Talk:Tribe of Issachar

Shekelesh > Issachar???
with L > R sound change! Böri (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment removed from article to this talk page
Re Bukharan Jews the only Jews having "Issachar" as a surname. Lived in area "thousands" of years. Example of the naivete and narrow scholarship of the article. First, the Bukharan Jews were almost entirely bereft of Jewish knowledge and practice by the 19th century, when they were missionized and "restored" by foreign Jewish emissaries. They had virtually no traditions. No one assumes a high level of culture in this remote area "thousands" of years ago. East-West trade began well into the Common Era, and Persian Jews in the silk-route trade probably established a trading colony here, as they did in Sinkiang/Kansu and Kaifeng (which were also defunct or highly assimilated by the early 19C). Secondly: "Issachar" is a very common surname or surname root among other Jews. It is so common, that it is one of the very few tribal names that has a nickname, usually "sheik" or a cognate form: eg Sheikowitz, Sikorski, Shack, etc.. Furthermore, some of these families (including my paternal-paternal line) have old traditions of descent from Issachar. The author is highly confused by "Lost Tribes" myths and shallow, if exuberant, Israeli scholarship. Note his very narrow sources and references. There is far better published scholarship available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toratmal (talk • contribs) 12:43, 25 April 2014

Recent edit I deleted on nanes
The first source clearly fails, what do others think about the second . Doug Weller  talk 06:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: Scholarly Consensus
This is re: the recent reversions between myself and User:Relativeinlaw.

It has been the standing consensus of the Wikipedia community for some time now that mainstream biblical scholarship, such as the kind that comes out of top universities, the king that appears in mainstream peer reviewed journals, etc., does in fact constitute the scholarly consensus. This is not limited to religious issues -- this is the general approach taken by Wikipedia to sourcing in general. Good links to help with understanding this include WP:IRS and especially WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The fact that some religious authorities may disagree with the scholarly consensus does not justify simply completely blanking statements about the scholarly consensus.

If there are reliable sources, in line with WP:IRS, that support the historicity of the biblical materials about Issachar, they can be added. But Wikipedia does not allow for the wholesale removal of material whenever it contradicts religious views. Otherwise, the Evolution article would look very different. Alephb (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * For anyone looking in at the diffs, the section about "scholarly" consensus is just one sentence. The rest is three footnotes that include quotes. Don't miss the ref tags! Alephb (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

In the paragraph "In the biblical narrative of the Book of Joshua, following the completion of the conquest of Canaan by the Israelite tribes, Joshua allocated the land among the twelve tribes. The territory which it was allocated was immediately north of (the western half of) Manasseh, and south of Zebulun and Naphtali, stretching from the Jordan River in the east, to the coast in the west; this region included the fertile Esdraelon plain .[1] The book of Joshua is not a reliable source of historical information and events it describes probably did not occur.[2][3][4]". IMHO the last sentence is superfluous becuae it is already stated in "In the biblical narrative". It is quite enough to specify that this is the story on the Bible. Anyone can have its own view on Bible based on own history, education etc. lkitross (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, in an encyclopaedia the sentence is needed. We don’t show only the biblical view.  Doug Weller  talk 11:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Re: consensus etc.
In its current sorry state, the page looks beneath any discussion. Relativeinlaw (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)