Talk:Israelites

Kings 1, 11:34 Ahijah the Shilonite

The Tribes of Israel were divided by Ahijah the Shilonite in the book of Kings 1 and is specifically mentioned in the chapter 11. At least 10 of the 12 Tribes of Israel were taken from Solomon, the Jewish ruler at that time. Question, how can I improve this quote before posting?

34 “‘But I will not take the whole kingdom out of Solomon’s hand; I have made him ruler all the days of his life for the sake of David my servant, whom I chose and who obeyed my commands and decrees. 35 I will take the kingdom from his son’s hands and give you ten tribes. 36 I will give one tribe to his son so that David my servant may always have a lamp before me in Jerusalem, the city where I chose to put my Name.

— First mention of the tables in Kings 1, 11:34-11:36

Twillisjr (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Need to distinguish between "Israelites" and "Jews"

Much of the article - the second half in particular - simply repeats information in the article Jews (and History of ancient Israel and Judah). If this article is to have any reason for a separate existence, it has to treat a separate subject. It can best do that by restricting itself to the concept of Israelites as a holy community. If it can't find its own focus, then it should be merged into those other articles.

In order to find that focus, I've taken this definition of "Israelites" based on the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary (I'm not wedded to that source, I'm just trying to find an RS definition): The Israelites, according to the Hebrew bible, were the descendants of Jacob the son of Isaac and grandson of Abraham and Sarah; during the period of the divided kingdom it properly applied only to the inhabitants of the kingdom of Israel with its capital at Samaria; after the destruction of Samaria and the deportation of the northern tribes it became applied to the two southern tribes making up the southern kingdom of Judah; and in the post-exilic period it became virtually synonymous with Jews." (And then there could be paras about the use of the term in the New Testament, and its use in modern Judaism). PiCo (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how a name that means "wrestle with God" became the name of an entire nation. How come Jews are "Israelites" rather than "Abrahamites" or "Yitzhakites" or "Jerusalemites" or even "South Canaanites"? Given the traditional character of Jewish religion, why doesn't the Jewish people call itself the "B'nei Torah" or "B'nei Mitzvot" or something similar (Children of the Torah/ Children of the Commandments) — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 02:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

These are all good questions, but this isn't really the place to ask them. (Try the Jewish Encyclopedia). PiCo (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

the 12 forefathers of the israelite tribes were the sons of jacob, who is known as israel too, so it started as sons of israel, and eventually became israelites. about the other question, there are other names for jews, not only israelites. but they aren't common or even really used, and thus, not really known to someone who doesn't live in jewish community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.72.225.222 (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

They are good question Rickyrab, and I give you my word I am not being blasphemous, but I was taught a different meaning of the words translated into English as the first book of Old Testament (properly labeled the plural form of the Latin word Genus), from words written in the Torah. The way I was taught, distinguishes between spiritual existence and the times when the spirit -- for a time -- is temporarily Housed in flesh -- through a lease on life so to speak -- but because what a spirit as an individual or entire family is referred to by name, recognizing the difference between spirit alone and the spirit inhabiting a body becomes confusing in the history recorded. So traditional interpretations may have trouble recognizing the subtle key words that signal the point where the record is changes from speaking of a name of a spirit, to the name of a spirit conducting life in a house (spirit inhabiting a body) See Genus chapter 12 verses 5 and 6 (Genesis 12:5-6) and notice the terminology that demarks the line that must be passed through to go from spirit existed in Canaan, to a lease on a house for the spirit (spirit in body which then called Canaanite)Dirtclustit (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

‎@Rickyrab:It is a mighty question indeed, and I think I can give you a brief answer. The name ישראל Yisra'el comes from two northwest Semitic root words ישרה 'Yisra' or 'Yishra' meaning to strive, or to struggle, and the word אל 'El' meaning force, influence, deity, or God. The name comes from a story in the Torah when Ya'aqov (Jacob), whose name literally means 'heal' since he came out of the womb clinging to Esau's heal, had a friendly competitive 'sport like' fight with a malakh, or messenger of God. He won the match and the malakh gave him the name Yisra'el because he struggled with the forces of God and persevered. Remember this fight was not a battle, but a friendly competition, to see how long Ya'aqov could 'hold on'. Since he was able to persist with a powerful malakh for the entire match he was given this name as a compliment to his perseverance in the face of difficulty, much like the Jews have endured massive suffering over the millennia in their quest to remain Israelites and keep their Torah with God. The reason they are not called Avrahamites is because, beside Yiẓḥaq, according to the Hebrew Bible Avraham fathered seven nations, the Ishamelites, the Midianites, the Shuaḥites, the Zimranites, the Jokshanites, the Ishbakites, and the Medanites by his seven other sons, through Hagar and Qeṭurah, Yishma'el, Zimran, Yaqshan, Medan, Midyan, Yishbaq, and Shuaḥ. The reason they are not called Yiẓḥaqites is because Yiẓḥaq supposedly fathered two nations, the Edomites and Israelites, through his twins Esau and Yisra'el born to Rivqa. The reason they are not called Jerusalemites is because Jerusalem was not a holy place to for the Israelites until the time of King David. The reason they are not called Southern Canaanites is because they claim a different lineage. The land of Israel was one of the last places to be fully settled after the Neolithic revolution. The first settled human cities in the middle east were focused around major river systems like the Nile, the Euphrates, and the Tigris. While Israel only had the Jordan river. It was primarily an Egyptian, Akkadian, and Sumerian trade route. The first colonists appear about a thousand years before the Israelites, who are Egyptian colonists that settle along the coast and near the river Jordan. These were the Canaanites. The Israelites claim not to be of north African origin, but instead of northwest Semitic extraction, not from Egypt, but from Sumer and Aram in Arabia. The reason why Israel is not called B'nei Torah or B'nei Miẓwoth is because the Israelites are not a philosophy or belief system, they claim to be a physical nation descended from a single Semitic man named Yisra'el who lived 4000 years ago. While this may not be true for every Jew and Samaritan, it has recently been shown with Y-DNA testing that Jews and Samaritans, as well as Palestinians, share the same unique and very rare 12 marker Y-DNA signature that is not found in high percentages among other populations, indicating all three groups are descended from a single Semitic male ancestor who lived 3500 +/- 500 years ago. Newmancbn (talk) 02:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Black Hebrew Israelites

Hi guys, does any of you think that they should be mentioned in the article or is it just me? Because they are indeed relevant and must be at least in in the "see also" section... There seems to be little to no information at all about these peoples' theory and Jewish identity. Thanks, Yambaram (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Considering the fact that they're frauds from West African ancestry, and regardless of genetic, archaeological, linguistic and religious evidence contradicting them, they claim that they're in fact the real Jews who trace their ancestry to the Canaanite Israelites of the Levant, is not just absurd, it's startling to see such irrationality regardless of evidence pointing to the Jews and the Samaritans as the descendants of the Canaanite Israelites, also of course their proximity to descendants of other Canaanites, like the Phoenicians i.e the Lebanese. In short, no, they don't belong here, it's like claiming that the native Americans are descendants of the Israelites according to the Mormons, regardless of evidence contradicting them. Guy355 (talk) 08:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Yambaram: The term 'Hebrew Israelites' doesn't even make sense, its redundant, similar to a double negative, like saying 'that ain't no good'. The Israelites are Hebrews, there's no need to specify they are the 'Hebrew' Israelites, I mean, compared to what other kind of Israelite? The term 'Israelite Hebrews' would make a bit more sense, since there were other Hebrew nations like the Ishmaelites and Edomites. Its as stupid as saying the 'Asian Koreans' or the 'African Zulu'. --Newmancbn (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Yambaram: if you put an article about them you have to put an article about all the other groups with the false claim. for example the celts, also claim the same.

"later evolving into the Jews and Samaritans of the Hellenistic and Roman periods,"

This was changed to "later evolving into the Jews and Samaritans" - I reverted it, the deletion was repeated with an edit summary " I deleted it because Jews and Samaritans are not OF the Hellenistic times. They still exist today." That's not being challenged by the original text. This seems to be a misunderstanding of the meaning. The original text gives the time context which was removed by the deleting editor. Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Israelite v Jewish

There are plenty of articles on Judaism and Jews in Wikipedia. We do not need the extensive sections on the various Jewish groups in this article, and the claims that they are descendants of the Israelites. It would be better to replace all of section 3 with links to the other existing articles.81.129.212.77 (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Could not agree more. The whole section should move to the Jewish diaspora article, where it would fit much better. I will WP:BEBOLD. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

B'nai Israel

B'nai Israel now hosts a disambiguation page, so I've boldly removed the hatnote for this, and incorporated the link to Israelites (disambiguation) in existing hatnotes. I've also floated the image of Merneptah Stele to the right to fix the issue of it over-running on the left and pushing some of the 'see also' links towards the middle of the page. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Why aren't the historical roots of the Jews/Israelites mentioned in the lede as are the mythical origins?

The historical roots of the Jews/Israelites are Canaanite according to archaeologists and historians, the mythical origins claim the Jews/Israelites were distinct from the Canaanites however we now know this wasn't the case, and that the Torah which was put together during the Babylonian captivity around the 6th century B.C.E attempted to distinguish the Jews from their Canaanite roots out of the attempt to establish monotheism, before that however, the Israelites were a Canaanite people who spoke a Canaanite language (Hebrew which broke from Phoenician) and worshiped Canaanite gods like El (who would become Yahweh), Ashera, many fertility gods etc, also their settlements were indistinguishable from the settlements of other Canaanites, the only exception would be the lack of pig bones in the Israelite settlements, but that's too small a difference considering all the similarities considering that both culturally (ancient Israelite religion, gods, settlements, art etc) and linguistically (the language of the Israelites, Hebrew, a Canaanite language which broke from Phoenician, another Canaanite language) the origins of the Jews/Israelites are Canaanite. My point is that both origins, Historical and mythical are mentioned in the actual article, but in the lede only the Mythical origins are mentioned, that's misleading and I propose the historical origins be added as well. Guy355 (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Someone seems to push the Khazar hypothesis in the article despite the many studies following Eran's study contradicting his own study.

Here are the studies:

If you wish to add the hypothesis, please add it in "Genetic studies on Jews", although I reckon it's already there. Guy355 (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Also please take into account that not all Jews are Ashkenazi, and that the Ashkenazi themselves seem to be genetically speaking pre Islamic east Mediterranean, plotting between Cypriots and Greeks, alongside Maltese and Sicilians, sharing closest genetic similarities with Sephardi and North African Jews, and when it comes to non Jews, Armenians, Cypriots, Druze, Greeks and Sicilians. Also the fact that Ashkenazis share most IBD with Sephardi Jews, with the next population (east Europeans) being considerably lower, with the northern Caucasus (the historical region of the Khazars) lower still. Guy355 (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Map

‎@Newmancbn:File talk:12 Tribes of Israel Map.svg, says:"What's the background on this map? It seems inaccurate as a modern interpretation of the Biblical record. For instance, on at least one of the particulars where it differs from the Lotter map, the latter is in fact more consistent whth the Biblical account (which, unless there are other sources not mentioned in the Tribal allotments of Israel, I assume are meant to be the map's origins). Specifically, Joshua 12:1 makes it clear the Transjordanian territory should extend as far north as Mount Hermon, well north of the Sea of Galilee, unlike in this image where the Transjordanian territory ends a bit south of Galilee. Jake (talk) 10:03 pm, 12 October 2013, Saturday (9 months, 31 days ago) (UTC+1)" I noticed that it is widely used, but that doesn't mean it should be used. There is no source for it and it appears to be original research. Dougweller (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

This map is relatively accurate. Compare with the link below to the most accurate map available from the Jewish Virtual Library, the same map taught in Israeli schools. The Lotter projection is a map from the 18th century that depicted all of southwestern Syria and Aram as part of the tribe of Manasseh. It was made on the assumption that Biblical Bashan is the modern day Golan Heights. Archeology and textual analysis has disputed this. For example part of this northern Golanic territory includes the Yarmuk River, a river that is not even mentioned in the Tanakh. If the territory of the tribe of Manasseh included a massive river such as the Yarmuk, its name would surly have entered the text, as did literally every other major river in Palestine found among the tribes of Israel. The truth is the most accurate map is not available on wikipedia. The map currently on this page, and the Lotter projection, incorrectly places the tribe of Dan in Jaffa south of Ephraim. Dan was located in the northern point of Israel near the city of Dan. In fact it is the territory of the tribe of Dan that the Tanakh outlines as extending up to Mount Hermon, and to the city of Dan, not the tribe of Manasseh. Now, is it possible the Golan Heights was part of the ancient tribe of Manasseh? Yes it is, especially since Joshua 12, 4 mentions Og the king of Bashan ruling in Hermon. It is more likely however that it was not, but even it was, the Lotter map is so old and so poor by modern standards that the 'shape' of the land is not even accurate to the known shape of the earth. For example the Lotter map depicts the Haifa peninsula as an inlet! It clearly is not a candidate for the face of the Israelites on this page. Even if the map currently here may be ever so slightly inaccurate (the only problem I find is the placement of Dan) it is far better than having no map at all, or a grotesquely distorted one like the Lotter. See also the section השבטים ארץ ישראל (tribes of the land of Israel) in the Hebrew version of this article. Newmancbn (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You can see the Lotter map here and compare:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/1759_map_Holy_Land_and_12_Tribes.jpg

Here is the most accurate map to date:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/tribes/tribemap.gif

Here is he current map used for this page:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/12_Tribes_of_Israel_Map.svg

a. It would be even stranger if the Yarmouk forms the northern border of Manasseh but is not mentioned.

b. Your view is not in tune with article Tribe of Manasseh. It will be nice to see your sources there.

Lotter is definitely worse, except as a "artist's view". trespassers william (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The theory is the northern border of the tribe of Manasseh may have stopped short of the Yarmuk, unlike what is shown on this map, leaving it solidly within Aram. I think there is a chance Manasseh did include the Golan, it is just presently there is no consensus. The Arameans fought with the Israelites in Bashan after the Joshua conquests, so it is also possible the Golan was originally part of Manasseh, but it was subsequently lost, and the Israelite border was pushed south of the Yarmuk early on, which would explain its absence in the text. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0007_0_07310.html. This article mentions the fighting with the Arameans.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmancbn (talk • contribs) 16:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

There can never be a consensus so long as a lot of scholars and ordinary people think that this never happened. Dougweller (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

‎@Dougweller: There are no respected archeologists or scholars of any kind who maintain the Israelites did not exist. If they didn't, from whence come their artifacts? Both inert artifacts such as the Siloam inscription, the Merneptah Stele, the Mesha stele, the Kurkh Monoliths, the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, the Tel Dan Stele, the Nimrud Tablet K.3751, the Lachish relief, the LMLK seals, the Azekah Inscription, Sennacherib's Annals, and king Ahaz's Seal, and of course their living artifacts, the Jews and the Samaritans, provide conclusive secondary evidence for the veracity of their history. There are even several events described in Israelite texts once thought to have been completely fictionalized, which have left archeological remains, such as a reference to the exodus of a Semitic people out of Egypt in the 14th century BCE, during a time of plagues, described in the Ipuwer Papyrus, or the reference to the prophet Balaam from the book of Bamidbar in the Balaam inscription. The archeological evidence for the existence of the Israelites is overwhelming. To deny their existence is like denying the existence of the Akkadians, or the Hittites, or the Inca. Their presence in history, and the continual and persistent existence of the Jews, may strike you as disturbing, but that does not mean the Israelites 'never happened'. While the account of history depicted in the Tanakh certainly falls under the scrutiny of secular scholars due to its claims of divine revelation, no one denies the existence of the Israelites, I'm sorry Doug. Newmancbn (talk) 02:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Buba clan

Removed claim that they are accepted as Jews. Having the Cohen Modal Haplotype shows the area they or rather some of their ancestors came from, but doesn't make them Jews. Dougweller (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

This brings this in line with Lemba people which points out that the % in the Buba clan does not prove they are Jews. Dougweller (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

‎@Dougweller:You are correct in that having the CMH certainly does not make someone a Jew, or even prove an Israelite origin. In the case of the Buba clan however, over 50% of the men have the 12 marker CMH, which would not be strange except 1.) they are in southern Africa (the 12 marker CMH is a distinctly northwest Arabian haplotype), and 2.) they retain Hebraic customs and an oral tradition of being descended from the Israelites. The DNA results of the Buba clan does indeed strongly indicate, if not verify, Israelite ancestry. The reason is this. Y-DNA passes mostly unchanged from father to son. If two people have a 12 for 12 Y-DNA marker match it means there is an enormously high chance they share a recent paternal ancestor sometime in the last couple millennia. When the Cohen Modal Haplotype was first plotted out, it was only a 6 maker grouping, now it has been extended to a 12 maker haplotype, and we are working on developing higher resolution Cohen Modal Haplotypes. This is significant because to share an exact 6 for 6 maker match is not that remarkable. With the CMH it basically means both people are Arabian in origin, but to share a 12 for 12 or 11 for 12 marker match, as is the case with the Buba and the Jewish Kohanim, is rather extraordinary. It means they share a recent Semitic male ancestor sometime in the last 3500 years +/- 500 years (exactly at the time of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel), this in combination with their oral tradition of specifically being of Israelite extraction, in addition to their Hebraic customs such as circumcision, their abhorrence of non-kosher meat, the observance of a weekly day of ceasing from activity, the slaughter of animals by slitting the throat with a razor (a practice that is distinctly Arabian and non-African), and their strict monotheistic worship of a being they call Nwali (possibly from AdoNaI or YehoWah?), all make it very difficult for this group to have originated from non-Israelites. Also, there have been no recorded massive population shifts out of Arabia and into Sub Saharan Africa in history, and the only national group that may be a candidate are the Israelites during the Babylonian and Assyrian exiles, and the Jews during the Roman exile. No other Arabian ethnic groups have been exiled from the peninsula in history. It has never been claimed they are accepted halakhically as Jews. The Jews are an ethnoreligious group that the Buba clan are not currently a part of. Their DNA does not reveal they are Jews, it reveals they are authentic descendants of an Israelite population, and the difference is substantial.--Newmancbn (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

No it does not reveal that. You are claiming there were Israelites 3500 years ago, and that is certainly disputed. You are claiming that a 3500 year old common ancestor must have been an Israelite, again disputed. You are combining sources to make an argument, and that is original research. Dougweller (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Israelite origin of the Palestinians

79.180.3.225 stated in their edit: "Palestinians are in their vast majority are ARABS and other muslims! those of them with any connection to the Israelites are few in number". The idea that Palestinians are not descended from people who have inhabited the Land of Israel since antiquity, but instead are a mixture of Arabs who moved there because of job opportunities generated by Zionism, is a myth that was promulgated in the early days of Zionism in part because of bad research and partly to discredit the Palestinians and their connection to the land. Anthropologists and scholars reject the assertion that Palestinians immigrated there in last 200 years from other Arab nations. We now know conclusively those theories are false because of the records left by the English about immigration into the Mandate of Palestine, and because of Y-DNA testing. Tsvi Misinai is Israel's leading researcher on this subject. In addition to the DNA studies being done by geneticists, his organization The Engagement, has sought to exhaustively document the presence of Jewish customs, traditions, and history among the Palestinian Arabs. His findings are rather remarkable. Palestinian Arabs circumcise their sons after the first week of life, in contrast to other Arabs who wait a few years, they light candles at grave sites, a tradition not found among any other Arab ethnic groups, they have the tradition of sitting in mourning (shiva) for a deceased relative for seven days, in contrast to other Arabs who mourn for three days. In addition to this the Palestinian city and place names west of the Jordan river are Arabizations of the Hebrew names for the same places in the Tanakh. On the east side of the Jordan, in ancient Moab and Ammon, the Hebrew names for places were replaced by totally different Arab words. However, the conclusive proof came in the 21st century with the advent of Y-DNA testing. Palestinians have extraordinarily high frequencies of the Cohen Modal Haplotype for a supposedly Arab ethnic group. This is a gene found among Jewish kohanim and Samaritan men. In addition to this the unique combination of non J1a haplotypes among Palestinians matches that of Jews. Meaning that both Jews and Palestinians share strikingly similar percentages of odd ball 'foreign' haplotypes in T, J2, G, E1b, and others. Indicating the famous multitude of converts to Judaism during the Second Temple period from around the Mediterranean are to be found among both Jews and Palestinians. See this Israeli mini documentary: www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQCr7GaVMWA. See this article as well, http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Features/The-lost-Palestinian-Jews. For DNA research see Nebel, Almut, et al. "High-resolution Y chromosome haplotypes of Israeli and Palestinian Arabs reveal geographic substructure and substantial overlap with haplotypes of Jews." Human genetics 107.6 (2000): 630-641. Also see --Newmancbn (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why do you think that the fact the "palestinians" have Haplogroup-J makes them Israelites in origin? this material is common all around the Middle East and as history tells us the vast majority of the Arabs nowadays calling themselves "palestinians" are descended from work immigrants from various backgrounds (mostly Saudi, Egyptian and Levantine Arabs) who came after 1850 and who may all carry this gene. Only several "palestinian" families are descendants of Jews & Samaritans who were converted into islam and married Arabs invaders. BTW Tsvi Misinai is a fraud by most genetics and historians in Israel.--DXRD (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@DXRD: Maybe I wrote too much information and you did not bother to read it. Studies have not just shown they have high percentages of haplogroup J, or J1a, but that they have a high frequency of an extremely specific 11 for 12 and 12 for 12 marker Y-DNA signature known as the Cohen Modal Haplotype, which is only found in high frequency among Jews, Samaritans, Palestinians, the Bene Israel, and 50% of the Buba clan of the Lemba people. That is what indicates their Israelite ancestry, not just the generic semitic haplogroup J. It is a myth, and a lie, that they descend from Arabs who immigrated there after Zionism, that would be very convenient for Israel (a nation which I love) wouldn't it? Well, it is not that easy. They indeed are descendant from people who populated the region since antiquity (before the Roman and Byzantine occupation of Judea), we know this from the data on immigration to the region from English and Ottoman records, as well as Crusader, Islamic, Byzantine, and Roman history. Does that make sense now?--Newmancbn (talk) 06:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

As I explained earlier, I do not agree with your claims about their origin, there are vast evidance for the Arab and non-Arab muslim descent of most "palestinians" living in the Land of Israel today. Hope you know Hebrew cause this source deals with this issue: "Are Palestinians originated in Ancient Israelites? No, No, No says many Israeli Historians" And those are in English: Genealogy of Palestinian surnames & Origins of the "palestinians" proves them to be descendants of Arab tribes, other Levantine and North African Muslims, Sudanese Afro-Arabs, Jewish-Samaritans & European forced converts to islam, Bosniaks, Chechens, Turks, Indians and Kurds.--DXRD (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

79.180.3.225

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

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

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

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

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

I don't understand why do you think that the fact the "palestinians" have Haplogroup-J makes them Israelites in origin? this material is common all around the Middle East and as history tells us the vast majority of the Arabs nowadays calling themselves "palestinians" are descended from work immigrants from various backgrounds (mostly Saudi, Egyptian and Levantine Arabs) who came after 1850 and who may all carry this gene. Only several "palestinian" families are descendants of Jews & Samaritans who were converted into islam and married Arabs invaders. BTW Tsvi Misinai is a fraud by most genetics and historians in Israel.--DXRD (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@DXRD: Maybe I wrote too much information and you did not bother to read it. Studies have not just shown they have high percentages of haplogroup J, or J1a, but that they have a high frequency of an extremely specific 11 for 12 and 12 for 12 marker Y-DNA signature known as the Cohen Modal Haplotype, which is only found in high frequency among Jews, Samaritans, Palestinians, the Bene Israel, and 50% of the Buba clan of the Lemba people. That is what indicates their Israelite ancestry, not just the generic semitic haplogroup J. It is a myth, and a lie, that they descend from Arabs who immigrated there after Zionism, that would be very convenient for Israel (a nation which I love) wouldn't it? Well, it is not that easy. They indeed are descendant from people who populated the region since antiquity (before the Roman and Byzantine occupation of Judea), we know this from the data on immigration to the region from English and Ottoman records, as well as Crusader, Islamic, Byzantine, and Roman history. Does that make sense now?--Newmancbn (talk) 06:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Newmancbn:Actually this is an inappropriate use of the talk page. You are using the talk page to discuss the subject rather than to discuss sources, etc, treating it as a forum. None of what you say is actually relevant here. Again, what you need are sources that explicitly link named groups with Israelite descent. That is absolutely vital. Editing here is very very different from writing a paper for an academic journal. What you write above would be ok for such a paper, but we need explicit sources. I've asked you for quotations several times and I don't think you've responded, although it's hard to tell sometimes. We need those responses. Dougweller (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: I understand, I'm gathering the exact references from the cited studies that say the data indicates these groups have Israelite ancestry. It will take a little time, but I'll return with the precise sources.--Newmancbn (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

As I explained earlier, I don't agree with your claims about their origin, there are vast evidance for the Arab and non-Arab muslim descent of most "palestinians" living in the Land of Israel today. Hope you know Hebrew cause this source deals with this issue: "Are Palestinians originated in Ancient Israelites? No, No, No says many Israeli Historians" And those are in English: Genealogy of Palestinian surnames & Origins of the "palestinians" proves them to be descendants of Arab tribes, other Levantine and North African Muslims, Sudanese Afro-Arabs, Jewish-Samaritans & European forced converts to islam, Bosniaks, Chechens, Turks, Indians and Kurds.--DXRD (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I am confused about this sentence

This sentence: ...Jews are descended from the southern Kingdom of Judah (alongside the remnants of the Northern Kingdom of Israel who migrated to their Southern counterpart and assimilated there)

With the reference: According to the Books of Chronicles chapter 9 line 3, the Israelites, who took part in The Return to Zion, are stated to be from the Tribe of Judah alongside the Tribe of Simeon that was absorbed into it, the Tribe of Benjamin, the Tribe of Levi (Levites and Priests) alongside the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, which according to the 2 Kings 7 were exiled by the Assyrians. (The Biblical scholars Umberto Cassuto and Elia Samuele Artom claimed in their book "The Books of Kings and Chronicles in modern view" (1981) these two tribes' names to be a reference to the remnant of all Ten Tribes that was not exiled and absorbed into the Judean population)

The Kingdom of Judah included the tribes of Benjamin, Simeon, and the Levites, they were not 'absorbed' into the Jews from the northern kingdom, they were from the southern kingdom originally. So this statement seems kind of redundant, and actually incorrect, unless I am missing something. It is also already known the names of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh are used as a reference to all of the lost northern tribes, collectively called Joseph and contrasted with Judah. Maybe I just don't understand what is trying to be said. Chronicles states there were Ephraimites and Manassehites living in Jerusalem, does Cassuto and Artom claim part of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh were absorbed into the Jews? If that is the case, then its totally relevant, if its not then I just don't get it.--Newmancbn (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

All seems in place. The verse goes:

3 And in Jerusalem dwelt of the children of Judah, and of the children of Benjamin, and of the children of Ephraim and Manasseh.

To answer the question what ethnic groups descended from which tribes, Wikipedia first points out in the ref that Judah in the verse refers to descendants of what was earlier regarded as the separate Judah and Simeon (first "absorbed"). And then points out that Ephraim and Manasseh refers to immigrants from all ten (nine) tribes of the north. At the time the verse refers to, Ephraim and Manasseh have not absorbed into Judah as much as Simeon had already (as they are still named), but obviously, later on they did (second "absorbed", "assimilated")(and Benjamin did too). All became one Jewish nation, while those descendants of the ten north tribes, which never emigrated to Judea, were exiled and did not remain Jewish. (Or, according to the rest of the section, became mostly Samaritans, or maybe re-embraced Judaism under one of the greater Jewsih kingdoms of the following centuries, but at this point there was no telling what tribe their ancestors belonged to...).

I'd say the words "which according to the 2 Kings 7 were exiled by the Assyrians" make it a bit confusing, but there is something else. trespassers william (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense--Newmancbn (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed section asserting that the prevailing opinion is that various groups are "the authentic remnants of Israelite populations"

First, there are no sources listed that I read that state that this is the prevailing opinion.

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

There's inappropriate use of sources. We never refer people to our own articles. Feldman's "The Genetics of the Samaritans and Other Middle Eastern Peoples." doesn't seem to have ever been published. And Goldstein doesn't say that the Samaritans are descended from the Israelites. He says " Recent genetic testing has shown that Jews and Samaritans, as well as the previously mentioned ethnic groups, share a unique Y-DNA signature that can be identified as variants of the Cohen Modal Haplotype, strongly indicating a common paternal lineage from a single recent Semitic male ancestor." That's not the same thing. He also says "A 2004 genetic study of living Samaritans by Marc Feldman, Peter Oefner, and colleagues (Shen et al., “Reconstruction of Patrilineages and Matrilineages”) found evidence of ancient Samaritan and Cohen ancestry." Again, no mention of Israelites. Neither the YouTube video[1] or the article in Israel National News[2] are reliable sources by our criteria. (If anyone disagrees, take it to WP:RSN.) You can't use a source that says "High-resolution Y chromosome haplotypes of Israeli and Palestinian Arabs reveal geographic substructure and substantial overlap with haplotypes of Jews" to back "and 85% of Palestinian Arabs,[23][24] are the authentic remnants of Israelite populations.[25][26][27]". It doesn't say that. It doesn't even mention 85%. What does Goldstein, David B. Jacob's legacy: a genetic view of Jewish history. say about Palestinians? And page numbers for books are required.

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

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

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

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

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

‎@Dougweller: "He also says "A 2004 genetic study of living Samaritans by Marc Feldman, Peter Oefner, and colleagues (Shen et al., “Reconstruction of Patrilineages and Matrilineages”) found evidence of ancient Samaritan and Cohen ancestry." Again, no mention of Israelites." Perhaps you don't know what a Cohen is. The Kohanim are the descendants of Aaron the brother of Moses who served as the priestly cast in ancient Israel. Cohen ancestry is Israelite ancestry, from the tribe of Levi. A Cohen is a type of Israelite. That is like saying "being descended from Cyrus the great doesn't prove Persian ancestry' or 'Korean ancestry doesn't prove Asian ancestry' or 'Human ancestry doesn't prove ape ancestry'. The Kohanim are a division of Israelites.--Newmancbn (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You are confusing two orders of discourse or analysis. The Bible is not an historical document, it is a mythistorical document, so when you write:

The Kohanim are the descendants of Aaron the brother of Moses who served as the priestly cast in ancient Israel.

You are implying that an historical group are descendents of two mythical figures, since Aaron and Moses are mythical figures. At best you can only write: Kohanim claim descent from Aaron (an historical claim is not evidence of a connection with reality, here some component of the pre-exilic 'Israelites'. While the Pentateuch exalts the Aaronic line, the rest of the Tanakh does not, and textual scholarship argues that the showcasing of this line, as opposed to the Zadokites and Levites, is 'post-exilic', and stems from a retroscriptive romance of the line's antiquity during the Second Temple period when they assumed prominence. You cannot relate genetics to myth and retain any credibility. Nishidani (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You mean our article on the Lemba. The latest study is [3] and says " While it was not possible to trace unequivocally the origins of the non-African Y chromosomes in the Lemba and Remba, this study does not support the earlier claims of their Jewish genetic heritage." The BBC can't be used for scientific claims. Dougweller (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

News sources in addition to the ones already discussed:

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

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

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

‎:::::@Nishidani: I would have no tolerance for it either. What is presented above is not original research, but peer reviewed genetic studies, anthropological studies, and respected news articles. I'm sorry, what is the problem with Israeli archeology and DNA research on inferences about prehistoric and early historic populations? There are no other means to which we can turn for knowledge about the world beside science and archeology, from where else do you suggest we get our information? You mention something about confirming biblical stories and priesthoods, the information in this article is about confirming which extant populations are the actual descendants of the ancient Israelites (yes, who really did exist, as verified by archeology) and not about validating the Hebrew Bible. I agree the information on the page should conform to historical scholarship, and in this case there is not a 'range' of conflicting views, no respected scholars claim the Jews or Samaritans are not descended from the historic Israelites. Similarly, no respected scholars claim that the Buba clan, or Bene Israel, or the Palestinians are not of significant Israelite origin. I refer you, and everyone else, once again to the massive number of studies citied on this subject in the article. We should not take inferences about history from geneticists? Y-DNA testing is one of the most accurate and unambiguous fields of scientific research, unlike archeology where one often has to guess what something dug up from 5000 years ago is and what implications it has, genetic testing is definitive, it can be calculated through examining protein strands of DNA, to the degree of a few generations, how recently two people share a common ancestor. The ethnic groups mentioned in this article have historic ties to ancient Israel and posses highly specific Y-DNA signatures that are distinctly of Israelite origin. That is why they are listed in this article. That is also why there is scholarly consensus that these groups are the actual descendants of the historic Israelites, and why all of the available scientific papers and news articles demonstrate that opinion, and finally, why there are no cited sources on this page which show that Jews, Samaritans, the Buba clan, Bene Israel, or Palestinian Arabs, are not descended from the Israelites, because it would be an impossibility, given the evidence of their genetic results and their ties to ancient Israel. If you can show me a single scientific study demonstrating otherwise, I'll show you a mausoleum in Agra I want to sell you. --Newmancbn (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• You are so profuse in your bizarre opinions, that answering each of them is a waste of time, You suffer from conceptual confusion of the most elementary kind, speak of a 'scholarly consensus' (H Soodyall, Lemba origins revisited: Tracing the ancestry of Y chromosomes in South African and Zimbabwean Lemba,Molecular Genetics, December 2013, Vol. 103, No. 12) you cannot document, and employ terms in a manner that shows ignorance of basic distinctions and historical data.
• 'It is the 12 marker CMH, in combination with a tradition of being descended from the Israelites (like the Lemba or Bene Israel) '

You fail to distinguish Israelites from Jews. You have zilch knowledge of the complexities of history if you persist in thinking that Jews and Israelites (post and pre-exilic ethnic groups) are interchangeable.

The Lemba do not claim descent from the Israelites: they have various conflicting traditions, some, including the Zimbabwean offshoots, claim Arab descent. Others say they hail from from Middle Eastern Jews in Sena, which their own traditions can't finger as either Yemen, Egypt, Ethiopia or Judea (for all we know given the Himyarite kingdom that could mean even converts to Judaism). Idem for the Bene Israel, who do not claim descent from the Israelites, but from Jews, 1,500 years after the falling into desuetude of 'Israelites' as an ethnonym.

• I said a group claiming descent from a legendary, i.e. non-existent person, does not descend from that person. The example was Aaron. Your reply was disingenuous. 'It wasn't Aaron' but someone else who lived, according to DNA studies, 3,500 years ago. i.e. exactly the traditional priestly date of fundamentalists for Aaron (ca.1,500BCE). So the Bible just got his name wrong, 'cos I guess that section of it was written a thousand years later! This is bizarre special-pleading.
• Genetics tells you nothing of what an historian understands by history.

The Cohen modal haplotype is found also in non-Jewish men. 'As such ' it is not a test for whether or not a particular man is a Cohen any more than it is a test for whether or not a particular Lemba man is a Jew. For that matter, it cannot be used to determine whether or not the Lemba as a group are Jews. Genomic facts of generational connecion and halakhic traditions of both priestly status and of Jewishness are and must remain distinct, researchers insist'. (Nadia Abu El-Haj,The Genealogical Science: The Search for Jewish Origins and the Politics of Epistemology,University of Chicago Press, Jan 13, 2012.p.190)

Given that it is a new science, studies date rapidly, and all your sources are, technically, antiquated (as well as using science to try and prove a national myth). To take the example of the study published last year, it concludes:

Overall, this study has shown that Y chromosomes typically linked with Jewish ancestry were not detected by the higher resolution analysis conducted in the present study. It seems more likely that Arab traders, who are known to have established long-distance trade networks . .are more likely linked with the ancestry of the non-African founding males of the Lemba/Remba.' p.1043.

So much for you 'scholarly consensus'. The field of genetics has all too frequently proved to be hopelessly confused when its researchers descant on history. It's not their field, and when a historian analyses this aspect, much of it looked, and has proved to be, inane with the results contaminated by the result much of the research undertaken was specifically designed to find. Until there is some refinement and real consensus, we should use great caution in using such provisory genetics papers, given the way a 'consensus' is overturned every couple of years or so.Nishidani (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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

I'm not sure which study on the Lemba that is, but [4] which says " it was not possible to trace unequivocally the origins of the non-African Y chromosomes in the Lemba and Remba, this study does not support the earlier claims of their Jewish genetic heritage." Also found Nadia Abu El-Haj, the Genealogical Science: The Search for Jewish Origins and the Politics of Epistemology By Samra, Myer | The Australian Journal ofjewish Studies, Annual 2012 which says "Surprisingly, however, this haplotype has been found among members of the Buba clan of the| Lemba, at a frequency-i3.5%-higher than that among ordinary Israelites. The Lemba are Bantu speaking community from South Africa and Zimbabwe, who have long maintained a claim of Jewish ancestry. Y-chromosome studies tend to support the proposition that some of their male ancestors had come from the Middle East, and even the possibility that they might have Jewish roots (p.187). Whilst this does not make the Lemba Jewish, it has apparently sparked interest in them from a number of Jewish organisations, such as South African Jews" In other words, the recent research in no way shows a consensus that the Lemba are descended from the Israelites, indeed it casts doubt upon that suggestion. Dougweller (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: The study you are cited above, Lemba origins revisited: Tracing the ancestry of Y chromosomes in South African and Zimbabwean Lemba, looked at the Y-DNA of 76 Lemba men and found that only 10 had the CMH, concluding that the majority of the Lemba are not descended from Israelites. This is not surprising, and has been known from earlier studies, the CMH is not found among the general Lemba people, but only among their priestly Buba clan, who strictly disallow any non-Buba men from entering the clan, of whom 50% have the 12 marker CMH. The oral tradition of the Lemba is that their priests, the Buba clan, came from ancient Israel thousands of years ago, and settled in Yemen, and then journey to southern Africa. That is why the article explicitly states 'the Buba clan among the Lemba people...' and not simply 'the Lemba people', because the Lemba as a whole are not descended from Israelites, it is their priestly clan which is of Israelite origin.--Newmancbn (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I wrote in response to you that:

The Lemba do not claim descent from the Israelites: they have various conflicting traditions, some, including the Zimbabwean offshoots, claim Arab descent. Others say they hail from from Middle Eastern Jews in Sena, which their own traditions can't finger as either Yemen, Egypt, Ethiopia or Judea (for all we know given the Himyarite kingdom that could mean even converts to Judaism).

You now repeat a meme, ignoring my comment.

The oral tradition of the Lemba is that their priests, the Buba clan, came from ancient Israel thousands of years ago

The ethnographic work, as I showed (it can be sourced) says no such thing. This means you are talking past editors, and repeating yourself, citing selective accounts as though they were a 'truth'. The inability to address editors' concerns, and reply cogently to them, is one reason why you are, and will continue to be, reverted.Nishidani (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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

More on sources

For the Buba having a proven Israeli ancestry we have [5] which I can't read but the abstract says " It demonstrates how DNA tests which happened to support the possibility of the communities' legends of origin affected their self-perception," Note the word possibility. As I've said, we have sources that make it clear there is no consensus, but I'd love to see quotes from this saying the Israeli ancestry of the Buba has been proven. For the Lemba I see something published in "Ekklesiastikos Pharos", a "peer-reviewed and accredited theological as well as philological-humanistic journal," by a professor of biblical studies and biblical archaeology.[6] Not a scientific paper on genetics so shouldn't be used for genetics, we need the original work presumably cited in the paper - this author isn't qualified to make pronouncements on genetics. Dougweller (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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

@Dougweller: I don't get it, in one post there is a complaint that these genetic studies mean nothing without historical evidence (which I agree with) and then here there is criticism for referring to a historian along with the geneticists, because apparently a historian isn't qualified to make pronouncements on this subject. Magdel le Roux is a professor of archeology and ancient Palestine at the University of South Africa. He is an expert in archaeology and Iron Age in Palestine, the Hebrew Bible and Africa, the Lemba (so-called "Black Jews of Southern Africa), Judaising groups in Africa, and the period of the Judges. I think he's qualified to weigh in his two cents about the origin of the Buba clan, dontcha think?

Maybe, attributed, and not as an expert in genetics. But that really should go at Lemba people first. Then we can summarise it here. See WP:SUMMARY. I've cited a 2012 study mentioning the Buba but still saying only possibility. You keep talking about something citing a 12 marker CMH - is that MG Thomas - 2000? If so, it's older than the 2012 study so can't be used to refute it. Then here is Himla Soodyall. "Lemba origins revisited: tracing the ancestry of Y chromosomes in South African and Zimbabwean Lemba." South African Medical Journal 103 (12 Suppl. 1) (October 11, 2013): pages 1009-1113. This study uses higher resolution testing of extended haplotypes (notably the 12-marker extended Cohen Model Haplotype, beyond the 6-marker CMH previously searched for) to test the Lemba of South Africa and the related Remba people of Zimbabwe. The author now believes that the results are inconsistent with any Jewish origins for either the Lemba or Remba, though they do indeed have partial ancestry from outside of Africa. (Probably Arabs from Yemen?) That's the one I've been citing. Do you know for a fact it didn't study the Buba?

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

This article

looks like it was written by a fundamentalist crackpot. Almost nothing here is reliable.Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Nothing is reliable? Besides the debate over the Israelite origin of these various ethnic groups, what else are you referring to?

Whoever wrote the bulk of it had never read or studied Middle Eastern history, Biblical source criticism, ancient archaeology, etc. The map is a total fantasy, like all wikipedia maps for that period. It is written up, not from archaeological material, but from wild inferences made from reading the Bible, which is rather like trying to reconstitute the political structure of Anatolia on the basis of the Iliad. The Hebrew vocalization is screwed up. Jewish tradition (you place great emphasis on tradition) repudiates Samaritans as descendants of the Israelites, branding them Kuthim from Iraq etc.etc.etc. Yawn.Nishidani (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Modern ethnic groups indicated to be of Israelite origin by genetic and historical evidence: Jews, Samaritans, Palestinian Arabs, Bene Israel, and the Buba clan

I suggest including the section, and also having a paragraph where the opposing view, with sources, can be presented. Currently there are 12 peer reviewed scientific papers cited, that demonstrate a strong link between the ethnic groups listed above and the ancient Israelites, as well as 5 news articles from respected papers, and 1 book. This is not original research, or a crackpot theory, it is accepted by the vast majority of geneticists and anthropologists specializing in the migration patterns of Jews, ancient Israelite studies, and the history of ancient Palestine. Sources have been provided. I suggest that the opinions of the respected scholars who disagree be listed with their sources. At the end of the current section I have 15 citations listed, which I think is ridiculous, unnecessary, and aesthetically unappealing, but they were added due to the continual call for more scientific studies from the talk page, hopefully it can be reduced to a reasonable number. If anyone has any problems with the current text, please provide an alternate version below. The citations are listed first, followed by the section.

PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC STUDIES DEMONSTRATING THE ISRAELITE ORIGIN OF THESE ETHNIC GROUPS

Roper, Matthew. "Swimming in the gene pool: Israelite kinship relations, genes, and genealogy." The FARMS Review 15.2 (2003): 129-164.

Levy-Coffman, Ellen. "A mosaic of people: the Jewish story and a reassessment of the DNA evidence." Journal of Genetic Genealogy 1 (2005): 12-33.

Kleiman, Yaakov. DNA & tradition: the genetic link to the ancient Hebrews. Devora Publishing, 2004.

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

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

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

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

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

Shen, Peidong, et al. "Reconstruction of patrilineages and matrilineages of Samaritans and other Israeli populations from Y‐Chromosome and mitochondrial DNA sequence Variation." Human mutation 24.3 (2004): 248-260.

Egorova, Yulia. "The proof is in the genes? Jewish responses to DNA research." Culture and Religion 10.2 (2009): 159-175.

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

Behar, Doron M., et al. "The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people." Nature 466.7303 (2010): 238-242.

RESPECTED NEWS SOURCES

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8550614.stm

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132800#.U-_lOGBZ1SA

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

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

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

BOOK

Goldstein, David B. Jacob's legacy: a genetic view of Jewish history. Yale University Press, 2008.

NON-SCHOLARLY MEDIA

Documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQCr7GaVMWA

Y-DNA testing and database: https://www.familytreedna.com/faq-markers.aspx https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Samaritan/default.aspx?section=yresults; https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Samaritan/default.aspx?section=ysnp https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Samaritan http://blog.23andme.com/23andme-and-you/genetics-101/more-than-just-a-parable-the-genetic-history-of-the-samaritans/

While the scholarly consensus has been that Jews are descended from the southern Kingdom of Judah (alongside the remnants of the northern Kingdom of Samaria who migrated to their southern counterpart and assimilated there), until the 20th century there was no consensus on the origin of the Samaritans, or the fate of the northern Israelite kingdom. Today one leading opinion is that Jews and Samaritans, as well as large segments of other ethnic groups including the Bene Israel of India, the descendants of the Marranos from Iberia, the Buba clan among the Lemba of South Africa, and 85% of Palestinian Arabs, are the authentic remnants of Israelite populations. Some scholars have contested this, and hold the opinion that some of these groups do not have any historic connection to the ancient Israelites. Jewish religious scholars often citied the assertion that Samaritans were foreigners sent from Assyria to repopulate Samaria. According to the Annals of Sargon II, Sargon only exiled 27,290 people of the Kingdom of Samaria, possibly just from the aristocracy, the monarchy, and the priesthood. The 19th century discovery of the Phoenician script in the region, sometimes referred to as the Paleo Hebrew script, for example in the Gezer calendar and the Siloam inscription, suggested that the Samaritan alphabet had an Israelite origin independent of the Jews.

− − Recent genetic testing has shown that Jews and Samaritans, as well as the previously mentioned ethnic groups, share a unique 12 marker Y-DNA signature that can be identified as variants of the Cohen Modal Haplotype, strongly indicating a common paternal lineage from a single recent Semitic male ancestor who lived in the last 3500 +/- 500 years. A 10 for 10 marker match demonstrates a 95% percent probably of two people sharing a common male ancestor in the last 72 generations. This could date the recent common paternal ancestor of many in these groups to even after the traditional time of the Patriarchs, who the Torah asserts lived around 4000 BCE. These genetic results, in combination with the historic links each of these respective ethnic groups has to ancient Israel, strongly indicates they have an authentic Israelite origin.

For further discussion of this topic, and more sources, see the wiki article Groups claiming affiliation with Israelites

Quick response, we have Groups claiming affiliation with Israelites as a see also, it doesn't belong anywhere else. I've started commenting about your use of sources below. This is a major problem. Note also that this is about the historical Israelites, so we need to be dealing with facts, not speculation about the time of the prophets, etc. Besides the bad source, your statement "A 10 for 10 marker match demonstrates a 95% percent probably of two people sharing a common male ancestor in the last 72 generations" followed by "This could date the recent common paternal ancestor" is classical original research which WP:NOR was written to prevent. This is firm policy. I also note that you are using an encyclopedia over a century old.

It isn't clear why " According to the Annals of Sargon II, Sargon only exiled 27,290 people of the Kingdom of Samaria, possibly just from the aristocracy, the monarchy, and the priesthood" is in the article.

Again, you say "The 19th century discovery of the Phoenician script in the region, sometimes referred to as the Paleo Hebrew script, for example in the Gezer calendar and the Siloam inscription, suggested that the Samaritan alphabet had an Israelite origin independent of the Jews." Could we please have quotes from those two sources stating that? The one source I read didn't seem to say that. Dougweller (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

"These genetic results, in combination with the historic links each of these respective ethnic groups has to ancient Israel, strongly indicates they have an authentic Israelite origin"

Your sources must explicitly state that. Please add quotes from them showing that they do. We shouldn't be using blogs or familytreedna. epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/ is some sort of blog. Or newspaper articles. For books you need page numbers. Your choice of sources shows that you aren't familiar yet with our policy on sources, and I still believe that your use of them suggests you don't understand our policy on original research at WP:NOR. Worse, you are presenting one pov as though it is consensus, despite any change in wording, and in the case of the Lemba ignoring the recent research in favor of stuff as old at least as 2000. And take one of your sources:[7]. In that article you need to stick to the stuff in bold letters. It ends with "In contrast, Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel) and Indian Jews (Bene Israel and Cochini) cluster with neighbouring autochthonous populations in Ethiopia and western India, respectively, despite a clear paternal link between the Bene Israel and the Levant. These results cast light on the variegated genetic architecture of the Middle East, and trace the origins of most Jewish Diaspora communities to the Levant." However, it is being used as a source for strongly indicates they have an authentic Israelite origin". We are not supposed to use sources that way. As I said, you need to show that your sources make that explicit, you cannot use deductive reasoning here. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Request for simplification

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

Thank you, I'll provide a brief summery soon.--Newmancbn (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

<----Please edit ABOVE this line---->

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

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

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

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

Support

@Dougweller:The name of the god of Israel in the Masoretic text is יהוה, yod he waw he, YHWH. The vowels indicated in the Masoretic text are Yehowah but scholars have asserted they are only the vowels of Adonai. The two sets of vowels are not identical, as evidenced even in the English transliterations, and Yehowah is supported by its use in theophoric names, Yehoshua, Yehoshafat, Yehohanan, Yehozadoq, Yehonathan, et cetera. The pronunciation Yahweh is widely acknowledged by scholars as a guess, and is an agreed upon pronunciation when speaking the name YHWH in academic settings, rather than Jehovah. Yahweh is a particularly unlikely pronunciation because it in itself violates the rules of Hebrew grammar outlined in the Tiberian vocalization and explained in Aaron ben Moses ben Asher's authoritative text on the Tiberian writing system, Diqduqei Ha-Te'amim. 'Yahweh' is not Hebrew. The root word is 'howa' meaning to exist, the vowels a-way can't be derived from it. Other theophoric names, Eliyahu, Yeshayahu, Hezqiyahu, Yerimeyahu, et cetera may indicate Yahuweh, or Yahuwah, which could theoretically be compatible with the semitic root 'howa'. Not only is Yahweh not a real Hebrew word, it is not semitic. Northwest semitic languages have a distinct vowel pattern. Some things just don't sound authentically Arabic or Hebrew. Like if you wanted to invent the name meaning 'YHWH is compassionate', Yeho-Hesed or Hesed-Yahu, as a proper name, it would need to be changed to Yehohasad or Hasadyahu because that is just how Hebrew works. Yahweh does not sound like TIberian Hebrew, it sounds like 'either my way, or Yahweh', its linguistically retarded. Rendering the name as YHWH eliminates the entire issue of the mysterious vowels by taking them out all together. When you visit the Shrine of the Book or the Israel Museum, explanatory placards don't read 'Yahweh' but 'YHWH'. The only appropriate scholarly use is when someone must pronounce the name, like when giving a lecture, or in discussions of Christian 'sacred name movements', or of the theorized pre-Israelite Canaanite deity 'Yahweh' (El), and not of the name as it relates to the Hebrew text or Judaism. Use asinine Hebrew on wikipedia if you want to, but it looks unscholarly and stupid. Frankly, the way I see it, its the community's job to already know this, and not my job to explain it. There are a plethora of examples to cite from scholarly sources discussing this topic, and I will show them to you tomorrow, but right now I have other things to do.--Newmancbn (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

'Use asinine Hebrew on wikipedia if you want to, but it looks unscholarly and stupid.'

Sure, the assumption being that YHWH corresponds to normative 'Hebrew', ignoring that its earliest forms are attested in Edom's toponomastica and Amorite texts and was probably constituted of sentence names that later suffered abbreviation (Frank Moore Cross here), which means the nonsense you write above is just that, a failure to understand semitic linguistics. The only other problem is, a great number of scholars (Anson Rainey)disagree with you, and vocalize it as we have it written. Baruch A. Levine writes sensibly:

'A word on nomenclature... It is treated as a logogram and normally vocalized adonai "The Lord." This vocalization produced the artificial form "Jehovah", which is without textual basis. In modern scholarship it is conventional to pronounce the divine name in English as "Yahweh", a vocalization suggested by certain ancient versions of the Hebrew Bible, which is how it will be represented in this study.'('The Wars of Yahweh:Biblical Views of a Just War' in Jacob Neusner, Bruce D. Chilton, R. E. Tully (eds.) Just War in Religion and Politics,University Press of America, 2013 pp.69ff. p.72.)

Please stop wasting our time with ridiculous personal constructions of 'the truth'.Nishidani (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

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

Dougweller would you please consider withdrawing the RfC and reframing it so it can be productive? Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Definition in lead. sourcing

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

As to the sourcing, as has been noted, pagination is required, and preferably links to google books. Writing:

• Finkelstein, Israel. "Ethnicity and origin of the Iron I settlers in the Highlands of Canaan: Can the real Israel stand up?." The Biblical archaeologist 59.4 (1996): 198-212
• Finkelstein, Israel. The archaeology of the Israelite settlement. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1988.
• Finkelstein, Israel, and Nadav Naʼaman, eds. From nomadism to monarchy: archaeological and historical aspects of early Israel. Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1994.
• Finkelstein, Israel. "The archaeology of the United Monarchy: an alternative view." Levant 28.1 (1996): 177-187.
• Finkelstein, Israel, and Neil Asher Silberman. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Isreal and the Origin of Sacred Texts. Simon and Schuster, 2002

is fraudulent, since Finkelstein does not hold that the 'Israelites' are as defined in our sentence. The Merneptah stele attests Israel in Canaan by 1207 BCE. Earlier mentions speak of the Apiru as invasive brigands on the periphery of Canaan's settled world. Other scholars speak of Israel as emerging from within Canaan as fringedwellers who formed a distinctive settlement in the highlands. What looks probable is that they had mixed ethnic and linguistic origins, variously to Egypt and Edom (cf.Shasu)

Editors ask that contributors either give links, or where queried, the actual statements deemed relevant from the generically cited sources be transcribed to verify the correspondence of what is written with the source cited. Don't plunk in sources without providing either.Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Thanks. That is what I wrote. They were speakin of events three centuries after 1,500 BCE. That means I was correct and those sources did not justify the sentence.Nishidani (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

NPOV tag

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

I reverted a vandal who removed the tag with an edit summary of "Removed anti-Semitism". Sorry that you don't like that. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

it was great that you reverted the vandal! after I saw that, i came and reviewed the Talk page myself and failed to see the NPOV issue so removed the tags intentionally. I was reverted, so I opened this discussion. What is the NPOV issue exactly?

Disputed tag

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

I reverted a vandal who removed the tag with an edit summary of "Removed anti-Semitism". Sorry that you don't like that. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

it was great that you reverted the vandal! after I saw that, i came and reviewed the Talk page myself and failed to see what was disputed so removed the "disputed" tag intentionally. I was reverted, so I opened this discussion. What is the separate "disputed" issue exactly?

This talk page suggests it is regarding genetic research of the Israelites and their relation to various other groups. Debresser (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. As far as I can see, both tags were related to edits by Newmancbn who swooped in and raised a terrible ruckus and was promptly topic banned and is now indeffed. I don't see any current disputes or NPOV issues.Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me as if the tags were placed by this 07:48, August 18, 2014 UTC edit by Dougweller. That was during the spate of Newmancbn edits (see the edit history). Neither tag links to a specific section on this talk pagee, so there is no telling what they are about. I suggest that they be removed and only be allowed back if linked to specific talk page discussion sections providing details about what is disputed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

that is what i had done. will do it again now. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I should have removed it after he was blocked. Sorry. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

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.  Done. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

References

This article is about the ancient Isrealites. Please bring mainstream history books. You are actually citing the bible a history reference? Facepalm 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)

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 Wikipedia: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#Historical Israelites. “WarKosign” 13:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I do not capitalize S in my username. “WarKosign” 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#Historical 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)

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.

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)