Talk:Israelites/Archive 6

Past tense
Why is this article in the past tense? "Israelites were an ancient Semitic people." Israelites are an ancient Semitic people because we still exist. Jews were commonly referred to by the name Israelites until just half a century ago until Jews replaced it in common usage. Also the "and lived in the region in smaller numbers after the fall of the monarchy" is problematic. You have proof of this? Jews and Samaritans combined were a large majority by the time of the Maccabees and still were during the time of Jesus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.209.230.216 (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Israelites" is used for the historical people, not for the present day people, who are referred to as "Jews".
 * Of course there were smaller numbers after the war leading to the fall of the monarchy and the consequent exile. Nobody said they were not a minority, just that there were less of them in absolute numbers. Debresser (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Uh, WHAT monarchy?
In the first section, there's a line ending, "...and lived in the region in smaller numbers after the fall of the monarchy. WHAT monarchy?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.230.113 (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You must have missed the first half of that sentence, which refers to "The Israelites ... who inhabited part of Canaan during the tribal and monarchic periods". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Jews and Israelites
One editor removed the category Jews, then another added it back in, and then again with the edit summaries arguing whether the Israelites are Jews, or the Jews are Israelites. Let's talk this over first, okay? Debresser (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * My personal opinion, the Israelites are Jews, the Jews are not Israelites. :) Just comes to show that there are many different opinions. Willing to explain myself, if needed. Debresser (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It's an obvious anachronism to categorize the Israelites as Jews. According to the Bible, the Israelites existed before the Jews, who are the descendants of the Israelites. Editor2020, Talk 00:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Not exactly. I think that today's Jews are probably from all the Israelite tribes (mainly Judah, Benjamin and Levi), as well as converts.--Averysoda (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * sources folks. What anybody "thinks" doesn't matter in WP.  Very strong sources are needed to say that the ancient Israelites were Jews.  What are those sources? Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Here we go:          --Averysoda (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This article is about the ancient Isrealites.  Please bring mainstream history books.   You are actually citing the bible a history reference?    and  "harvnb|Tubb|1998|pp=13–14" is not useful. Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I just gave you eleven sources! You don't like the Bible? Fine, take it out. You still have ten other reliable sources.--Averysoda (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As I just said, you threw a lot of crap at the wall, including the bible. If you bring sources for a history article that take mythology as history, and state things like "descendent of Jacob" as though it actually meant something, nobody is going to take you seriously.   This is the kind of the source that is meaningful: James Maxwell Miller  A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. Westminster John Knox Press, 1986 ISBN 9780664212629. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So I guess that for example Mr. Raymond Scheindlin from Oxford is also "crap" according to your standards.--Averysoda (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I missed it, that this article mixes religious use of the term by Jews with actual history. Because of that mixture, the category "Jews" is completely fine. My apologies. Jytdog (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Tribal allotments merge
This article is quite short, and the Tribal Allotments article would fit perfectly into the scope. The other article would be an orphan if it wasn't linked in the navbox. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know. That article is basically a list of the geographical borders of the land allotted to each tribe. A rather dull and really quite a long list of places/rivers and other landmarks. I can see why this information is better kept separate from this article. Debresser (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Most of the information in the Tribal allotments of Israel article is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH based on WP:PRIMARY sources and should not be merged. If there is anything worthwhile left after that is removed it should be merged here. Editor2020, Talk 04:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Editor2020 I agree it comes from primary sources. That does not make it original research. If one were to remove the primary source info, you'd be left with nothing. Your opinion comes down to: delete the Tribal allotments article. The question is then, would an Afd of that article be successful? Debresser (talk) 07:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Some of the primary info seems ok - i.e. the bible verse references. But the rest has no inline references to support the interpretations. It looks more like a working draft than an article, and has not been developed meaningfully since it was created 9 years ago. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

i went over that article. the body of this article was WP:OR - completely constructed directly from a WP:PRIMARY source (the bible) and that is not what we do here. I left a stub that should probably be merged elsewhere. The article could perhaps be written again, but based on reliable, secondary sources, giving the most WP:WEIGHT to the views of mainstream biblical scholarship.Jytdog (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Merging is a good idea, if only because it will force editors to change a nugatory stub into a serious exposition of the tribal allotment matter, which is fundamental to the Israelite narrative. That article effectively just lists the tribes, and despite the proud bibliography shows no evidence of familiarity with the extensive critical work on these allotment traditions (Norman Gottwald,, Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 1250-1050 BCE, A&C Black, 1999;Nadav Naʼaman, Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors: Interaction and Counteraction, Eisenbrauns, 2005 pp.335ff. etc. to name but a few.) The only way that stub can justify its independence is if people work it. If it is developed here sufficiently, it could then be forked into a sub-article.Nishidani (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * don't know that i agree that specific tribal allotments per se are "fundamental to the Israelite narrative", at least as told in the bible. agree it would probably be worked on more here than there. Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of the split between the allotment by God of Israel to the Israelites, and the way the allotment interweaves tribal groups into territorial units on a kind of divine compact, encompassing the whole land, and the revision undertaken by Ezra who breaks up the Ezechialian scheme, and recasts the identity no longer as 'Israelite' but Judahite families, those who returned, or descended from returnees, from exile. The concepts of land become quite distinct in this break, though later tradition patches them back in a variety of ways. The Israelitic early form is inclusive, the latter exclusive (and reconfigures itself what became Judaism).Nishidani (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * straying away from topic... let's stay on task.Jytdog (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the the Tribal allotments of Israel article is OR. Here's what I said on the Talk there: I didn't write this article, but I don't know why you think it's OR. There's a reference to Historical Geography of the Bible; The Tribal Territories of Israel. (see http://www.jstor.org/stable/604540?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) by Kallai, which seems like a reliable source. The tribal allotments seem like a fine topic for a section here and a separate main article. ProfGray (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * the entire body of that article was constructed from a primary source. that is not what we do here.  We are not scholars who build content from primary sources; we are editors who summarize secondary and tertiary sources.  This is the very heart of WP. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, as I just mentioned, the entire body of that article was not from a primary source, it seemed to be based in good measure on cited academic sources, such as Zecharia Kallai (see JSTOR link above). Thanks. ProfGray (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * here is the article as it was when I looked at. Please point out any secondary source cited in the body of the article. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article was written in 2006. The contributor put in a series of academic sources in the references list but didn't do citations in the body of the article. However, that doesn't make it Original Research. Rather, back in 2006 they were pretty loose about footnoting (or at least this user was). But the academic sources are there from the beginning. Somebody should improve the article to link the content to the refs, but IMO that's not a reason to blank or delete the article. Thanks for discussing this. ProfGray (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC) PS  many print encyclopedias have similar references without footnotes,  so we should correct it to fit our standards, but still appreciate what the user was doing ProfGray (talk)
 * I am looking at what is there, and what I see is WP:OR with some bibliography provided.  I understand that you believe he or she did consult them.  Thing is, neither you nor I can claim to know.  That is the problem with not using inline sources.   So let's not argue about it.   Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The list contains two "columns": Biblical place names and modern ones. The entire endeavour of pairing the two is a modern one, so that's not primary in the sense of being taken right from the bible. The biblical names are primary, but wp allows using primary sources to reoprt their own content.


 * Many names are wikilinked, and their articles may have the sources you are looking for. IIRC I came to the list once or twice after looking for a particular place, and the identification followed the opinions of Aharoni (from the bibliography) and Encyclopaedia Biblica (Israel). All of this goes to show the list should be restored, so it can be worked on a one by one basis (it's harder to do, but there is no deadline). trespassers william (talk) 11:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The pairing is WP:OR. There may or may not be sources elsewhere; the sources need to be provided for the claim where they are made. I don't know what you mean about "two columns" - what version of what article, are you talking about? Jytdog (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The pairs are what I called columns, not graphical ones. If you suspect they are OR, you should check that in the suggest sources, or find alternative ones, or leave it. Start by one pair, and ref, tag, expand, or delete the modern leg, so we can all know where we stand. Not just assume it's OR and flush it. trespassers william (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

i still have no idea what version of what article you are talking about Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * this. BTW from WP:NOR, "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed.[1] " trespassers william (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. i am still at a loss, for what you mean by columns. in my view constructing a whole article from a primary source is OR, with no inline secondary sources, with some books tacked to the on, is complete shit and i will remove that any where i find it. but this discussion is a big waste of time.   if you want the content, restore what you can in-line source from secondary sources. WP:FIXIT with inline secondary sources if you want it. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it seems like another, and I'd say better, approach is to tag the content as Citation Needed. Uncited stuff needs to be removed immediately for BLP. But this content isn't BLP and there's good reason to believe, as I and trespassers william pointed out, that the content is based on the reliable sources that are listed in the references. The Citation Needed template would set up a process, mark the date that you noticed the problem, and help broadcast the need for citation improvements. I don't agree that there's Consensus to simply remove the content -- which is likely "attributable" (as noted above). ProfGray (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Any objections
I have lost track of the thread above. The tribal allotments article is now just a three line paragraph. Any remaining objections to going ahead with the merge? Oncenawhile (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not just merge it into the Book of Joshua? That's all the article is based on.77.165.250.227 (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good idea. ✅. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

8th millenium bce or 8th century bce
In the below statement in article they mentioned like 8th millenium bce. But it looks like that period is 8th century bce. Please clarify me whether that is 8th millenium bce or 8th century bce.

Article states

/The prevailing academic opinion today is that the Israelites, who eventually evolved into the modern Jews and Samaritans, were an outgrowth of the indigenous Canaanites who had resided in the area since the 8th millennium BCE./ --Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Ha. Century, of course. Debresser (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The usual editorial fraudulence at work.
"The prevailing academic opinion today is that the Israelites, who eventually evolved into the modern Jews and Samaritans, were an outgrowth of the indigenous Canaanites who had resided in the area since the 8th millennium BCE.[7][8][9][10]."
 * (7) Tubb 1998, pp. 13–14 Please note that there is no indication in the bibliography on that page as to what book is being referred to. It happens to be Jonathan Tubb, The Canaanites, University of Oklahoma Press 1998 pp.13-14.  On those pages, Tubb states that Canaanite identity is not Israelites alone: it has been subsumed under many names, Phoenicians, Ammonites, Moabites, Israelites, etc., and that a speaker of classical Hebrew, but not of modern Hebrew, would have no problem in making himself understood there. There is no mention of the transition to modern Jews nor of an academic consensus apropos (WP:OR)
 * (8) McNutt, Paula (1999). Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel. Westminster John Knox Press. p.47 (failed verification. Fraudulent use of sources. There is no mention of the link to modern Jews nor of an academic consensus apropos WP:OR)
 * (9) K. L. Noll, Canaan and Israel in Antiquity: An Introduction, A&C Black, 2001 p.164:‘It would seems that in the eyes of Merneptah’s artisans, Israel was a Canaanite group indistinguishable from all other Canaanite groups.’ ‘It is likely that Merneptah’s Israel was a group of Canaanites located in the Jezreel Valley.’ (failed verification. There is no remark here that the Canaanites became Israelites became modern Jews. To the contrary Noll argued (he doesn't say 'the academic consensus is') that Israelites were one of several Canaanite groups. Ther is no mention of the link to modern Jews nor of an academic consensus apropos. WP:OR.
 * (10) Stefan Paas Creation and Judgement: Creation Texts in Some Eighth Century Prophets, BRILL, 2003 pp.110-121, esp.144 (failed verification. There is no mention of modern Jews in this study of creation tales in the prophets. There is no mention of modern Jews as descendents of Canaanite Israelites nor of an academic consensus apropos WP:OR

So this whole sentence has been invented under false warrants. I will remove it. Editors who wish to reinsert some generalization about a prevailing academic consensus re this should use the talk page, and craft some statement that is supported by scholarship.Nishidani (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * If we simply removed the clause "who eventually evolved into the modern Jews and Samaritans", wouldn't the statement then be correct? I can imagine that this clause was slipped in, but the sourcing relates to the rest of the sentence.Oncenawhile (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What editors should learn is that before altering a text they should examine the sources. (b) For 'the modern academic consensus' you cannot cite 3 random texts that might say (they don't all say it) Israelites came from Canaanites. You need an authoritative (scholarly) text that is recent that states this. (c) As far as I recall, this is the recent trend of thought, but it is complicated as all these discussions are by the fact that Israelites here refers, as per Tubbs, to a congeries of peoples not in Canaan, but in the southern Levant, including western Syria and the Transjordan etc., (d) some of those book pages do not mention that Israelites come from the Canaanites. I think they do, personally, but you need new sources that precisely state that, and many exist. The biggest error is to think Canaanites refers to Canaan =Palestine. It was more extensive.Nishidani (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "wouldn't the statement then be correct?" No, it wouldn't, because there is no reliable evidence or sources refuting the passage you wish to remove, while there is evidence (specifically, genetic studies) supporting it.ChronoFrog (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Israelites didn't split into Jews and Samaritans after the United Kingdom
Israelites didn't split into Jews and Samaritans after the United Kingdom. They split in a Northern and Southern kingdom. That is also what the source says. Nishidani got it wrong. In addition, his edit summary "That looks like a partisan rabbinical dismissal of Samaritan Israelitic origins, Dovid, and thus not neutral." seems to show an ulterior motive for his edit. Debresser (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * For the umpteenth time, don't revert automatically when you can exercise the intelligent option of rewriting the paraphrase you object to in such a way that it corresponds more precisely or adequately to the RS cited. I've done the obvious edit your objection asks for.Nishidani (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You added information that is undue attention, and is mentioned already in the other paragraphs of the lead. Debresser (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, you don't need to tell me what to revert and what not. I can make up my mind myself. Especially when there is a real suspicion your involvement here is only to bother me. Debresser (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify what 'undue attention' means. That is not policy. WP:Undue for something that is an integral part of the Israelites (the Samaritans call themselves 'northern Israelites') is not undue. As to the point ( b) it being mentioned elsewhere in the lead. The lead construes the Israelites in terms of what the Hebrew Bible says of them. The Samaritans have a different version. It is not neutral, since elements in the Tanakh, early Jewish history and rabbinical tradition evince hostility to the Samaritans, regarding them as the descendants of Cushites, and we cannot per NPOV write half of the Israelite equation from a 'Jewish perspective'. The Tanakh in any case identifies the Samarians/Samaritans as Israelites.Nishidani (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Undue is not policy? You mean, perhaps, it is a guideline. That does not make any difference in this case.
 * The Tanakh identifies Samaritans as Israelites. Well, that is a statement that needs a source.
 * The lead has enough information on the Samaritans, which is mainstream and neutrally presented. If there exist other narratives, that is material for a section, not for the lead of this article, and certainly not for the first paragraph.
 * I am not happy with your attitude of automatically rejecting any edit I make, and only then discovering that I have good reason, based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I would appreciate some more respect for my experience of over 8 years here as an active editor. Excuse me for lashing out a you like this, but you have been overdoing things lately, and it is not doing this project any good. Debresser (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 'I am not happy with your attitude of automatically rejecting any edit I make.' Actually you, see the record, have twice reverted any addition I have made to two separate pages.Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Not immediately afterwards, but they did eventually become today's Jews and Samaritans, both of whom continue to identify as Israelites. I am confused as to why my edit was reverted. Yes, I probably should have provided a source, but A) I was strapped for time and believed that someone else would do so in my stead and B) I don't see how the narrative to the contrary is feasible unless one presumes that the Israelites all assimilated into conqueror cultures and today's Jews and Samaritans are impostors.ChronoFrog (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all, it is mentioned already in the lead. And secondly because the lead should only contain a summary of the article. See Manual of Style/Lead section. You could start improving the article, and then, if the lead insufficiently summarizes the article, add something to the lead. That would be the best way to work on this, IMHO. Otherwise, we are running unto undue attention issues. Debresser (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There are many problems with the lead, including the fact that the sourcing generally lacks links that enable verification (b) that it uses a partisan primary source, the Tanakh, which is a hostile witness to the Samaritans, (c) whom the scholarly consensus over the past decade or so is now regarding as an independent branch of the Yahweh-worshipping Israelites, misrepresented as essentially alien to Judaism', whereas Judaism is the crystallization of the beliefs of the southern Israelites (as they were influenced by the outflow of refugees from the northern Kingdom in the wake of the Assyrian invasion) and the doctrinal reformulations introduced by 2 waves of Babylonian refugees, esp. Ezra and Nehemiah. What we have in the lead is primary source Tanakh-based account of the Israelites, rather than what the scholarship of Reinhold Pummer, Israel Finkelstein, József Zsengellér, Daniel E.Fleming,  Magnar Kartveit, Gary Knoppers, Benyamim Tsedaka, Étienne Nodet and others is arguing in various distinctly nuanced articles and books. Unless you start to familiarize yourself with this scholarship, Debresser, you are not going to understand any corrective edit I or anyone else might make.Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see it anywhere in the lead, Debresser. In fact, I don't see it mentioned anywhere in the article at all. Instead, there seems to be a cut-off right at the point where Israelites evolved into Jews and Samaritans.ChronoFrog (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It says "The Jews... are named after and descended from the southern Israelite Kingdom of Judah... The Samaritans... do not refer to themselves as Jews, although they do regard themselves as Israelites... The Kingdom of Israel (Samaria)..." and a whole paragraph just about the Samaritans. Debresser (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * These two paragraphs indeed do not say clearly enough that the Samaritans are descendants of the Northern Kingdom, and that could definitely be added. The place to do so is naturally in these paragraphs, not in the first paragraph of the lead, where it would be a repetition and undue attention.

Israelites didn't split into Jews and Samaritans after the United Kingdom cont'd
WarKoSign. I see that you have restored "lived in the region in smaller numbers after the fall of the monarchy."

Have you any RS that supports this, at a glance, very curious statement? Nishidani (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems like a case of WP:BLUE - I thought it's common knowledge that some descendants of Israelites continued to reside in the land. If you prefer this statement can be considered a brief summary of the last paragraph of Israelites. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 13:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * BTW, I do not capitalize S in my username. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 13:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, given that there's hardly one article in the Biblical era (including all the Near Middle east) that would get a pass mark, my principle is not to trust anything, unless it is sourced.
 * It is not WP:BLUE, by any stretch of the imagination. And cannot be considered a summary of Israelites since it makes a statement not even mentioned there.


 * Even assuming, religiously, without evidence, that a document that is known to have invented (i)an exodus that never took place and (ii) an invasion that never took place, got something right about a David or Solomon and a dual monarchy ,in smaller numbers after the fall of the monarchy means:'there was a pronounced demographic fall in the Israelite population after Rehoboam.'
 * That is the meaning of the sentence, and like a thousand others in these articles, is purely imaginative. Indeed, contrafactual. From the early 9th to the later 8th century ('the fall') there was marked demographic growth in the Israelite population. Jerusalem itself undergoes massive expansion.
 * Finally, you often refer (from memory) to other wiki articles for evidence. This is particularly pointless, because most wiki ancient history articles, esp. on the ancient Near East, fail any basic criteria for encyclopedic summary of secondary sources. The Tanakh itself is a Judean-centered set of documents, of theological import, written largely by a sacerdotal cast linked to the pious returnees from the Babylonian exile, and is awesomely inaccurate for anything regarding (set aside the exodus and invasion myths and everything preceding them) the northern kingdom of Israel.Nishidani (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * In addition I think it is superfluous in view of the rest of the lead. I didn't lose that sentence in an edit war, as the restoring edit summary claimed, rather removed it on purpose. Debresser (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What you or I think is irrelevant. The whole of the lead is ridiculous, since, to repeat, the Israelites had 2 components, a northern and a southern branch. Let me illustrate how wildly subjective and partisan your editing is.
 * You objected vigorously to this edit, because it spoke of a split between the northern Israelite (Samarian) and southern Israelite (Judean) branches.
 * "lived in the region after the fall of the monarchy, split into the southern branch of Jews and the northern branch ofSamaritans."
 * You said WP:Undue, and a lot of other things. In the body of the article, which leads summarize, we have
 * "In 120 BCE the Hasmonean king Yohanan Hyrcanos I destroyed the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim, due to the resentment between the two groups over a disagreement of whether Mount Moriah in Jerusalem or Mount Gerizim in Shechem was the actual site of the Aqedah, and the chosen place for the Holy Temple, a source of contention that had been growing since the two houses of the former united monarchy first split asunder in 930 BCE and which had finally exploded into warfare."
 * I.e. I introduced a source which said something already in the body of the article. You edit warred successively to remove it, even while I adjusted to meet your quibbles. You disliked the word 'split' in the lead, and removed it. It is in the body of the article, and you left it in (aside from the fact that the above has woefully stupid sources)
 * One cannot write historical leads by an inept paraphrase from a partisan source using a document hostile to the Samaritans as Israelites as evidence of the Samaritan side of Israelite history. I'm only saying this because wiki protocols oblige me to treat every interlocutor seriously, even when they have no knowledge of the topic, as is the case here.Nishidani (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If what I think is irrelevant, then what you think is also irrelevant. Debresser (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Um. The tit-for-tat tactic. Debresser you remove schaolarly sources. I add them. You don't appear to read them, I consult them for every edit. There is not parity, in this regard.Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Um. The tit-for-tat tactic. Debresser you remove schaolarly sources. I add them. You don't appear to read them, I consult them for every edit. There is not parity, in this regard.Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have moved further down, so I'll copy/paste my response here. "I don't see it ("it" being a passage directly mentioning the evolution of Israelites into Jews and Samaritans) anywhere in the lead, Debresser. In fact, I don't see it mentioned anywhere in the article at all. Instead, there seems to be a cut-off right at the point where Israelites evolved into Jews and Samaritans."ChronoFrog (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There are several impeccable scholarly sources for the statement that Samaritans are a successor people to the northern Israelites. Debresser won't allow that in the lead, while it is stated in the body of the article. Leads summarize the body of the article per WP:LEDE. This is another abuse of standard wiki editing protocols. So, Debresser, tell me. Can the lead state, with several sources, what the body of the article asserts without challenge? Why must this statement in the article not to be summed up in the lead? Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see the section above, that I do agree this should be added. Please also notice that there is a place in the lead where this information is most appropriate, which is not where it was added before. Debresser (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I.e. to remind you what you have been doing,
 * (a)You reverted out ChronoFrog's addition that the Israelites
 * "eventually evolving into the Jews and Samaritans."
 * Saying it was (a) Unsourced (b) Undue.
 * (b)you reverted out my information with a source that the Israelites
 * "split into the southern branch of Jews and the northern branch ofSamaritans."
 * asserting the source I used did not say what I paraphrased it as saying.
 * My source stated:
 * "'These two texts reflect the development of the two different sacred places of the two communities, the Samaritans as descendants of the northern Israelites in the kingdom of Israel and the Jews as descendants of the southern Israelites in the kingdom of Judea."
 * My source stated exactly what I paraphrased it as saying, and your edit summary was prevarication. Still
 * (c)When I readjusted the paraphrase to meet your objection, rewriting:
 * "lived in the region after the fall of the united monarchy, their northern descendants, the Samaritans, in the Kingdom of Samaria, and their southern descendants in the Kingdom of Judah.(Benyamim Tsedaka, The Israelite Samaritan Version of the Torah: First English Translation Compared with the Masoretic Version, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2013 pp.xxiv-xxv)"
 * (d) You again reverted out the content of the new source, rewriting the text to eliminate the stated content, which is that Samaritans descended from northern Israelites. Worse you retained the new source with a content you invented for it, while retaining the real content in a footnote!!!!!!!.
 * "and continued to do so after the fall of the united monarchy in the Kingdom of Israel and Kingdom of Judah.(Benyamim Tsedaka, The Israelite Samaritan Version of the Torah: First English Translation Compared with the Masoretic Version, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2013 pp.xxiv-xxv:'These two texts reflect the development of the two different sacred places of the two communities, the Samaritans as descendants of the northern Israelites in the kingdom of Israel and the Jews as descendants of the southern Israelites in the kingdom of Judea.')"
 * The edit summary is ineptly void of meaning. 'still think this was phrased wrongly. The undue problem still exists. The northern kingdom is called with the wrong name to make a POV.'
 * (e)When you consistently suppressed that information from the lead in 3 reverts, you were then informed that per WP:LEDE, the lead summarizes what is in the main body of the article, and that the information from Tsedaka you removed sums up what the article states lower down:
 * "In 120 BCE the Hasmonean king Yohanan Hyrcanos I destroyed the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim, due to the resentment between the two groups over a disagreement of whether Mount Moriah in Jerusalem or Mount Gerizim in Shechem was the actual site of the Aqedah, and the chosen place for the Holy Temple, a source of contention that had been growing since the two houses of the former united monarchy first split asunder in 930 BCE and which had finally exploded into warfare."
 * (f)You said that the lead already had this content, hence it was unnecessary. When Chrono Frog replied that there is no evidence of that statement in the lead, contradicting you, you answered with a citation that however does not contain the information requested (the Samaritans as northern Israelites).
 * (g) You seem then to have finally twigged that you'd screwed up for 2 days and a dozen edits, talk page and articlewise, and 'concede' that what I originally wrote from the new source can go into the lead.
 * (g) You seem then to have finally twigged that you'd screwed up for 2 days and a dozen edits, talk page and articlewise, and 'concede' that what I originally wrote from the new source can go into the lead.


 * Well, why in the fuck didn't you figure out the obvious in the first fucking place days ago? Messahge. If you do not understand a topic, stay off the page. If you are unwilling to read contemporary scholarship, don't revert it out when added. If you make a revert and it is contested, don't persist in the behavior, but examine the merits of the question, and the new sources. That way one will avoid this kind of insane agony column between the claims of scholarship and the blindness of uninformed rejectionism. I.e. wasting people's time for days, only then to backtrack, and concede you were wrong. Nishidani (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow, Nishidani, let's keep cool and civil. I completely agree with you, but we're supposed to be calm and objective as editors.

I think it is best to leave out details of the exiles from the lede and save them for the later sections in the article. So I like it the way it is now in that regard, with no mention of the exile of either the Northern or Southern Kingdom.

On the other hand, given that there are only approximately 800 Samaritans today against ~14,000,000 Jews, giving Samaritans more than a passing mention in the lede seems to be a case of WP:UNDUE. However, I can see expanding on them more in a later section with a link to their main article. Musashiaharon (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm cool and objective for at the max 48 hours, but if I find that documenting, citing policy, asking for answers gets evasion, I exercise a right of shouting, at least once. You never know - a lot of editors seem to edit while dozing. (2) The rest of your comment is based on a misprision. This is neither about Samaritans nor Jews. It is about the Israelites, an historical people worshipping Yahweh and some other gods, attested from 1207 ca. for several centuries, whose descendants became Samaritans and Jews. It is totally immaterial to the article that Samaritans number 780 vs-14-17 million Jews. The Samaritans historically constituted one of the two groups claiming Israelitic descent. In fact the article should focus wholly on the time period from the Merneptah Stele, down to the emergence of distinct groups, Jews and Samaritans, around the 6th century BCE, when the Judean Israelites began to form their identity in contrast to the Samarian Israelites, who reciprocated. By the way referring to Samaritans as exiles is a position, not a fact.Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Lead
Why is the lead 5-paragraphs long, while the main text only has four sections? Per Manual of Style/Lead section: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

It is not supposed to be overly long and disconnected from the main body of the article.

And part of the lead currently goes at length about the definition of the term "Jews" (with 11 references!), which is related but far from synonymous to the term "Israelites". Dimadick (talk) 08:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously all that junk sourcing is inappropriate, since no one is contesting that the Jews were defined by heirs of the Israelites who lived in the southern kingdom of Judah. It should go out because whoever plunked it there has had evidently an enxiety fit, and had to reassure himself by overegging the pud. One could justify such oversourcing only if the claim is endlessly controverted (and several of the sources do not state what they are claimed to state. None of them to my knowledge make the distinction northern and southern Israelitic kingdoms, associating Jews with the latter, a source for which is available but which was removed, and replaced by junk by non-historians like Ostrer.Nishidani (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * ediconflict
 * Would you care to either remove irrelevant information, or move some things to the article proper?
 * And to answer your question. One of the reasons the lead is so ling is because some editors prefer to add their information to the lead, where their contributions will be seen, instead of first improving the article and then add a summary to the lead, as they should per WP:LEAD. Debresser (talk) 10:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The lead is very simple to write. It should consist of
 * (1)*a Definition of Israelites
 * (2)*The biblical and the archaeological account of their earliest presence in Palestine. Meaning the narrative of wanderings, the promised land, conquest vs. the archaeological-historical argument they arose from the Canaanites themselves
 * (3)*The biblical account of their establishing a united monarchy under David and Solomon, and its dissolution, and the archaeological statement re same.
 * The descendants of the Israelites, into a northern branch, the Samaritans, and a Judean branch, the Jews
 * (4)*The biblical-rabbinical tradition of the split, based on deportation and the Cushites, according to Josephus et al. and the Samaritan tradition of the split, affirming they are heirs of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh and that the southern Israelites follow Eli.
 * That is 4 short paragraphs, with the essential outlines of Israelites, before their traditions came into conflict, and crystalized into 2 different populations.Nishidani (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Twelve Tribes of Israel
As an FYI, the page Twelve Tribes of Israel, and a number of other related redirects, used to redirect here. It is now a separate article.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are individuals. This article is about the group called Israelites. Debresser (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Israelites in Quran and Islam
The children of Israel are mentioned extensively in the Quran. I'm not an expert on the subject, but that should definitely be in the article. The story of Moses, David, Joseph, Jacob, Isaac, and many more are mentioned. It's also in List of characters and names mentioned in the Quran. Someone with good sources should expand the article and this information. —Hexafluoride Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk 19:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The Quran was written some 2,000 years after the Israelites were established in Canaan. It is irrelevant to this article in the way that the Bible itself is not. If the Quran is to be utilized because it mentions Israelites, why not also mention the Oahspe or the Urantia Book? Hmm? 72.92.86.26 (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Israelites. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528230034/http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_47.htm to http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_47.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Israelites. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717120935/http://www.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_2004_55_2_01_Pitkanen_EthnicityIsraelSettlement.pdf to http://www.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_2004_55_2_01_Pitkanen_EthnicityIsraelSettlement.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Landscapes
I have removed these photos as having only marginal value to illustrating this topic. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Fork into Twelve Tribes of Israel
A few months ago created a fork of this article  called Twelve Tribes of Israel. and were involved at the time of the fork. I am struggling to understand how these two topics are different. Can someone please explain? Onceinawhile (talk) 09:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, yes, it was discussed here and here, with a comment by . I still don't understand the need for the two different articles, though, either.–CaroleHenson (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the difference is history vs religion: "The Twelve Tribes of Israel or Tribes of Israel were the tribes said by the Hebrew Bible to have descended from the patriarch Jacob" vs "The Israelites were a Semitic-speaking people of the ancient Near East, who inhabited a part of Canaan during the tribal and monarchic periods". &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 13:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. In the intro, it states: "The Israelites were also known as the Hebrews and the Twelve Tribes of Israel." The intro image for the Israelites article is a mosaic of the 12 tribes.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't really know what was the intention of the fork, only trying to guess. This article contains both historical and religious descriptions, sometimes mixed up. The other one is purely religious. It may be a good idea to move all the religious material from this article to the other one, and to make sure that all articles that link into either link into the correct one. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 06:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That makes sense.–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that this debate from last year has been raised again. As I said in November when this question was discussed, Primarily the reason why this article is necessary as well as the Israelites article is to allow for inclusion and development of the New Testament material which is not covered, and would not be appropriate, in the Israelites article. WarKosign rightly notes that Twelve Tribes of Israel is a religious topic and I'd be happy to review the material in the Israelites article and other linking articles with this in mind. - BobKilcoyne (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 September 2017
The ancient Israelites are considered by some minimalist archaeologists to be an outgrowth of the indigenous Canaanite populations that long inhabited the Southern Levant, Syria, ancient Israel and the Transjordan. 84.111.161.157 (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What you are proposing (adding "by some minimalist archaeologists") isn't good enough. It implies that this position is not widely held, that there is another, more popular position. In this case, please provide sources that support it, and we can mention both positions. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 08:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Israelites. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721133548/http://ftp.beitberl.ac.il/~bbsite/misc/ezer_anglit/klali/05_123.pdf to http://ftp.beitberl.ac.il/~bbsite/misc/ezer_anglit/klali/05_123.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Section on "Genetics" should either be rewritten or removed entirely.
It is very poorly written and misleading. First off, the apocryphal Book of Judith is not part of the Hebrew Bible, was not regarded as a canonical text, nor is it found among the Dead Sea Scrolls or referred to in any early Rabbinic literature. It most likely dates to the Hellenistic era and was originally composed in Greek. Its claim that Hebrews were descended from Chaldeans is not supported in the Hebrew Bible. As for the Hebrew Bible's contention that Abraham's came from Ur Kasdim ("Ur of the Chaldaeans"), no inference can be made from this statement that would have any bearing on genetic studies. First off, the Hebrew Bible elswhere strongly suggests that Abraham's birthplace was in the area of Harran in Aram Naharaim, or Upper Mesopotamia (Genesis 12 and 24), not in Chaldea or the Sumerian region of Lower Mesopotamia where the Sumerian metropolis identified as Ur was to be found, and there is no evidence that the Sumerian Ur is to be linked with Abraham, or was to be identified with the Chaldeans at all. In fact, the Chaldeans did not infiltrate Babylonia/southern Mesoptamia until roughly a millenium after Abraham is reputed to have lived. Ur itself was never identified in inscriptions as being a city "of the Chaldeans". Moreover, Deuteronmy 26:5 suggests that Hebrew patriarchs were of Aramaean origin, which would be outside of the sphere of Babylonia/Sumer in which the Chaldeans would later settle. No mention in this section is made of contrasting views on Israelite origins in the Bible, such as that found in Ezekiel 16, in which the Jews are identified as being essentially indigenous to Canaan itself. In fact, earlier in this article, it is stated that "The prevailing academic opinion today is that the Israelites were a mixture of peoples predominantly indigenous to Canaan, although an Egyptian matrix of peoples may also played a role in their ethnogenesis". The section on Genetics gives no weight whatsoever to this scholarly consensus. Nor does it accurately relate the postulated origins of the Y-Haplogoup "J", as reported in academic studies. In fact, the apparent origins of this Haplogroup pertain to the spread of agriculture in the Neolithic era, many thousands of years prior to the patriarchal age in the Hebrew Bible. In addition, Haplogroup J (M-172) is found not only in the Fertile Crescent and the Levant, but also in various eastern Mediterranean populations. Jacob D (talk) 12:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Jacob D

"History" is extremely sub-standard

 * The entire History chapter closely follows the Bible and then Josephus as if they were the ultimate historical source until today.
 * There had been several cases of war between the northern and southern kingdoms long before the Assyrian conquest of Israel and the ethnogenesis of the Samaritans.
 * Samaritans were ethnically NOT identical to the Israelites of the northern kingdom.

As it is now, the History chapter is worse than basic. Arminden (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Semitic
please change ((Semitic)) to ((Semitic languages|Semitic))
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: That WikiLink would not be precisely placed. The Semitic languages include Arabic, Tigrinya, Hebrew, Aramaic, Tigre, Maltese and Amharic -- where this section is referring to Aramaic (e.g., "the Chaldeans were a group of people who spoke Semitic language related to Aramic [sic].")   Spintendo   16:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Broad Claim
I removed the phrase ¨Modern archaeology has largely discarded the historicity of the religious narrative, with it being reframed as constituting an inspiring national myth narrative.¨ because it was an extremely broad claim that only cited one source, and could potentially mislead a lot of wikipedians. Hyrcanus776 (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Hyrcanus776
 * You actually removed much more than that, e.g. the whole citation to the Dever article. Your removal is a very bold edit and should be reverted immediately pending the forthcoming discussion here. The Dever reference should definitely be kept, and there are other more modern citations that can be added to the historical view which does not see the Biblical narrative as real history in the modern Western sense. warshy (¥¥) 16:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Warshy. There is not much connection between Jewish mythology about their legendary ancestors, and the actual history of the Levant. Dimadick (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Jews and Israelites
regarding your reinstallation of Jews as category - what is your motive? In my opinion the hierarchy is very clear - Israelites>Jews>Jewish sub-groups. Not all Israelites are Jews, with groups such as Samaritans clearly not Jewish. Since this article is not categorized under Samaritans, i don't think it should be categorized as Jews. The best category is category:Israelites, which has category:Jews and category:Samaritans as subcats.GreyShark (dibra) 10:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As I explained in the edit summary. See Categorization that there are two types of categories: organized by topic or as a set. If I view these categories as sets, then I agree with you that "Jews" is in "Israelites" but not the other way around. I viewed this as a topic category, and then "Jews" is a topic that is related to "Israelites".
 * If more editors here think that is confusing, I am fine with my edit being undone. Debresser (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand Greyshark's explanation as it is, without any further clarifications, and it seems logical to me and I agree with it. As for the other explanation, it does not make sense to me, so I'll leave it alone for now. Thanks, warshy (¥¥) 20:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * you seem to be a minority, so please remove category:Jews per good faith. category:Ancient Jewish history here is enough.GreyShark (dibra) 19:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I see only one other editor here, who admits that he doesn't understand my argument, so no, can't do that on such a flimsy basis. Debresser (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Wording is confusing
hi. Now we have:

''In modern Hebrew, b'nei yisrael ("children of Israel") can denote the Jewish people at any time in history; it is typically used to emphasize Jewish ethnic identity. From the period of the Mishna (but probably used before that period) the term Yisrael ("an Israel") acquired an additional narrower meaning of Jews of legitimate birth other than Levites and Aaronite priests (kohanim). In modern Hebrew this contrasts with the term Yisraeli (English "Israeli"), a citizen of the modern State of Israel, regardless of religion or ethnicity.''

I would maintain that "the term Yisrael ("an Israel")" is ambiguous if not misleading, as it does not say in proper English what it's supposed to say. Yisrael in English is simply "Israel", not "an Israel". Please check if my edit reflects the meaning you want to convey. Thanks and stay well, Arminden (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's supposed to be "am Israel", people of Israel. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 13:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The misspelled parenthesis is not currently there, at least not in the version of the page I am looking at. But User:WarKosign is correct. It is supposed to be am Israel, which in Hebrew means the "People of Israel." Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 17:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * @warshy You must have missed this edit and its summary: "Remove dubious tag, as it is indeed "an Israel" as opposed to "a Levy" or "a Cohen"."
 * I made a few edits, dividing the subsection into two, and additionally clarifying the issue.
 * @Arminden I think you misunderstood. Please see my latest edit, and let me know if this clarified the matter in your opinion. Debresser (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

hi. Debresser, I think we need clarification.
 * We need a source. Talking among ourselves brings us nowhere.
 * "Yisrael" as such is just another spelling for "Israel". It does neither include or imply any definite article ("an"). Therefore, the very brief way you formulate it (Yisrael = "an Israel") looks plainly erroneous and is misleading. It cannot be left as it is now.
 * If there is a discussion in the Mishna, or in secondary lit. concerning it, please do summarise its content and indicate the source. If it's too time-consuming, pls. give at least some explanation. For instance a sentence from the Mishna where "Yisrael", with no specification such as "man of Yisrael", "son of Yisrael", and no suffix is used, and still it is obvious from the context that just one "regular" Jewish person is meant.
 * As long as this matter is not sorted, I would like to reinstate the explanation that makes more sense in plain English: ... Yisrael, used for "a member of the People of Israel" who is neither a Levite nor an Aaronite priest (kohen). Cheers, Arminden (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be opposed to that, although IMHO the present wording is clear enough. By the way, the 3 matzot we take on the seder are also called Cohen, Levy and Yisrael. Something I am sure is mentioned in one of our articles about Pesach. Debresser (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Samaritans
"Today, Jews and Samaritans both recognize each other as communities with an authentic Israelite origin." ←This definitely needs a citation. My personal experience is that this is incorrect, and without references from both the jewish and samaritan communities, I would recommend it be removed. TimeEngineer (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, this seems highly suspect without citations.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)