Talk:Israelites

El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.

 WikiProject Religion
Religion portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page.


Christianity
Christianity portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Judaism portal
Israelites is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Israelites is part of WikiProject Jewish history, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardized and up-to-date resource for all articles related to Jewish history.

If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, also consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles.
Project Jewish history To-do:
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives
List of all archived sections

Contents

[edit] Flagged religious, not historical

User:Cush flagged the article as non-historical. He is partially right but, frankly, I do not like people telling other what to do. Cush, be bold, edit the article yourself. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Being bold on certain issues gets one bashed. Cush (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Cush, I created a new section about archeology, almost entirely composed of text from two other Wikipedia articles. Since this new section brings some balance and objectivity to the article (as did my previous section on genetics, which you ignored when you flagged the article), I removed your flag. I do not mind being bashed, but please do so constructively, following the various guidelines. For a start, this section is in need of sources. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I see what you have done. :-) However, the problem is inherent in the issue. There is one occurrence of the name "Israel" on one Egyptian stela. But there is no record of some offspring of Jacob/Israel in Egypt and no confirmation of the entire Sojourn/Exodus/Conquest/Judges/Monarchy story of the bible, and also no confirmation of the biblical events surrounding Abraham and his journey from Haran into Egypt (it would have been nice having the bible giving the names of the involved Egyptian kings). The archeological and independent historical record there is exactly zero (which you call just a 'discrepancy'), and there are major problems with chronology also. As it stands right now, the biblical account of the Israelites is pure fiction. Even more so when it comes to the beliefs allegedly held by the ancient entity named Israel. After all, the biblical history of Israel comes with a deity attached to it, which makes the evaluation of the historicity even worse. There are so many articles on Wikipedia that render Judeochristian doctrine as fact (in-universe) that it seems insufficient to just add the sentence "according to the bible" to them. Cush (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
If you think its fiction you clearly don't know what fiction means. The majority view is that the Biblical account is history, albeit told through the eyes of people who are superstitious by modern standards. The so called "Biblical minimalist" view that the Bible is fiction is at best described as maverick or fringe (= polite term for crank). Wikipedia should reflect majority view not push minority views as fact. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm reverting back to before the insertion of information discussing minimalism etc which is already covered in The Bible and history and Biblical Minimalism and others. We don't need to polute every Jewish history related artice with long rejected views of early 20th century modernist pseudo-scholars even when given a fresh coat of paint by a handful of anti-Israel humanities "scholars" from Copenhagen. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
BTW what archaelogical evidence do you have of the 9/11 attack? Zero (video doesn't count as it can be faked) so should we flag that as non-historical too? ;) Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
That is not even worth commenting. There are many sources for the occurrence of the 9/11 attacks, but there is still but one source for the existence of ancient Israelites as the Tanakh/Bible describes them: the Tanakh/Bible itself. It is somewhat strange that in 2500 years no non-biblical source has emerged to confirm any of the claims made by the Bible and its authors. There is no confirmation of the Israelites' existence and none of their alleged beliefs and none that the biblical god had been worshiped in ancient times at all. And I do not really care what the majority view is as long as that majority cannot come up with any real evidence. The factuality of something does not depend on the number of people believing in it. Cush (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
There is continous evidence of Israelites from the 13th century BCE onwards, so I am afraid you are very mistaken. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Most of human history lacks archaeological evidence and it is not logical to expect archaeological evidence to exist for every detail of history. To treat Israelite history differently to the history of say ancient Greece, China, Britain, pre-colonial southern Africa (all oral tradition) or Denmark, simply because it is related to religions which you don't happen to follow, is a form of unjustified bias and intellectual dishonesty. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no such continuous evidence. All there is is the biblical account. Otherwise, show me. Cush (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Read On the Reliability of the Old Testament by Kitchen for a start, as well as The Archaeology of Ancient Israel by Ben-Tor. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I see that you are a fan of Rohl. Rohl's views are also fringe he promotes the claim that there is "no evidence of Israelites" to advance the idea that a radical redating of history is needed that suddenly makes evidence appear. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
You have no clue what Rohl claims or not, as he actually adheres to the biblical account. But that is of no relevance here, because the issue at hand is the clutter-up of articles with biblical doctrine instead of solid facts. The facts are that there is no other source than the bible that informs us about the alleged history of the ancient Israelites. Neither about who they really were nor what their setup of state was nor what their customs were. All we have is later writings of people who had an ideological (and political?) interest in historizing their own current beliefs. The assumed history of the Israelites spans at least 600 years and all there is is the word "Israel" for a geographic location on one Egyptian stele?? The connection between archeological findings and the biblical account has not been made yet, and wiki articles should reflect that. Cush (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
And my point is that the same can be said about the history of any nation known from written or oral accounts as opposed to being merely guessed at from scraps of archaeological evidence. Why treat Israelite history differently to British or French history? Most history like Israelite history is unconfirmed by archaeology and indeed archaeology is completely incapable of either confirming or contradicting most history - provide me with a piece of archaeological evidence say that a meeting was held to decide whether Harold of England should be the next king? Provide me with evidance that Harold of England actually existed - no one has found his grave. Applying ridiculuous standards to Israelite history which no one applies to any other history is irrational and intellectually dishonest. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I tell you why: because the only source for the Israelites is a religious work, the purpose of which is different from other sources describing historical events. The Tanakh was written to boast an ancient history, so you may understand why I would require independent confirmation for the claims made there. That's why the "Flagged religious, not historical" is justified. Cush (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Virtually all ancient accounts make reference to gods etc, take Egyptian monument texta and Roman accounts for example, modern academic standards for presenting history with separation of religious or other interpretations from objective events didn't exist before the 20th century - duh. If you think the OT was written to boast about anything you probably haven't sat down and read it! One of its key features is that it does not glorify or glamorize the past but shows the good the bad and the ugly. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Cush & Ghost, you bias is showing. I like how the chapter has been shortened by Ghost. As it stands, it is enough to prevent further flagging, which was my aim.
As for the core of the debate, I know nothing about it, but a search for "archeology israelites" in Amazon returned several recent books on the subject. Without having read them, it seems to me that Cush's assertion that independent historical record there is exactly zero is exagerated. Certainly, there are experts that are willing to debate this, as stated in the synopsis to this book. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, if there were real archeological confirmation of the biblical tale, why is it not already referenced in the article? Where are the artifacts from the Exodus, Conquest, Judges-era, Kingdom-era, bearing the names of Israel, Yhvh, Solomon, or any other that would establish a real connection between the core of the biblical narrative and actual history? Of all the alleged splendor of the Solomonic court nothing has remained in stone, wood or papyrus? Where are the Phoenician trade records refering to Israel or its inhabitants? Where are the Egyptian records? After 200 years of thoroughly reviewing all material dug up in Palestine/Israel and surrounding countries all that "biblical archeologists" (which is already a funny term) have to show is vague, dubious, circumstantial at best. The complete lack of substantial evidence makes it hard to believe in the biblical narrative. So wikipedia has to decide whether this article is supposed to be one about a religious tale, or one about reality. And my position is that as it stands right now the entire thing is a wishful historization of later Jewish (and subsequently Christian) beliefs. We just don't know who the real "Israelites", "Proto-Israelites", or whatever one may call them, were, what they did and especially what they believed in, and that is why the article is rather speculation than encyclopedic knowledge. Cush (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Cush, I removed your second flagging of the article. This article already had a section on Genetics (did you read it?). I added last week a section on Archeology and removed your flag. I & Ghost did our part to please you, now do you part and leave this article alone. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Save your threats. You have provided nothing that confirms the biblical account and makes it factual history. Genetics don't tell anything about the existence of Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Deborah & Barak, Gideon, David, Solomon, etc, do they? Or about actual worship practices in the respective timeframe, or the deities worshiped, do they? This article remains a religious statement, and it far from reflecting a neutral view on the archeology and history of the southern Levant in the respective period. The Bible is POV. Cush (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Cush, let me rephrase my comment. Ghost & I added a section on Archeology to satisfy the WP:NPOV guidelines, not you. As clearly stated, there are several main articles where these issues are debated.
As for genetics, the answer is Yes, the discovery of the Cohen modal haplotype is undeniable proof of a common paternal descent of 85% of currently living Cohens, confirming their historical claim of descent from Aaron. Believe me, a PhD in Genetics and an avid reader of archeology magazines, this proof is much more solid than any archeological find. Of course, it is only a partial confirmation of written history, but it is rock solid. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The existence of a real person named Aaron is not even proven, so how can one claim descent from that person? There were no large numbers of Hebrews in Egypt at the time that the Exodus is currently placed at (18th/19th Dyn), there is no trace of an exodus, no trace of a conquest of Canaan, no trace of the Judges or Monarchy periods. That is what "Israelites" means: a group of people that did and were what the Bible claims. But without evidence that is just fake religious historization of later beliefs, but not history. And if this article is supposed to be about a real group of ancient people it better have reliable evidence, not religiously motivated speculations (=POV). Cush (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Cush, genetics provides an objective proof of common paternal descent. Of course, it does not provide the name of that ancestor; the Bible does. If you are not satisfied with this proof of the existence of Aaron, you will never be satisfied with anything.
This being said, it is true that the body of non-Biblical evidences of the Israelites is thin. But why do you insist on excluding the Bible? What is the non-Biblical evidence of the existence of Jesus? Emmanuelm (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
How does common paternal descent confirm the Biblical narrative about the Exodus, Conquest, Judges and Monarchy periods?? I just do not get what the point of this genetic stuff is. "Israelites" is a term that derives entirely from the Biblical story of a number of Hebrews (apparently orignating somewhere in Upper Mesopotamia) in Egypt and their subsequent fate in the Sinai and Canaan. It spans a period of at least 600 years, and it renders a pretty specific "history" for the Israelites. Yet all details of the story are unconfirmed by excavations or textual sources from the respective time frame. The Biblical texts were all written many centuries after the events they describe and they were written by people who were religiously interpreting and amending history according to their own beliefs. Excuse me, but that is not a reliable source when it comes to history. It may be used for describing the Biblical story as mythology, but not as an accurate historical account where it is the only source. Btw I find the different standard on Wikipedia to tag ancient religions as myth (cf. Set, Mars, Venus) while not applying the same to Yhvh-worshiping questionable. Cush (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Israelites are a group defined by genetic lineage. Genetics is central here. As I suspected, you will not be satisfied by scientific facts. I'm done arguing. Emmanuelm (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Israelites are NOT a group defined by genetic lineage. And you seem to confuse Israelites with later or even modern Jews. There are no genetic samples available from people who lived in the southern Levant between, say, 1400 and 700 BCE, so stop telling me about genetic evidence. And if you cannot show me buildings, artifacts, or texts from that period that confirm the biblical narrative, I have no reason nor intention to believe any of the claims made in the Bible. I want to see the remains of Solomon's temple and palace, or his correspondence on paper or clay with other rulers in the region. Anything. I want to see the destruction layers in the stratigraphy of the cities attacked by Joshua that fit the chronological framework. If that cannot be shown the Bible will remain myth and religion and has subsequently no place in Wikipedia articles about (f)actual history. Cush (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Cush, give it a rest, the claim that something is not historical unless confirmed by archaeology is crank and not how history works nor what archaeology is about. There have been zero archaeological investigations of 9/11 and zero published findings in archaeology journals on the World Trade Center, that doesn't make 9/11 non-historical. Archaeology can tell us nothing about events that either leave no physical evidence or for which evidence has been removed, destroyed, not found yet or inaccessible. Thats the way all history works, again why single out Israelite history and apply absurd standards to it that are not applied to any other history. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
For 9/11 confirmation exists. Non-religious confirmation, I should add. There are millions of artifacts and writings for the ancient history of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, etc. But all we have for the "history" of the southern Levant is the writing of religiously motivated persons who projected their own beliefs into the past many centuries after the events they describe. That's not reliable. For every other historical claim independent confirmation is required to accept it as factual (to a degree), but why single out Israelite history and leave it to the religionists to create history as they wish it to be? Cush (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hebrews ≠ Israelites

I have just removed the sentence "The term Hebrews, derived from Eber, is used in the Bible and elsewhere as a synonym for Israelites, but also occasionally to designate the descendants of Abraham." from the lead. In the Bible there is a pretty clear distinction between Hebrews and Israelites. In the Bible Israelites are exclusively those Hebrews who are descended from Jacob and his sons, and who shared a common "history" in Egypt, while other Hebrews remained in Canaan. And after the Exodus the Bible only uses the term Hebrews when Israelites themselves refer to those who are not Israelites (e.g David's marauding Hebrew mercenaries) or when foreigners use the term and do not care to make the distinction. Israelites ⊊ Hebrews. Cush (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Cush, WP is about verifiability, not truth. The Encyclopedia Britannica starts its [1] entry with : any member of an ancient northern Semitic people that were the ancestors of the Jews. Historians use the term Hebrews to designate the descendants of the patriarchs of the Old Testament (i.e., Abraham, Isaac, and so on) from that period until their conquest of Canaan (Palestine) in the late 2nd millennium bc. Thenceforth these people are referred to as Israelites until their return from the Babylonian Exile in the late 6th century bc, from which time on they became known as Jews. The Jewish Encyclopedia starts its Hebrews entry with : In the Bible "Israel" is the national name of the people who are known racially as "Hebrews." I understand from this that they consider Hebrews and Israelites to be two names for the same people.
Again, I am not saying you are untrue. I'm saying you have to find sources, ideally secondary sources, to support your text. I did. Please expand the section with additional sources and add a sentence in the lead to replace the one you deleted. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Children of Israel deleted, redirected here

I salvage what I thought was useful from the Children of Israel article, dumped it in one section. Please help me clean up. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cohen gene -- revisited

(cut& pasted from above) How is it possible to attach a biblical figure to the possible "common descent"? All that the "Cohen gene" seems to confirm is a geographical origin, but there is certainly no hard evidence to link any culture, faith or even single named persons to this blurry lineage. Israelites are virtually absent in the historical and archeological record of the period in question, how can someone seriously pinpoint one Aaron without reverting to religious doctrine? Cush (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Very true, Cush. All the genetic data is saying is that 65% of Cohens share a common paternal ancestor. Everything else is extrapolation. Do not, however, underestimate the importance of this scientific observation. It proved that Ashkenazi Cohens were as "kosher" as Sephardi Cohens. It proved that the Lemba were right. But, most importantly, it showed that they carry a rather rare variant of the Y-chromosome that allowed for all these conclusions. This scenario is improbable enough to force the most atheist geneticist to think. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
How is the scenario improbable? It only says that the caste system in classical Jewish society works (i.e. since the Babylonian episode). However, there is still no connection to the biblical characters in Exodus and the Israelites as such. Cush (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Cush, I was talking about genetics, not history. Given the very low rate of Y-chromosome mutation, it is very improbable that a given patriarchal group would enjoy its own gene variant. For example, I've never heard of a royal family claiming its own "blue" gene. The narrow distribution of the Cohen Modal Haplotype is unique so far. And, again, no, there is no gene spelled A-a-r-o-n. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Then what does this have to do with the Israelites? What does it have to do with the Jewish (and subsequently Christian) claim that Israelites had existed as the Tanakh narrates? And is this an article about a religious issue or about real history? Cush (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Cush, I see you are very persistent. This article is about the patriarchal clan called the Israelites. It covers all aspects, Biblical or not. You may think that non-biblical evidences are non-existent but others will disagree. You may think that genetics provides a very narrow type of evidence, but it is no less informative than pottery chards.
Cush, I note that the Jesus and Muhammad article are not flagged, yet fail to provide non-religious evidences for the existence of these guys. Why do you care so much about proving the existence of Israelites? Emmanuelm (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this article is about the patriarchal clan called the Israelites. That is, what later Jews have claimed past existence for. But that is all. The name Israel appears a few times on ancient artifacts or in texts, but there is NOTHING that confirms the biblical tale that comes with that name. And your genetic evidence is irreleavnt to the veracity of the biblical tale as well. It simply does not prove an Exodus, a Conquest, a Judges or Monarchy period, and definitely not the existence of single biblical characters such as Aaron. It just narrows the region, but not the ancient ethnic group. And if ever a people named Israel existed it is definitely nothing like the Israelites of the Bible. Everything that has ever been written about the history of ancient Israel, in connection with surrounding nations, fails to add up to a coherent historical panaomrama, and you know that pretty well. Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Anatolians, and even other Levantine states were excellent record keepers and yet NO sources match what the Tanakh renders as history. Bits and pieces may fit somehow, but there is no overall picture. The range of theorized Exodus dates spans almost 400 years (from the Hyksos to poor Ramesses2, in other words unknown)!!! And why? Because none of the dates really fits into Egyptian and Levantine chronology without negating subsequent biblical tales. And because no Hebrews were present in Egypt in any of the dates proposed for the Exodus in the currently held chronology (great numbers of Aamu were only present in Egypt prior to the Hyksos). The only logical conclusion out of this mess is that it is all just religious wishful historization by later adherents of Judaism (and then Christianity and Islam). Or the currently held chronology is fundametally flawed (being based on the Shoshenq-Shishak identification). Cush (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Cush, I'm curious if you have a source for this line of reasoning, or if it is just wp:SYN. I also would like to know your thoughts about Jesus and Muhammad. NJGW (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
From the latest issue of Biblical Archeology Review (Sept/Oct 2008)p.18 : How many kings of ancient Israel and Judah have been securely identified in sources outside the Bible? Answer : 16. They mention royal cuneiform inscriptions of the neo-Assyrian empire, a Babylonian ration text, the Moabite stone of Mesha and the Aramean Tel Dan stela.
Cush, we are not knowledgeable enough (nor interested enough?) to follow your argument. Like most people, we believe that the Hebrew Bible is, at least in part, a reliable historical source. Please argue your point at Archaeology of Israel, Biblical archaeology or The Bible and history. Emmanuelm (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with Cush entirely, but I wouldn't take BAR at face value either as you probably know that not every archaeologist in the subject takes BAR's line. I'm puzzled by this fron the article The discovery of the Cohen Modal Haplotype gives more weight to the Biblical and priestly claim of descent from a unique ancestor, namely Aaron, and also provides an objective test of claims of Israelite origin, as for example with the Lemba people. I presume it is a paraphrase of some scientific article and not WP:SYN? And I'm also puzzled by the emphasis on genetics and yet no archaeology. The article seems unbalanced. Doug Weller (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Doug, I agree, the archeology vs genetics is unbalanced. I shortened the genetics section and added more sources to support my text. For the archeology, I am still waiting for someone to be bold and write instead of flagging. Will it be you? Emmanuelm (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Waiting. Emmanuelm (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you expect anyone to pull archeology to support the biblical claims out of a hat? As far as serious archeology goes, biblical Israelites did not exist. Of course, one could put a list here with digs that have disproved the biblical tales about the history of Canaan and its alleged invaders (e.g. Kenyon, Bietak, Petrie, Finkelstein). Cush (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
From you we're waiting on sources claiming what you keep saying. NJGW (talk) 05:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Meieimatai's edits

Man, Cush is going to have a field day with this... Meieimatai, maybe you should come discuss why you think all this is necessary, especially in the lead. NJGW (talk) 03:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a problem?--Meieimatai 04:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs)
Well, seeing as there are several sections immediately preceding this one which discuss ways to make this article more archeologically accurate, it seems a bit strange that you are making such a huge push to fill in details which are only referencable from the Book. You should probably read through what's been going on here over the past couple of months and see how you can work your changes in with the issues raised above. NJGW (talk) 05:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not making a push for anything. If something is stated, it may as well have a citation, even if from the Bible. Considering Cush says that archaeologically Israelites may as well have not existed, maybe we should delete the entire article and everything connected with the subject....that's Israel, Bible, etc.?--Meieimatai 05:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs)
It's not so much what Cush says (he's got his POV agenda of course, which you seem to have a good idea of), but the points others are making about the wording. Also, your changes add up to more than a few citations... please don't be obtuse on that point. NJGW (talk) 05:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
What do you see as a problem specifically? I have barely begun to read the article--Meieimatai? 05:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Better you should start with the talk page, and comment where you see fit. Then you can read the article (as you probably have a very good idea of what the article could/would/should say anyway). NJGW (talk) 05:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Hm. That's quite the response. Care to elaborate? NJGW (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anything controversial with that. The entire tribe of Levi is in many ways set apart, as are the Kohanim, but all are included in the term Israelites by the virtue of being part of the descendants of Israel, and after the union of tribes, members of the kingdom. Only for ritual identified in the text are they considered not Israelites, in fact to this day--Meieimatai? 06:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality and differing points of view

As it stands, the article reads as though the Bible is literally true. A lot of people hold this viewpoint, but most people who know anything about the subject realise that there are other significant views. The archaeology 'section' in particular is pathetic at the moment (and has a weird non-archaeological sentence about certain Jews in south Asia. Until the article properly reflects other significant points of view, it should be tagged as I've tagged it. Doug Weller (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, but I have only just started.
However, you own sense of neutrality is showing. Archaeology as we well know can not and never will disprove the Bible, nor does the Bible need substantiation from physical evidence, it being more than a few stories to some. The two are, so far as cultural histories are concerned, mutually exclusive. :This is supposed to be an article about Israelites, not archaeology of Ancient Israel. It seems to me that as yet the article doesn't even properly define Israelites--Meieimatai? 03:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
The bible DOES need substantiation from physical evidence when it comes to claims about the alleged history of peoples described in the bible. Or are you distinguishing between fictional biblical Israelites and actual whoever-lived-in-Canaan-Israelites?? After all, there is evidence for the existence of something called Israel, just nothing to confirm what Jewish lore makes of it. If this article is only about fictional biblical Israelites then all dates for any events that would connect the biblical tale with actual history of the Levant MUST be removed from the article (dates for the Exodus, the Conquest, the Kingdoms). In fact, I somewhat agree with you, as I maintain the position the the bible is no more actual history than the Silmarillion, at least not in the conventionally held chronology for ancient Egypt and the Levant. Cush (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Our policy on neutrality requires that articles represent "significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias". Please read WP:NPOV. The article clearly doesn't do this. Doug Weller (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Short of finding tablets etched in stone with "Israelites were here", archaeologists only make statements tantamount to best guess as to who was where.
Given that we are looking for a group of Semitic peoples in a Semitic region, who tended to borrow and who were borrowed from others widely, any "proof" is at best subjective. Whatever you or other academics may say, fictional or not, the Israelites did manage to document their history better than some, and preserve it and their religion, so they are pretty much reality.
If we are going to discuss NPOV, than dates used in the Jewish sources have as much right to be in the article as any other dates given they are a part of their cultural history, written and oral. Do you think that any written or oral cultural histories should be removed from Wikipedia until they are confirmed by academics? I think that is a fairly unscientific approach to take given if the records did not exist, archaeologists would not have the many ideas as to where to conduct research i.e. dig, or to correlate their findings in the first place. In many ways modern archaeology was born of the Bible, so lets not get overly judgemental on the merits of other people's culture, ok?
I'm happy to hear where you think the article is biased. Please be specific. If citations are required, I will try to obtain them for the university library as best as it allows me if I can't find something online. If you disagree on the wording, that too can be discussed.
I think in the first place the article lacked structure, defined parameters and a defined historical process all of which led to significant amounts of irrelevant content included. I think the best policy is to stick to evidential approach where statements can be substantiated with explicit rather than implied evidence.
I would prefer if the "spiritual" claims were kept to other more "spiritually" focused articles. I'm happy to collaborate and learn from others, but what I do not appreciate is when as soon as someone starts improving an article when all of a sudden critics jump out of nowhere that had not done any substantial contributing, but are all to eager to put down the contributing editor. This is not a "critics anonymous". If someone has ideas for improving an article, voice them and provide cited references, or go and contribute to articles that correspond to abilities. Just because anyone can edit, doesn't mean anyone should
I'm not going to work in a sandbox on this, but edit to content as I go, so it will be a work in progress--Meieimatai? 10:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
This article is biased in so far that it treats the biblical account as accurate history, just because it is old and because it is the foundation of religion and weltanschauung. But the fact of the matter is that there is no evidence that the bible is any different than, say, the Book of Mormon, which creates an alternative history. Any article about ancient history that starts with "according to the bible" is worthless, as the "source" might as well be entirely fictional, and most likely is. Religious sources are dangerous, because their purpose never was to render accurate descriptions of what happened, but of what the faithful (often fanatically) would like to have happened. That is far far away from a neutral presentation, and if you just copy what the Tanakh says, there will never be a neutral article on the matter. Oh, and claiming oral traditions as source is just a convenient way to say that faith overrides facts. Cush (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
No, I am addressing this article as having a textual history, that is, the narrative, whatever the source, seeks to portray events that span a historical period as a process, regardless of availability of external proof. Given that academic proof did not become a requirement until the Industrial Revolution, you can hardly fault them for being short-sighted in omitting it for your convenience.
But this is not "accurate history"...if there ever was such a thing. This article is named "Israelites". As such they are mostly documented in the Tanach. I am trying to put order to the treatment of this documentation in the article so the subject can be expanded and treated in an encyclopaedic way.
What do you have a problem with, my methodology? My references (I have yet to start citing sources though)?
Religious sources are not "dangerous" since I have never seen one used as a weapon. They are just sources. The degree to which the Bible is verifiable is not the subject of this article; "Israelites" is.
Do you have any other contemporary sources about Israelites? Saying there are no appreciable physical evidence as you see it does not eliminate the notability of the subject. That is not "representing significant views fairly" because you are simply denying the other point of view!
I'm claiming that oral tradition as a source is a valid method of research in anthropology. It says nothing about facts, but only about cultural memories.
It seems to me based on your comments that your problem with this article and my edits is not based in any suggestions of me being neutral, but rather with your own attitude to religion. This is not an article about religion, but about a people who source their cultural knowledge from a religious text. I hope you can see the difference--Meieimatai? 23:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits to be mass-reverted

I'll soon revert this page to version 17:46, October 9, 2008 by Ewawer. Here is your chance to explain & justify your recent changes. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with anything? If you do, please address them specifically here first rather than starting edit conflicts. Threats of reversions are probably not the most civil approach to editing, right?--Meieimatai? 23:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
It's a bit ironic Meieimatai that you say such things given the extent of discussion already ignored by you above. Perhaps you'd like to join the group instead of taking ownership of the article and completely changing its direction. Before you began editing the article was on the way to becoming a verifiable exploration of all groups who identify with the religion of Israel, but you are changing it to an overview of the bible's 12/13 tribes. NJGW (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
And here-in lies the problem. The article is about "Israelites". As such they are defined by the sources in which they are mentioned, which is primarily the Tanach. An encyclopaedic article is not about cramming all possible issues and points of view into a single text, but focusing on the subject.
All groups who might self-identify as Israelites in the modern world, or with the Jewish religion, which is arguably all monotheists, are not by definition Israelites because they want to be, though I note that there are various claims to this end. There is an article Groups claiming an affiliation with the ancient Israelites. These claims represents, for the most part, highly original (not in the Wikipedia sense) research which is usually not accepted by either the major Jewish communities or academic communities, or both in many cases.
Your claims of me taking ownership are unwarranted. However, I note that the group as you call it is mostly you (now by self-identification), Cush and Emmanuelm, with Cush being primarily anti-textual. Cush contributed by pasting from other articles and mostly arguing with Emmanuelm, while Ewawer also contributed to editing without participating in the discussion.
As I see there is a group of people in the Tanach called Israelites in English. Tanach happens to be their cultural history record. At several stages in their history, which is uniquely recorded both in the oral and written tradition, the people fracture and some loose their identity. This is not unprecedented in history, even European history. In fact it was Cush who added the "According to the Tanakh" to the introduction.
The article made several mistakes:
  1. Not clearly defining the subject fo the article
  2. Not having a clear article structure
  3. Changing editing focus from the subject to editors' editorial preferences
  4. Lacking reliable and verifiable sources and not using citations
  5. Letting editorial passions get in the way of editing
I'd be happy to discuss anything you have a problem with in my editing, but do not fling general accusations at me such as taking ownership or ignoring prior discussion. Just because I have not mentioned every previously discussed subject or mentioned everyone by name does not mean I have not read Talk (the first thing I did) or ignored others.--Meieimatai? 00:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem is your translation. Ebri/Evri/etc... is not 'Israelite' but 'Hebrew'. Nowhere in the bible does the word 'Israelim' come up. It's a modern word with a modern context. Why should this article and Hebrews be the same topic anyway? Actually it looks like Hebrews is becoming Jew. I think that all the stuff you're pushing here should be moved to Hebrews, this page should be restored to what it was before you started editing it (an exploration of the modern groups associated with Israel as a concept--whether culturally, archialogically, genetically, or by choice), with the change that a seperate article take up the Tribes of Israel. NJGW (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the Biblical Bnei Israel, the Hellenic and Roman period Hebrews and the modern Jews are not one and the same? As I understand it the three categorisations of individuals that could be admitted to the Temple, and these days to the Torah reading in a synagogue, are Kohen, Levi and Israel (Yisrael), not Israelite, so shall we just AfD the whole article?
"Israelim" is not even in the article.
There are theories that suggest Biblical Israel and Hebrews are not one and the same, and I will deal with this, but don't expect an instant FA article.
I strongly object to your use of "pushing", and in fact I find it insulting.
"Israelites" is not a modern concept, but only a modern English rendering of Bnei Israel, at once inhabitants of ancient Israel and the people of the same name; modern groups that claim association, do so to as claimants to populations which have lost this identity during a historical process.
Claim to modern association are invariably based in religious practice of some sort, or oral memory.
Archaeological links between modern populations and ancient populations are at best academic.
Genetic affiliation is only a testament to intermarriage, and does not define someone as Jewish by default. There are for example members of Orthodox priestly families with very long recorded traditions that do not have the genetic marker which identifies them as such.
Identification by choice is altogether unacceptable for inclusion here. Consider for example adding section in the article USA such as Groups that consider themselves American. I think the range of articles on Europeans reflect this:
With "Israelites" we do not have this problem. We have a text which clearly identifies them. We have records of their history, evolution of their society and culture, and we have some substantiation of this from archaeological evidence. As any other demographic groups, they have standards and parameters of self-identity and inclusion. Many groups did and still do.
While I can self-identify as a Roman, and trust me, I have a good justification for doing so, group inclusion does not work "by Wikipedia". See for example the Enlargement of the European Union.
As it happens, Israelites are synonymous with the Tribes of Israel by virtue of the Ephod on which the names were inscribed
It seems to me that you are pursuing an agenda altogether different from editing an encyclopaedic article, and accuse me of doing same with no evidence so far. Please stop. If you are unwilling to cooperate, or to contribute without slinging empty accusations and criticism based on a semi-finished article because I have not accepted your point of view on the subject, it is because it is not commonly accepted across a range of cultures and groups, and I see no reason why Jews should be made exceptions to the rule--Meieimatai? 04:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Them's some loaded terms... but moving past your rhetoric, would you care to explain how you will prove that the sources you mention are NPOV and V? NJGW (talk) 04:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
You think its rhetoric? And what you said is what?
I don't understand your question--Meieimatai? 09:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
You rely heavily in your initial analysis on sources such as Seder Olam, Genesis, and apparently the Ephod. What makes you believe that these sources are any more wp:NPOV and wp:V than the Book of Mormon? I think you would be better off starting an article entitled Children of Israel, as that is the main nomenclature of your sources, and frame that article as a brief overview of a history built upon religious and semi-religios texts. NJGW (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The neutrality of this article is disputed.

As of 13 October 2008
Would someone care to say what is the subject of dispute that prompted this template?--Meieimatai? 09:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The examples and perspective in this article or section may not include all significant viewpoints.

As of 13 October 2008
Would someone like to say what this template is aimed at?--Meieimatai? 09:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a discussion just above that you've participated in that should deal with this, but for starters, how about the viewpoint that Israelites are basically Canaanites? Doug Weller (talk) 10:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to find out what prompted the template
I think firstly this contradicts the primary source that is the Tanach, basically. If not for that, Canaan would not be identified at all until deciphering of the Egyptian sources
Do you mean in the same way that current residents of US states of Georgia and South Carolina are basically San Miguel de Guadalupeans?
The statement that they are Canaanites is of course correct if one considers that they conquered Canaan, or that Abraham clearly at various stages of his life processed land in the area. Mind you we are talking in therms of hundreds of years in demographic change. Similarly, in reference to later periods we can say that Israelites are basically Babylonians, East Europeans, and indeed, Americans
However, are you suggesting I need to represent the point of view of the ancient Canaanites other than Israelites, or the theories that Israelites are just rebranded Canaanites?--Meieimatai? 09:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I am suggesting that the article needs to represent other significant views, including the view that the Israelites (or at least most of them) are Canaanites whose religion changed over time. Doug Weller (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Using the Bible as a primary source, without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze the biblical texts

As of 13 October 2008
What sort of critical analysis is expected?--Meieimatai? 09:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? We don't do critical analysis here. Doug Weller (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The template says, "referring to secondary sources that critically analyze the biblical texts". So we don't do critical analysis here, but we do cite sources that do so? That mean we do indeed reflect critical analysis here, so exactly what is it that you want to see voiced?--Meieimatai? 22:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
No, we report the critical analysis of others in a neutral way. Doug Weller (talk) 05:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead -- quite funny now really, but I think the Bible was written before there was an English language

I just read the revised lead. [2]. Somehow I don't think that the Bible says that 'Israelites' is an English language name. In fact, it was my impression that all the books of the Bible were written before English even existed. I haven't kept up with all of these rapid edits, but if this is typical, a mass revert is desperately required. Doug Weller (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I was just going to make the same point about the lead sentence. But given how controversial this article probably is, I'm not going to be bold about changing it right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The article has now been turned into a dog's breakfast - with apologies to dogs.Ewawer (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Israelites is an English word. Some people are not aware that this is only the English term for referring to a people about whom most of the Bible is written. Do you not think this should be clarified?--Meieimatai? 22:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what your dog eats, but my dog prefers dog food served on her plate--Meieimatai? 22:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
What's the verse in the Bible where it says that Israelites is an English language name? The Bible doesn't say that. Doug Weller (talk) 05:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The Bible doesn't say that Egypt is an English language name either, and yet it is. What's your point? Cush (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mass revertion and Request for protection

I reverted the article to its Oct 9th version, and posted a Request for full protection on WP:RFPP. We all need to calm down and ponder what Wikipedia is and is not. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Protected

Due to the recent edit warring this page has been protected for 1 week. Please use the time to discuss the matter here and come to a consensus on what should and shouldn't be included on the page. If an urgent edit needs to be made during the protection, please place the template {{editprotected}} here with details of the edit that needs to be made and justification for the edit, and an administrator will come by to make the edit. If you have agreed and resolved the dispute before the expiry of the protection, please make a listing at requests for unprotection. While it is also possible to make such requests on my talk page, it would be quicker for you to use those previous methods. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, lets ponder what Wikipedia is. Its a reference work. It consists of articles. Each article is about a specific subject. The content of the article reflects the subject. Does the current content of this article reflect its subject?
Most articles start with an introduction that defines the subject for the reader, and then summarises the content. So what do we have here?

According to the Bible, the Israelites were the dominant group living in the Land of Israel from the time of the conquest of the territory by Joshua until they were conquered by the Babylonians in c.586 BCE and taken into exile. They were divided in twelve tribes, each claiming descent from one of twelve sons and grandsons of Jacob.

In fact this is not true. Israelites are so known from the name change by Jacob to Israel, and he lived in Canaan BEFORE it was conquered by the tribes under Joshua's leadership.

The term Israelite derives from Israel (Hebrew: ישראל (Standard Yisraʾel Tiberian Yiśrāʾēl)), the name given to the biblical patriarch Jacob after he struggled with an angel ( Genesis 32:28-29). His descendants are called the House of Jacob, the Children of Israel, the People of Israel, or the Israelites.

Of course this ignores the Jewish texts that say the name Israel was also accorded to Abraham and Isaac because that would be recognising the right of the Jews to actually interpret their cultural texts. However, what is the point of retelling the whole "struggle with the angel" story in the intro here? Is this not about the Israelites? Is it not enough to just hyperlink the Jacob article?

The Hebrew Bible is mainly concerned with the Israelites. According to it, the Land of Israel (previously called Canaan) was promised to them by their god. Jerusalem was their capital and the site of the temple at the center of their faith.

Hey, where did the Hebrew Bible come from? How is it relevant to the Israelites? Oh wait, its their main religious text and the basis of their religion! And here is an interesting thing, a bit of modern politics thrown in:
  • a) religious politics by saying "Land of Israel (previously called Canaan) was promised to them by their god" although "God is the principal or sole deity in religions and other belief systems that worship one deity.[1] The singular, capitalized God of monotheistic religions is commonly contrasted with the gods of polytheistic religions."
  • b) conflict in Israel by saying "Jerusalem was their capital" although the article on Jerusalem says "Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם‎, Yerushaláyim; Arabic: القُدس, al-Quds)[ii] is the capital[iii] of Israel and its largest city[2]"
  • c) a bit more religious bias "the site of the temple at the center of their faith" although being the only such structure, it has a proper name the Temple in Jerusalem or Holy Temple in that article, and not any temple.
  • And of course it Hebrew because they are Hebrews "an ancient people defined as descendants of biblical Patriarch Eber (Hebrew עברי (ʿIḇrî) "traverse or pass over"), a great-grandson of Noah."! That must be the Eber that is mentioned what 2-3 times in the "Ebrew Bible", right?
I beg for some logic and inter-article continuity as a start

The Israelites became a major political power with the United Monarchy of Kings Saul, David and Solomon, from c. 1025 BCE. Zedekiah, king of Judah (597-586 BCE), is considered the last king from the house of David.

And for the rest of the article, this statement which at once misinforms, and fails utterly to inform. Political power is what one calls garnering domestic popular support in a democracy. A United Monarchy was clearly not that since Saul was anointed by a prophet. A regional power is another thing, but that would be embarrassing, right?
And of course the Israelites who have a calendar of their own (the Eber calendar?!), which figures importantly in their system of dating is replaced with another calendar system.
Nothing is said about their historical process as Israelites, and how their descendants see it, at all. What is ensured though, is that an attempt is made to disassociate modern Jews from the Israelites by stating that "Zedekiah, king of Judah (597-586 BCE), is considered the last king from the house of David.", which is of course not true in terms of Jewish messianic tradition and eschatology, where the term came to refer to a future Jewish King from the Davidic line which is also at at the center of their faith.
Instead, the article has a curious structure "deliberated" on by editors who think they know what an article should look like
  1. 1 Terminology
This short quip does more to confuse, and in fact misinforms. Curiously although I was asked to prove that Egyptians had a name for Israelites, in this section this is taken as a given.
  1. 2 The Twelve Tribes
Here few citations are given, Jacob suddenly has 4 wives instead of two, the changes to the order of the tribes in the Bible are not elaborated on at all, and the opening sentence to division of land is pure fiction "The tribes were assigned territories following the conquests of land under Moses and Joshua." since Moses is well known not to have participated in the conquests.
  • 2.1 Jacob's sons
  • 2.2 Camps following the exodus
  • 2.3 The division of the land
  1. 3 Israelite kingdoms
Starts with the divided kingdoms, and adds a line pasted from the introduction. The section is entirely lacking in citations.
Apparently at this stage the reader is meant to make the independent cognitive leap from 586 BC? (not even BCE) to 1960s when genetic testing became available. The entire continuity of Jewish history is completely ignored. In all the discussions, someone forgot 2500 years I guess. It happens.
  1. 4 Genetic evidence of common descent
Yet more religious politics. No mention is made that the Israelites had a non-genetic determinants of inclusion. Is that reflecting editor's ideology on Who is a Jew?
  1. 5 Archeology of Israelites
This little section does not even deserve to be here because it simply fails to inform!
  1. 6 Other groups claiming descent
There is of course an article Groups claiming an affiliation with the ancient Israelites, but even if there wasn't, the most obvious question is, what is the criteria for making these claims? There ought to be an introduction to a section lest one think that all these groups are making the claims based on genetic testing, or documented lineage to the tribes, or sharing of religion, or something
  • 6.1 Samaritans
  • 6.2 Karaites
  • 6.3 Beta Israel
  • 6.4 Bnei Menashe
  • 6.5 Hebrew Israelites
  • 6.6 Rastafari
  • 6.7 Messianic Judaism
  • 6.8 Latter-day Saints
  • 6.9 Christian Identity
  1. 7 Children of Israel

This is entirely out of the subject focus. "Bnei Israel" is an expression used in the Bible. What any one group believes about their claims on the subject says nothing about Israelites, or Jews. What Christians believe is already covered in many Christian articles. The section on Islam simply confirms that Islam is aware of the expression. How unreferenced claims by the Pashtun are related is a mystery to me. However, had the previous editors actually made a serious effort at dealing with this, they would have at least bothered to link the exposition to the relevant article in Wikipedia. Of course theories are grand, but how about some theories about Israelites? The Ten Lost Tribes, a consistently important subject throughout Jewish history, is a brief mention in a sentence!

  • 7.1 In Christianity
  • 7.2 In Islam
  • 7.3 Others
However, consider for example that Jewish religion is mentioned but once, in the Karaite section, although the article is a subject of THREE religion-based WikiProjects; faith is mentioned twice.
The above is just some of the reasons I started editing here. I simply could not reconcile the lack of continuity and contradiction within the Wikipedia articles, never mind between Wikipedia and common, very common, basic awareness one would gain from reading even general works on Israelite/Jewish history. Having read the discussion in the article Talk page, and compared it with the existing version, I simply decided that editors were pursuing own agendas, are lacking in commitment to cite authoritative sources and, based on previous comments, would not be very interested in a discussion. This action of reversion and protection by User:Emmanuelm just proved me right! User:Emmanuelm completely failed to participate in ANY discussion, but seems to think that Wikipedia works by ultimatums. Given he was allowed to both revert and slap a protection on, it seems others share this belief.
If one reads the Hebrews article, one would think it should be removed from the Jewish History Project and moved to Eberites History Project!
Now, someone wants to discuss what Whikipedia is and is not?--Meieimatai? 00:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'll discuss it with you.
In the first place "Israelite" refers to a historic people, a group or a nation. If you want to discuss religion, and whether something was promised and by whom, that is a matter for religion - to be discussed under "Judaism" or "The Promised Land".
It is fair for groups who claim descent from the "Israelites" to get a mention, though their religious beliefs can be left to their own articles.
To throw everything into the one article makes it lose any relevance to a property understanding of the subject matter.
On the other hand, no claim is made that the reinstated article is 100% accurate, which I know it's not, and still needs work to be done to it, but not to extent of transforming it into an analysis of religious claims to the land, etc. On the other hand, turning it into a history of the ancient Kingdom of Israel is also a waste of an effort.
In short, the Israelite period of Jewish history is the period between the conquest of Canaan and the Babylonian Exile. And, the Israelites were the Jews (in a general sense) who lived in that period. The name was not used in any other period.Ewawer (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Revert the title to "Children of Israel", which is definable in terms of its usage in the Bible. "Israelite" isn't really definable - the Israelites were not, for example, a historic people (the old kingdom of Israel didn't actually call itself by that name - it was Samaria or Beit Omri), and the use of "Israel" to refer to the peoples of Judah and Israel together dates from the post-Exilic period. PiCo (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I suggest a split into at least two articles: Children of Israel (defined in biblical terms, would include the 12 tribes as well as the POV fork Meimeitai cut out of this article), Israelites (perhaps not an historical term, but is the common phrase used now to describe a historic people... an anthropological/genetic/etc. article). NJGW (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Defining "Israelites"

Well, actually I would like to hear for the individual who thinks in terms of ultimatums.

If he wants to contribute to an article, any article, it is best to start by defining the subject.

So, define "Israelites"--Meieimatai? 09:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ultimatum - noun, a final demand or statement of terms, the rejection of which will result in retaliation or a breakdown in relations. So you want some specific person to put their foot down, and demand something of you, otherwise they'll throw a hissy-fit? Weird. Who is this person you're referring to? By the way, if you read the previous sections instead of just starting new ones every few hours you'll see that this question has come up before several times... just to be ignored by you. Propose this section be removed per wp:TALK ("Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages)" is permitted). Stop creating new discussion sections with new topics as soon as someone replies to you. NJGW (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
NJGW, please be respectful. Mei, why are you asking? Don't you have a Torah at home? Look for "House of Jacob", "House of Israel", "People of Israel", "Children of Israel", "Sons of Israel", "Daughters of Israel". Israelites is the English word most often used to designate these people, but the other names are mentioned in the introduction. Additionally, here is a list of Encyclopedia definitions, none of them clear :
This Wikipedia article attempts to unify these definitions with the Bible and to clarify the whole thing. It was rather good... until you started undoing it. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
NJGW - what I read, and what I found in the article did not correspond to what article standards in Wikipedia suggest it should be.
This "I'll soon revert this page to version 17:46, October 9, 2008 by Ewawer. Here is your chance to explain & justify your recent changes. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)" was an ultimatum
Given someone didn't like my editing of the introduction, and this included definition, and there was not another section in talk dedicated to the defining of the article subject, I started it.
I started the previous sections because others who attached the template's did not. The accepted practice in Wikipedia is to start a discussion if a template is attached, explaining what the issue is. I waited, and these did not appear, so I started them
How is this "Israelites is the English word most often used to designate these people" different from my introduction sentence that was removed?
Here is my idea on Wikipedia - it does not regurgitate other encyclopaedias. However, if you are so limited in sources at to only use online sources, why pick those that date from the 19th century?
In reply to the issue of religion here, the answer is rather obvious to me. The Israelites are the source of the first enduring monotheistic religion in the the world, and the primary written text is also the source of everything that others claim affiliation through. To write an article without going into the subject of Israelite religion what defines who is an Israelite, is like describing a car without mentioning that it's primary design purpose is for transportation, and that things which need rails or wings need not apply. Sort of like "Well, its this mechanical design with wheels and engine, and you pour petrol here, oh and by the way, some suggest that the Boeing 747 is also a descendant of the car via this thing called a bus."
What I am also suggesting is that the "Israelites", known in post-Renaissance English as Hebrews, and in modern English as Jews have a cultural heritage. This includes texts and text analysis as sources. On the other hand there are academics who think they have the right to reinterpret these because they are academics, and discard completely. So, there is this sort of "discard anything we don't like" attitude. However, this is a really bias (speaking of neutrality) point of view. The approach that logic suggests is
  • Say what the original sources of identity are
  • Say what the Israelites think about themselves and their history
  • Say where the questions about Israelite identity originate
The above is the approach taken in anthropology with other populations groups, but seemingly Jews are up for academic "target practice" because there are so many people who have so many problems with them, and mostly with their religion because it is the antithesis of science (supposedly) and therefore a threat to academia(?)
In any case, as it happens a project came up at work, and another in my personal life. I will have no time to spend on this article until March next year at the earliest unfortunately, but I will be back, and look in from time to time.I will also bring this article and Hebrews (which is utter OR) to the notice of Judaism Project, and will return next year--Meieimatai? 01:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Meieimatai?, you asked for a definition of Israelite, which I think is a very good idea. I said above that I have a concern about this article precisely because the word is so difficult to define. Therefore, thanks for poitning us to the Encyclopedia Britannica and others. I looked up the EB and this is what it gives for its definition of Israelite (I'm summarising):
  • A Jew, a descendant of the Biblical Patriarch Jacob/Israel
  • Originally, all members of the 12 tribes; later, peoples of the northern kingdom of Israel; and after 721, peoples of the kingdom of Judah;
  • liturgically, a Jew who is neither a cohen nor a levite.
The EB expresses my concerns perfectly, although I'm sure the authors never had such an outcome in mind. The problem is that it takes the Biblical narrative at face value - it accepts the historical existence of Jacob/Israel and the 12 tribes and the history outlined in Samuel/Kings. It also describes the peoples of Iron Age Israel/Judah as Jews, and their religion, by implication, as Judaism, which is not the usual scholarly language. In short, the EB isn't up to date with the scholarly consensus.
My point is that Israel is a meaningful term in the context of the Bib