see it, its the community's job to already know this, and not my job to explain it. There are a plethora of examples to cite from scholarly sources discussing this topic, and I will show them to you tomorrow, but right now I have other things to do.--Newmancbn (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC) "'Use asinine Hebrew on wikipedia if you want to, but it looks unscholarly and stupid.'"
 * Sure, the assumption being that YHWH corresponds to normative 'Hebrew', ignoring that its earliest forms are attested in Edom's toponomastica and Amorite texts and was probably constituted of sentence names that later suffered abbreviation (Frank Moore Cross here), which means the nonsense you write above is just that, a failure to understand semitic linguistics. The only other problem is, a great number of scholars (Anson Rainey)disagree with you, and vocalize it as we have it written. Baruch A. Levine writes sensibly:
 * "'A word on nomenclature... It is treated as a logogram and normally vocalized adonai 'The Lord.' This vocalization produced the artificial form 'Jehovah', which is without textual basis. In modern scholarship it is conventional to pronounce the divine name in English as 'Yahweh', a vocalization suggested by certain ancient versions of the Hebrew Bible, which is how it will be represented in this study.'('The Wars of Yahweh:Biblical Views of a Just War' in Jacob Neusner, Bruce D. Chilton, R. E. Tully (eds.) Just War in Religion and Politics,University Press of America, 2013 pp.69ff. p.72.)"
 * Please stop wasting our time with ridiculous personal constructions of 'the truth'.Nishidani (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

RFC: :Should "God" and "Yahweh" be replaced by "YHWH"?

 * Should "God" and "Yahweh" be replaced by "YHWH"? The rationale for this replacement, or rather the replacement of Yahweh by YHWH, was given by the editor doing this as "Yahweh is a linguistically retarded estimation". This change is being made at other articles also.Dougweller (talk) 08:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have withdrawn this as I agree it needs reframing. Dougweller (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * And editor who created the problem making changes in over 50 articles, breaking quotations, etc topic banned, so this is moot. Dougweller (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

NPOV tag
and would you please identify what exactly is being claimed to fail NPOV? Nothing above is clear on that. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I reverted a vandal who removed the tag with an edit summary of "Removed anti-Semitism". Sorry that you don't like that. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * it was great that you reverted the vandal! after I saw that, i came and reviewed the Talk page myself and failed to see the NPOV issue so removed the tags intentionally. I was reverted, so I opened this discussion.  What is the NPOV issue exactly?

Disputed tag
and would you please identify exactly different issue is disputed? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I reverted a vandal who removed the tag with an edit summary of "Removed anti-Semitism". Sorry that you don't like that. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * it was great that you reverted the vandal! after I saw that, i came and reviewed the Talk page myself and failed to see what was disputed so removed the "disputed" tag intentionally. I was reverted, so I opened this discussion.  What is the separate "disputed" issue exactly?
 * This talk page suggests it is regarding genetic research of the Israelites and their relation to various other groups. Debresser (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding. As far as I can see, both tags were related to edits by  who swooped in and raised a terrible ruckus and was promptly topic banned and is now indeffed.  I  don't see any current disputes or NPOV issues.Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks to me as if the tags were placed by this 07:48, August 18, 2014 UTC edit by . That was during the spate of edits (see the edit history). Neither tag links to a specific section on this talk pagee, so there is no telling what they are about. I suggest that they be removed and only be allowed back if linked to specific talk page discussion sections providing details about what is disputed. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * that is what i had done. will do it again now. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops, I should have removed it after he was blocked. Sorry. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)