Talk:Israel/Archive 62
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 55 | ← | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 |
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2017
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could someone revert this non-policy based removal of known information? It doesn't matter if "Biblical times" is a broad term or not, since the section is talking about antiquity (Bible is ancient, right?), and the text removed by user is an introduction to the very next sentence explaining that, according to biblical account, God promised the land to the three patriarchs.--181.93.81.33 (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- It is unsourced, the Bible is a primary (religious) text. It is ok to use it as a source for what the bible says, but it would be better to add secondary sources for this, and the "antiquity" section should not be using it as WP:RS for the history of a country without any actual evidence or scholarship supporting its assertions. It certainly would not meet our basic standards to use it to draw broad inferences about what people felt about Israel, or even whether Israel was a term that was in use, for the entire period of "antiquity". It was removed for being not only unsourced, but because it contradicts the vast majority of scholarship on this subject. The oldest archaeological evidence for the term Israel is for a people, not for a country. This is a country page. If anything, a brief mention of this belongs in the etymology section. Look at the page for Rome and note that it doesn't say anything like "By the time Aeneas had arrived in Italy, Hercules had already built a temple to himself"[1] This is Wikipedia and we have to uphold basic standards. Seraphim System (talk) 03:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, here's the source for the known fact that the Land of Israel has been sacred to Jews since biblical times: [2]
- Could you please restore the sentence using that source?--
References
- ^ Livy
- ^ Joseph Jacobs, Judah David Eisenstein. "PALESTINE, HOLINESS OF". JewishEncyclopedia.com.
- --181.90.21.59 (talk) 04:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Can you find something more recent? More recent research has focused on in depth linguistic study of the ancient texts to examine their historical contexts, and also archaeological evidence, which has painted a more complex picture then what is represented in this source. The Merneptah Stele wasn't even found until 1896, most of the sources used in the Jewish Encyclopedia are older then that, and dated at this point. You should also find a source that is more specific as the time frame, as "Israel" was the word used for a people in ancient antiquity. There as been a lot of research on this showing that Israel as a land was a "mixed community" and also the complex history of "Jewish" identity, so it is not even really clear what this sentence is supposed to mean. This context is necessary for WP:NPOV. The biblical promise is another issue, but you can probably find support for this in secondary sources, which you would need, in general and in particular because the text does not say anything about Jews explicitly. In general, it would be better to not state it in Wikivoice for WP:NPOV but be very clear about the context and time period you are talking about. Seraphim System (talk) 04:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- If you are really serious about this here are some sources you may find helpful:
- Cohen, Shaye J. D. (1999-02-01). The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-92627-1.
- Harvey, Graham (2001). The True Israel: Uses of the Names Jew, Hebrew, and Israel in Ancient Jewish and Early Christian Literature. BRILL. ISBN 978-0-391-04119-6.
- Schäfer, Peter (2003-09-02). The History of the Jews in the Greco-Roman World: The Jews of Palestine from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-40317-2.
- Schafer (2013-11-26). History of Jews in Antiquity. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-37130-3.
- But please do not restore "The notion of the "Land of Israel", known in Hebrew as Eretz Yisrael, has been important and sacred to the Jewish people since Biblical times." because that kind of language is not supported by modern scholarship, and the phrase "biblical times" does not have much meaning. It's not clear at all whether "the Land of Israel" was actually considered sacred, or when these particular parts of the biblical text were written. I think you should be very specific exactly what, who and when you mean here, and avoid reading broad modern generalizations back into the history of a complex society. Just because something was written down, you can't just assume that what was written is an accurate reflection of what people believed at the time (or now) without more evidence. At best you can write "some Jews believed" but even this would need to be sourced. I hope you realize the obvious and myriad problems with a statement like "Jews in Biblical Times considered the Land of Israel sacred" (first and foremost, it's not clear that Jews in Biblical times considered the redefiniton of Israel as a holy land-concept especially worthy at all. Seraphim System (talk) 05:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Also will add that I searched the Bible, and I see some stuff about sacred poles and sacred groves-the only mention I see of "the land of Israel" are mundane things like "the land of Israel did not have a smith" ... most biblical references to Israel seem to be of a people, and there is absolutely no indication that people in biblical times thought "eretz israel" was sacred, or even important. Most sources discussing Eretz Israel seem to be Jewish religious commentaries, and modern sources discussing justifications for Zionism or the Arab-Israel conflict. A statement like "the need for Eretz Israel became more clear after WWII" is far removed from "eretz israel has been important and sacred for jews since biblical times" and my advice would be to try to develop a history section along the lines of modern thought, which will be far easier to source reliably, instead of trying to develop some quasi-historical biblical foundation mythology, which really doesn't seem to be supported by scholarship.Seraphim System (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- You are wrong here Seraphim System. First off there are multiple biblical stipulations specifically for the land of Israel - typically they aren't made with the whole "land of Israel" (Israel is mostly a later construction - e.g. ארץ ישראל (Eretz Yisrael) is not Torah language - Israel is the God given name of Jacob - and thus Jabob's descendants are the people of Israel - however the promised land is usually not framed in Israel terms in the Torah - the use of "land of Israel" is mainly a later (though still very-very old) concept), but with ארצך (your land / your country) - referring to the land of Israel. For instance the Torah Shmita - applies only to the land of Israel. Beyond the Torah strata, stipulations regarding the land of Israel exist in the all subsequent Jewish writing - e.g. Mishna, Talmud, etc. And the land of Israel (and Jerusalem, city of Zion) appears in Jewish prayers for nearly two millennia (since the formulation of prayers). And of course the whole theme of the Torah from the mid-beginning of Exodus to Deuteronomy (and the immediate sequel Joshua) is fulfilling the Godly directive of bringing the Israelites to Israel (with most of Genesis related to ancient, pre-Egypt, Jewish ties to Israel). The connection between the Jewish people, or to precise the Jewish religion, to Israel really shouldn't be in doubt. Incidentally - Israel wasn't an obvious name for formation of the state in 1948 - in Jewish parlance this was one possible term (and compounded by issues with the Kingdom of Israel (competing with Judea)) - and it seems to have been choosen mainly because control of the Judea was in question in 1948 (including the quite possible loss of Jerusalem) - calling the state Judea would have been a problem if most of Judea was in fact out of the state.Icewhiz (talk) 06:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand that, as I said in my edit summary the sentence needs to be revised to be clear about the time period. Most people will not understand the distinction between "Israelite" and "Jewish". It sounds like the sources you are talking about are from much later periods then "all of antiquity" which is what the current sentence is about. So, no, I don't think we know much about what Israelites actually believed or thought about in early history, or even whether they were monotheistic, and to pinpoint exactly when we can say this safely - I have not really seen a specific date. What I have seen is "By this era, probably we can start calling them Jews" or something to this effect. The article needs to be clear about when the religion that we know as Judaism becomes distinguishable. I'm not saying it needs to get into all the complex implications of the differences between the terms Israelite and Jew, but the first sentence should not be about texts written down after 70 AD, and then the next paragraph discusses the Iron Age. That is just badly written and misleading. You also haven't actually posted any secondary WP:RS that support adding this statement back in. They can't just be sources about what the text say there has to be evidence that this idea of "sacred land" was something the Jewish people believed in a particular era, I don't know if this is your first foray into ancient history but this is a pretty tall order. Otherwise this sentence will also need to be revised to be clear that it is discussing literary tradition. Seraphim System (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- I just read somewhere that the passage in exodus about the promise wasn't written until 571–486 BCE, it that true? Seraphim System (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- The authorship question of the Torah is a complex one. While religious orthodox might claim the entire Torah was god-given at Mt Sinai (so 1500BCE - give or take something) - the modern scholarly view is that different parts were written in different dates ranging between 1100 BCE (give or take - different views - and not exact science) and 500 BCE (more exact - it is fairly certain most of the Torah was fixed in the Babylon exile)- with Deuteronomy and some insertions being on the late side. I'm not sure which passage you are referring too - but the concept of a "promised land" in Canaan is central to most of the Torah+Joshua - it isn't a single claim - but rather the underlying theme of most of the book. You might be conflating the concept of a central temple in Jerusalem - which is really introduced by Deuteronomy (+ possible alterations elsewhere) - which is possibly a late retconning by king Josiah (a retconning which was not complete - as dispersed worship and sacrifice is also present - along side the new retconned central worship). However - I am not aware of such a claim regarding the promised land - which is really all over the Tordah and Joshua - and probably appears also in the earliest strata - a particular passage may be later or earlier, but the concept of a promised land in Canaan runs throughout.Icewhiz (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- The promise from el-YHWH in exodus, surely you know what passage I'm talking about. Seraphim System (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- The authorship question of the Torah is a complex one. While religious orthodox might claim the entire Torah was god-given at Mt Sinai (so 1500BCE - give or take something) - the modern scholarly view is that different parts were written in different dates ranging between 1100 BCE (give or take - different views - and not exact science) and 500 BCE (more exact - it is fairly certain most of the Torah was fixed in the Babylon exile)- with Deuteronomy and some insertions being on the late side. I'm not sure which passage you are referring too - but the concept of a "promised land" in Canaan is central to most of the Torah+Joshua - it isn't a single claim - but rather the underlying theme of most of the book. You might be conflating the concept of a central temple in Jerusalem - which is really introduced by Deuteronomy (+ possible alterations elsewhere) - which is possibly a late retconning by king Josiah (a retconning which was not complete - as dispersed worship and sacrifice is also present - along side the new retconned central worship). However - I am not aware of such a claim regarding the promised land - which is really all over the Tordah and Joshua - and probably appears also in the earliest strata - a particular passage may be later or earlier, but the concept of a promised land in Canaan runs throughout.Icewhiz (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- I just read somewhere that the passage in exodus about the promise wasn't written until 571–486 BCE, it that true? Seraphim System (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand that, as I said in my edit summary the sentence needs to be revised to be clear about the time period. Most people will not understand the distinction between "Israelite" and "Jewish". It sounds like the sources you are talking about are from much later periods then "all of antiquity" which is what the current sentence is about. So, no, I don't think we know much about what Israelites actually believed or thought about in early history, or even whether they were monotheistic, and to pinpoint exactly when we can say this safely - I have not really seen a specific date. What I have seen is "By this era, probably we can start calling them Jews" or something to this effect. The article needs to be clear about when the religion that we know as Judaism becomes distinguishable. I'm not saying it needs to get into all the complex implications of the differences between the terms Israelite and Jew, but the first sentence should not be about texts written down after 70 AD, and then the next paragraph discusses the Iron Age. That is just badly written and misleading. You also haven't actually posted any secondary WP:RS that support adding this statement back in. They can't just be sources about what the text say there has to be evidence that this idea of "sacred land" was something the Jewish people believed in a particular era, I don't know if this is your first foray into ancient history but this is a pretty tall order. Otherwise this sentence will also need to be revised to be clear that it is discussing literary tradition. Seraphim System (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- You are wrong here Seraphim System. First off there are multiple biblical stipulations specifically for the land of Israel - typically they aren't made with the whole "land of Israel" (Israel is mostly a later construction - e.g. ארץ ישראל (Eretz Yisrael) is not Torah language - Israel is the God given name of Jacob - and thus Jabob's descendants are the people of Israel - however the promised land is usually not framed in Israel terms in the Torah - the use of "land of Israel" is mainly a later (though still very-very old) concept), but with ארצך (your land / your country) - referring to the land of Israel. For instance the Torah Shmita - applies only to the land of Israel. Beyond the Torah strata, stipulations regarding the land of Israel exist in the all subsequent Jewish writing - e.g. Mishna, Talmud, etc. And the land of Israel (and Jerusalem, city of Zion) appears in Jewish prayers for nearly two millennia (since the formulation of prayers). And of course the whole theme of the Torah from the mid-beginning of Exodus to Deuteronomy (and the immediate sequel Joshua) is fulfilling the Godly directive of bringing the Israelites to Israel (with most of Genesis related to ancient, pre-Egypt, Jewish ties to Israel). The connection between the Jewish people, or to precise the Jewish religion, to Israel really shouldn't be in doubt. Incidentally - Israel wasn't an obvious name for formation of the state in 1948 - in Jewish parlance this was one possible term (and compounded by issues with the Kingdom of Israel (competing with Judea)) - and it seems to have been choosen mainly because control of the Judea was in question in 1948 (including the quite possible loss of Jerusalem) - calling the state Judea would have been a problem if most of Judea was in fact out of the state.Icewhiz (talk) 06:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Also will add that I searched the Bible, and I see some stuff about sacred poles and sacred groves-the only mention I see of "the land of Israel" are mundane things like "the land of Israel did not have a smith" ... most biblical references to Israel seem to be of a people, and there is absolutely no indication that people in biblical times thought "eretz israel" was sacred, or even important. Most sources discussing Eretz Israel seem to be Jewish religious commentaries, and modern sources discussing justifications for Zionism or the Arab-Israel conflict. A statement like "the need for Eretz Israel became more clear after WWII" is far removed from "eretz israel has been important and sacred for jews since biblical times" and my advice would be to try to develop a history section along the lines of modern thought, which will be far easier to source reliably, instead of trying to develop some quasi-historical biblical foundation mythology, which really doesn't seem to be supported by scholarship.Seraphim System (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- --181.90.21.59 (talk) 04:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- This well-know fact ("The notion of the "Land of Israel", known in Hebrew as Eretz Yisrael, has been important and sacred to the Jewish people since Biblical times."), now reliably sourced, should of course never have been removed from the article, and I wholeheartedly endorse it restoration. A most important contribution, and a shame on the editor who removed this. Editors arguing for better sources, are only trying to Wikilawyer away content they don't want to see here. Why don't they remove "Near the beginning of his ministry, Jesus appoints twelve apostles." from the article about Jesus? Also unsourced. Debresser (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, this article is a lot like Jesus, a topic which already has several entire articles dedicated to historocity. As the main article for a country the only shameful thing is that this poorly sourced sentence has not been challenged until now. It can't be reliably sourced, and any statements that it doesn't have to be can be interpreted as religious POV of pushing of "Truth, the" on everyone (not just me, but all Jews also) whether they share these beliefs or not, which are not supported by modern scholarship or non-religious evidence. This kind of dispute is pretty routine on these topics, but I won't accept Jewish Encyclopedia as WP:RS for this without further discussion. You are not going to find an academic source for what "jewish beliefs" were in "biblical" times. No serious scholarly source will use this language. It goes without saying that Wikipedia articles are not going to be written from the POV that the Pentateuch was written by Moses in Archaic times. I would be surprised if you can even find any written mentions of "eretz israel" that can actually be dated to biblical times (70AD is not really biblical times anymore) Seraphim System (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- This is really a basic fact - to anyone who has any knowledge of Judaism. Sourcing this will be difficult in the sense that sources will likely be either elementary school educational material (for Jews), or possibly someone external to Judaism describing this, or alternatively long religious tracts expanding on what one should do (religiously) in the land of Israel and what not - going into intricate detail and assuming the reader is initiated. This isn't really a matter of POV - anyone with a working knowledge of Judaism would agree with this statement (Some reform Jews might, and I stress might, not agree that this is a current yearning or attachment - but no one, with any knowledge on the subject, disputes this was a past yearning). I think this is better left in as a simple sentence - rather than expanding this section to a 5 paragraph sentence on how/why/what the religious significance is (with ample sources and qualifications).Icewhiz (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Well - actually sources here - Promised Land aren't bad.Icewhiz (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- I restored the content. This was a sentence lead summarized the subsequent paragraph. Biblical times is well defined in the context - as dates are later stipulated - and given that it is widely accepted the Torah itself was sealed in Biblical times (disregarding religious views (mt. sinai) - scholars place this around minus 500-600 - late First Temple or during Babylonian exile (with much of the text composed earlier, prior to sealing)) - both in the Jewish sense (some of the later Tanakh books) and in the Christian sense (where biblical extends to the first century) - sourcing to the Torah establishes importance in biblical times. The importance of the Torah to practicing Jews is surely not doubted.Icewhiz (talk) 07:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- I stand by my statement that this needs to be adequately sourced to academic sources to be suitable for inclusion in this article. I don't consider your personal reading of the Torah to be adequately sourced, and the request to restore was denied above for lack of sourcing. I could revert tomorrow, but I think dispute resolution will be more effective, or possibly RS/n. There is nothing in the Torah that actually supports this by the way, and we don't argue about primary source interpretation here, we use secondary sources. Any preference? I think this can be resolved at RS/n. Seraphim System (talk) 07:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Seraphim - this is not a personal reading, you have absolutely now legs to stand on here in removing this sentence which is the lead for a section and is sourced in subsequent sentences. Your assertion that the land of Israel was not important to Jews in biblical times is not helpful editing - nor does it seem to be based on familiarity with the subject matter.Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- I mean, I took this class with Mark Smith, and I aced it - what I can understand is the difference between academic sources and a statement that is inappropriately sourced to religious text primary. You don't seem to understand that there is a difference between faith-based and a statement supported by academic sources or evidence that scholars have written and published about. The fact that you think it is in the Torah does not mean as much as you think it means, because the scholarly approach would note that it is not clear how many people read the Torah in 500 B.C. or how it effected them. Pretending this statement is simple and does need WP:RS is actually a violation of our most basic policies, which is that we need to use sources here. The claim that it was in the Torah, so we can infer it's importance is what we call WP:OR. Academic approach to Biblical Studies may be more challenging when coming from a faith-based background. Please take care here that your expertise does not result in unsourced content being added to the encyclopedia. Seraphim System (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Please do not assume - frankly I am quite well versed both in the religious side and scholarly side of this issue, even though this is far from my main expertise, and while I am versed in some of the faith sources in this subject - I am also aware of non-faith sources - and I most definitely do not edit from a faith based perspective. Your attack of such a fundamental core concept of Judaism - is quite simply flabbergasting. I actually sourced this statement - which was difficult mainly since this is so basic that coverage of this is either deep and down in the weeds (of various particular aspects and usually on later expansions and elaborations), kindergarten/elementary school material, or interfaith discussions (explaining Judaism 101 - which was actually helpful in sourcing this). The claim that the Torah was sealed by c. 500 BCE, and that the land of Israel appears numerous times in the Torah - is far from OR. Religious texts are definitely an acceptable source regarding the opinions of those who wrote the texts (and in the case of early Jewish texts - we actually have fairly precise dates regarding when they were written and sealed (though how much further far back from c. 500 BCE did the Torah composers (as opposed to actual sealing) went - is somewhat open)). I would urge you to take care in editing subject matter in which you are not well versed.Icewhiz (talk) 08:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- First of all, I am not attacking anything. I am assuming good faith, would you mind adding a more specific date to this statement? Do you not see the problem with a time period that spans from Iron I to 100A.D. I think this is a good faith misunderstanding, I am not saying Israel was not important to Jews, and I have not once said that during this discussion - I am saying that what we can reasonably call Jewish identity did not emerge until later. I would feel confident saying Jewish identity (and true monotheism) had emerged by the postexilic period, though I don't know how precise the most current sources are. I'm not attacking anything and you shouldn't assume that I am. Yes it is true for part of Biblical Times, but it is also not true for all of Biblical times, so we should follow sources to use more meaningful periodization. If you think I am saying this because I am "not well versed" in the topic, then we can ask other editors, but I don't think it improves the article to be vague about the chronology. Seraphim System (talk) 08:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Clearly this does not expand to "all biblical times" as biblical times are also prior to the notion of Israelites (well - at least per the religious source itself - e.g. Noah would be biblical times) - but this is not what the text says - "since biblical times" is at some unspecified point in biblical times (which definitely includes c. 500 BCE). Placing a precise date here is difficult - as the dating of the various strata of the Torah is highly complex and without a clear consensus - as is the amount of previous lore (which is obviously, from a non-religious view, present - e.g. the flood has analogies, law codex similarities to Code of Hammurabi, Gilgamesh) - if we were to place a date range here - we would end up with 500 BCE to 1200 BCE (with some outside claims (though not without any merit) - going back even further) - though I think mainline would before 800-900 BCE for this particular aspect (The holiness of the land of Israel - from my amalgamated view of the sources is present in the very earliest strata (which is difficult to date) - whereas the holiness of Jerusalem and the concept of a central temple - is very late (in Torah strata sources)). I don't think this would be constructive in an article about Israel to go into Documentary hypothesis or the religious Mosaic authorship - this is a really big sidetrack (and of course we can't discount that pre-Abrhamic Israelite belief also gave importance to the land). Leaving this at biblical times, and leaving the exact dating of the composition of the bible open here is more appropriate.Icewhiz (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- First of all, I am not attacking anything. I am assuming good faith, would you mind adding a more specific date to this statement? Do you not see the problem with a time period that spans from Iron I to 100A.D. I think this is a good faith misunderstanding, I am not saying Israel was not important to Jews, and I have not once said that during this discussion - I am saying that what we can reasonably call Jewish identity did not emerge until later. I would feel confident saying Jewish identity (and true monotheism) had emerged by the postexilic period, though I don't know how precise the most current sources are. I'm not attacking anything and you shouldn't assume that I am. Yes it is true for part of Biblical Times, but it is also not true for all of Biblical times, so we should follow sources to use more meaningful periodization. If you think I am saying this because I am "not well versed" in the topic, then we can ask other editors, but I don't think it improves the article to be vague about the chronology. Seraphim System (talk) 08:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Please do not assume - frankly I am quite well versed both in the religious side and scholarly side of this issue, even though this is far from my main expertise, and while I am versed in some of the faith sources in this subject - I am also aware of non-faith sources - and I most definitely do not edit from a faith based perspective. Your attack of such a fundamental core concept of Judaism - is quite simply flabbergasting. I actually sourced this statement - which was difficult mainly since this is so basic that coverage of this is either deep and down in the weeds (of various particular aspects and usually on later expansions and elaborations), kindergarten/elementary school material, or interfaith discussions (explaining Judaism 101 - which was actually helpful in sourcing this). The claim that the Torah was sealed by c. 500 BCE, and that the land of Israel appears numerous times in the Torah - is far from OR. Religious texts are definitely an acceptable source regarding the opinions of those who wrote the texts (and in the case of early Jewish texts - we actually have fairly precise dates regarding when they were written and sealed (though how much further far back from c. 500 BCE did the Torah composers (as opposed to actual sealing) went - is somewhat open)). I would urge you to take care in editing subject matter in which you are not well versed.Icewhiz (talk) 08:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- I mean, I took this class with Mark Smith, and I aced it - what I can understand is the difference between academic sources and a statement that is inappropriately sourced to religious text primary. You don't seem to understand that there is a difference between faith-based and a statement supported by academic sources or evidence that scholars have written and published about. The fact that you think it is in the Torah does not mean as much as you think it means, because the scholarly approach would note that it is not clear how many people read the Torah in 500 B.C. or how it effected them. Pretending this statement is simple and does need WP:RS is actually a violation of our most basic policies, which is that we need to use sources here. The claim that it was in the Torah, so we can infer it's importance is what we call WP:OR. Academic approach to Biblical Studies may be more challenging when coming from a faith-based background. Please take care here that your expertise does not result in unsourced content being added to the encyclopedia. Seraphim System (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Seraphim - this is not a personal reading, you have absolutely now legs to stand on here in removing this sentence which is the lead for a section and is sourced in subsequent sentences. Your assertion that the land of Israel was not important to Jews in biblical times is not helpful editing - nor does it seem to be based on familiarity with the subject matter.Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- I stand by my statement that this needs to be adequately sourced to academic sources to be suitable for inclusion in this article. I don't consider your personal reading of the Torah to be adequately sourced, and the request to restore was denied above for lack of sourcing. I could revert tomorrow, but I think dispute resolution will be more effective, or possibly RS/n. There is nothing in the Torah that actually supports this by the way, and we don't argue about primary source interpretation here, we use secondary sources. Any preference? I think this can be resolved at RS/n. Seraphim System (talk) 07:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- I restored the content. This was a sentence lead summarized the subsequent paragraph. Biblical times is well defined in the context - as dates are later stipulated - and given that it is widely accepted the Torah itself was sealed in Biblical times (disregarding religious views (mt. sinai) - scholars place this around minus 500-600 - late First Temple or during Babylonian exile (with much of the text composed earlier, prior to sealing)) - both in the Jewish sense (some of the later Tanakh books) and in the Christian sense (where biblical extends to the first century) - sourcing to the Torah establishes importance in biblical times. The importance of the Torah to practicing Jews is surely not doubted.Icewhiz (talk) 07:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Well - actually sources here - Promised Land aren't bad.Icewhiz (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- This is really a basic fact - to anyone who has any knowledge of Judaism. Sourcing this will be difficult in the sense that sources will likely be either elementary school educational material (for Jews), or possibly someone external to Judaism describing this, or alternatively long religious tracts expanding on what one should do (religiously) in the land of Israel and what not - going into intricate detail and assuming the reader is initiated. This isn't really a matter of POV - anyone with a working knowledge of Judaism would agree with this statement (Some reform Jews might, and I stress might, not agree that this is a current yearning or attachment - but no one, with any knowledge on the subject, disputes this was a past yearning). I think this is better left in as a simple sentence - rather than expanding this section to a 5 paragraph sentence on how/why/what the religious significance is (with ample sources and qualifications).Icewhiz (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, this article is a lot like Jesus, a topic which already has several entire articles dedicated to historocity. As the main article for a country the only shameful thing is that this poorly sourced sentence has not been challenged until now. It can't be reliably sourced, and any statements that it doesn't have to be can be interpreted as religious POV of pushing of "Truth, the" on everyone (not just me, but all Jews also) whether they share these beliefs or not, which are not supported by modern scholarship or non-religious evidence. This kind of dispute is pretty routine on these topics, but I won't accept Jewish Encyclopedia as WP:RS for this without further discussion. You are not going to find an academic source for what "jewish beliefs" were in "biblical" times. No serious scholarly source will use this language. It goes without saying that Wikipedia articles are not going to be written from the POV that the Pentateuch was written by Moses in Archaic times. I would be surprised if you can even find any written mentions of "eretz israel" that can actually be dated to biblical times (70AD is not really biblical times anymore) Seraphim System (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
You are making this way more complicated then it needs to be, actually the use of the "Eretz Israel" language should make an approximate time frame more straightforward to source as more evidence is available in later periods. Seraphim System (talk) 09:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- No - linguistically this is a late contraction, and is not Torah Hebrew - "Eretz Yisrael" does not appear in the Torah (there is a "people of Israel" (Israel being Jacob's god given name) - it does appear in the Tanakh). The Torah uses several other contractions to refer to the promised land. References to the promised land (or "your land") are pervasive in the Torah (and this is a central theme of the work - from promises to Abraham and Jacob, followed by the whole Exodus narrative - leaving Egypt for Israel, travelling in the desert, the spies sent to Israel, the punishment of additional wandering 40 years, etc., and various edicts and commandments related to the land (Shmita, 3 raglim, Orlah - and I believe there are around 26 such edicts)) - the amount of references to the promised land (and edicts related thereof) really bring this to the level of the general Torah authorship question - which is complex - and really should be in the Israel article.Icewhiz (talk) 10:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- There are many WP:RS that conflict with your interpretation.Seraphim System (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- In the meantime - I have actually brought sources into the article. I do not stand behind any single interpretation, so I am not sure what "my interpretation" means in this context. I will note that while there is a wide range of opinions and theories regarding the Hebrew bible, I doubt you will find a serious source that does not place this in biblical times - which in the English sense extends to the 1st century CE. Instead of going into this issue (of what was composes when, and believed by whom) - leaving this at biblical times - is the simplest thing to do. There is absolutely no question that the land of Israel is central to Judaism as practiced in the past 2000 years or so, with written sources predating this.Icewhiz (talk) 10:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah I looked through all of them, one is written by a philosophy professor and none of them verify the statement in article. I dont think the date is very hard to source so no, I dont think we should leave in something that is misleading because... why should we leave a misleading statement that disrupts the chronology of the section in the article? We dont have to pinpoint the date but we do have to follow WP:RS and WP:NPOV - this statement makes it sound like Jews have lived in Israel since...since when? Since the Exodus? Since Elijah defeated the Kings of Israel? I know it is difficult, I will keep looking for suitable sources. Seraphim System (talk) 11:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree. The question of the arising of the Jewish people (or Israelites) is separate from the holiness ascribed to the land in Jewish religious sources (which dates back quite a bit). The modern archaeological view is that Israelites basically developed "in place" in the highlands (the mountain range of Judiea and Sameria - there is some dating for this (including in the Israel article) - it extends at least back 3000-4000 years or so. No "exodus" or "Joshua conquest". The fact that the land of Israel is holy to the Jews, and has been so dating back to ancient times - is not doubted by anyone of note - pinpointing the exact date of the composition of religious significance - is not straightforward - acceptable viewpoints exist spanning more than a 1000 years (thus - stating biblical times allows us to skirt around and avoid detailing the multiple views and theories regarding the possible chronology of early Jewish texts). In any event - if you do not have a working knowledge of Judaism, I suggest you stay out of Judaism issues.Icewhiz (talk) 11:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Do you mean because I dont think a philosoohy text about the halakha is WP:RS for archaic practices? I can tell you that making long posts full of unsourced assertions is not really going to help resolve this. If it's as fundamental as you say it shoild not be hard to find a source. The truth is the sources about Eretz Israel do not support this version. No one is disputing what literary tradition claims about it, but ancient part-legendary texts are not WP:RS for historical statements about what Jewish people did or felt. Imagine if 2000 years from now people thought that the governing texts of our time were an accurate reflection of our lives and culture. Obviously not. We will never know what Jewish people in 500BC felt, that is why it is hard to source and that it why it has to be removed or rewritten so it is not stated in Wikivoice. Insisting on an add like this because of a personal knowledge of Judaism that cant be sourced is extremely inappropriate. I am not disputing whether it is true or not, I have not seen one shred of evidence that the specific "Eretz Israel" language had any significance outside rabbinical sources in biblical times. This should not be a major fix, the sources support language like "holy land" - but you cant just assume this means Israel. This is just imprecise and inaccurate. Let me know if that needs further explanation. Seraphim System (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- I provided multiple sources. You are waffling. The notion of a holy promised land dates to at least the Torah - which is at the latest around 500 CE (and possibly earlier). holy land or promised land means land of Israel - and is actually defined in terms of borders (which vary in multiple locations and interpretations in the Torah) - there is absolutely zero difference between them. You are now dragging this discussion towards the evolution of ancient Hebrew linguistics - which I suspect is not a subject matter you are familiar with.Icewhiz (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC) This Wikipedia article, and the sources therein, has a decent discussion of the etymology - Land of Israel.Icewhiz (talk) 12:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- This isnt getting us anywhere, "it was hard to source" is a pretty clear sign that I was right to remove it (and it still isnt sourced. Eretz Israel needs to be removef, Land of Israel needs to be changed to land of Israel, and the chronology of the section needs to be clarified. You really haven't convinced mr by bringing up a series of unrelated topics like the dating of Torah texts, the documentary hypothesis, Gilganesh, ancient hebrew linguistics (believe it or not I actually wrote a paper on this once. Got an A too, and almost got recruited into Hebrew and Judaic Studies) I have HALOT but I dont think its necessary for an article like this about a secular topic like a coubtry overview. Seraphim System (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- You haven't been constructive here. Given that the modern country is as per Israeli Declaration of Independence - in the opening -
The Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.
- the biblical reference is relevant to the Jewish State, Israel. Instead of suggesting a better formulation of this sentence (which isn't bad to begin with) - you just erased it. The connection between the Jewish people (or sons of Israel) and the land of Israel is one with ancient roots - including religious roots - this should be in the article on the Jewish state of Israel. It was hard to source - as this is elementary school level material - not a topic that requires modern in-depth scholarship (though I did dredge up a reference or two that dealt with this in relation to the conflict - how the holiness of the land (or rather people ascribing holiness to the land) affects conflict management - so there was an intro of this there).Icewhiz (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- You haven't been constructive here. Given that the modern country is as per Israeli Declaration of Independence - in the opening -
- This isnt getting us anywhere, "it was hard to source" is a pretty clear sign that I was right to remove it (and it still isnt sourced. Eretz Israel needs to be removef, Land of Israel needs to be changed to land of Israel, and the chronology of the section needs to be clarified. You really haven't convinced mr by bringing up a series of unrelated topics like the dating of Torah texts, the documentary hypothesis, Gilganesh, ancient hebrew linguistics (believe it or not I actually wrote a paper on this once. Got an A too, and almost got recruited into Hebrew and Judaic Studies) I have HALOT but I dont think its necessary for an article like this about a secular topic like a coubtry overview. Seraphim System (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- I provided multiple sources. You are waffling. The notion of a holy promised land dates to at least the Torah - which is at the latest around 500 CE (and possibly earlier). holy land or promised land means land of Israel - and is actually defined in terms of borders (which vary in multiple locations and interpretations in the Torah) - there is absolutely zero difference between them. You are now dragging this discussion towards the evolution of ancient Hebrew linguistics - which I suspect is not a subject matter you are familiar with.Icewhiz (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC) This Wikipedia article, and the sources therein, has a decent discussion of the etymology - Land of Israel.Icewhiz (talk) 12:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Do you mean because I dont think a philosoohy text about the halakha is WP:RS for archaic practices? I can tell you that making long posts full of unsourced assertions is not really going to help resolve this. If it's as fundamental as you say it shoild not be hard to find a source. The truth is the sources about Eretz Israel do not support this version. No one is disputing what literary tradition claims about it, but ancient part-legendary texts are not WP:RS for historical statements about what Jewish people did or felt. Imagine if 2000 years from now people thought that the governing texts of our time were an accurate reflection of our lives and culture. Obviously not. We will never know what Jewish people in 500BC felt, that is why it is hard to source and that it why it has to be removed or rewritten so it is not stated in Wikivoice. Insisting on an add like this because of a personal knowledge of Judaism that cant be sourced is extremely inappropriate. I am not disputing whether it is true or not, I have not seen one shred of evidence that the specific "Eretz Israel" language had any significance outside rabbinical sources in biblical times. This should not be a major fix, the sources support language like "holy land" - but you cant just assume this means Israel. This is just imprecise and inaccurate. Let me know if that needs further explanation. Seraphim System (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree. The question of the arising of the Jewish people (or Israelites) is separate from the holiness ascribed to the land in Jewish religious sources (which dates back quite a bit). The modern archaeological view is that Israelites basically developed "in place" in the highlands (the mountain range of Judiea and Sameria - there is some dating for this (including in the Israel article) - it extends at least back 3000-4000 years or so. No "exodus" or "Joshua conquest". The fact that the land of Israel is holy to the Jews, and has been so dating back to ancient times - is not doubted by anyone of note - pinpointing the exact date of the composition of religious significance - is not straightforward - acceptable viewpoints exist spanning more than a 1000 years (thus - stating biblical times allows us to skirt around and avoid detailing the multiple views and theories regarding the possible chronology of early Jewish texts). In any event - if you do not have a working knowledge of Judaism, I suggest you stay out of Judaism issues.Icewhiz (talk) 11:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah I looked through all of them, one is written by a philosophy professor and none of them verify the statement in article. I dont think the date is very hard to source so no, I dont think we should leave in something that is misleading because... why should we leave a misleading statement that disrupts the chronology of the section in the article? We dont have to pinpoint the date but we do have to follow WP:RS and WP:NPOV - this statement makes it sound like Jews have lived in Israel since...since when? Since the Exodus? Since Elijah defeated the Kings of Israel? I know it is difficult, I will keep looking for suitable sources. Seraphim System (talk) 11:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
So, basically you guys want to base this section on the bible? Seraphim System (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- 1. There are over sources for the section. 2. I sourced this sentence following your insistence here. 3. The Torah is a RS regarding the beliefs of those who believe in the Torah.Icewhiz (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- The history section needs to be actual history. We treat religion under religion. (I appear to have had an edit conflict, my apologies). We just went through sorting out history from religion via an RfC at Talk:Jews#RFC:Revised_origins_section - same basic set of issues in this section. Please do review the content that was accepted there. WP should speak consistently about the mainstream view of history of this region. Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- It is different here - we aren't actually saying god promised or didn't promise the land - just that Jews believed the land is holy dating back to a long time ago (biblical times) - the historicity of the Jewish belief (not that the belief is true, but that some Jew believed this faith - as evidenced by the same text being used 2000+ years ago (e.g. Qumran finds)) is well established. The Jewish belief itself is relevant for the Jewish State of Israel, which was established as a Jewish state asserting this historical belief claim in its declaration of independence (and elsewhere).Icewhiz (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- "Historical beliefs" are not history, they are religion. This is one set of diffs. If somebody wants to revert that so be it, but they will be removing policy-compliant content. I would be happy to hold an RfC on this; the outcome will be the same as it was at Talk:Jews. Jytdog (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- The history of religion is history. I actually think I agree with most of what you proposed in Talk:Jews (I didn't participate - did look it over now - and I think you did a good job there) - I don't think people should be presented according to their mythical beliefs (though they should be mentioned). However the context here is different - not whether god promised or didn't promise the hold land to the Jews (a mythical belief) - but whether Jews held such a belief in antiquity (which is history). Specifically this ancient belief has modern ramifications - both in the formation of the state of Israel and in on-going politics (actually becoming more relevant - early Zionists actually weren't too religious - they treated this as a myth - current political forces are taking a much more fundamentalist religious view).Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- I understand your beliefs. This is not how we do history in WP. I will do what I did at Talk:Jews and propose a revision of the section. Will post in a moment. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Please don't make assumptions about my beliefs. When belief systems have historical relevance then are mentioned in history - see for instance multiple reference to sacrifice in Aztec Empire history - human sacrifice and the need to acquire prisoners for sacrifice was a major issue for the Aztec empire. Likewise, the ancient Jewish belief and its modern adherents were relevant for the formation (and present day politics) of the state of Israel.Icewhiz (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- I understand your beliefs. This is not how we do history in WP. I will do what I did at Talk:Jews and propose a revision of the section. Will post in a moment. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- The history of religion is history. I actually think I agree with most of what you proposed in Talk:Jews (I didn't participate - did look it over now - and I think you did a good job there) - I don't think people should be presented according to their mythical beliefs (though they should be mentioned). However the context here is different - not whether god promised or didn't promise the hold land to the Jews (a mythical belief) - but whether Jews held such a belief in antiquity (which is history). Specifically this ancient belief has modern ramifications - both in the formation of the state of Israel and in on-going politics (actually becoming more relevant - early Zionists actually weren't too religious - they treated this as a myth - current political forces are taking a much more fundamentalist religious view).Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- "Historical beliefs" are not history, they are religion. This is one set of diffs. If somebody wants to revert that so be it, but they will be removing policy-compliant content. I would be happy to hold an RfC on this; the outcome will be the same as it was at Talk:Jews. Jytdog (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Jytdog, first of all, please restore your own edit when you moved the Torah comment to the appropriate religion section. Beside, leaving aside the current discussion, one of your recent edits includes a sentence that doesn't make sense: "Modern archaeology has largely discarded the historicity of this [?] narrative". What narrative? The fact that "Villages had populations of up to 300 or 400" and "economic interchange was prevalent", or the conquests of Joshua after the exodus of Egypt, which the text doesn't mention? Please fix that as well. Thank you very much.--190.104.213.213 (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)