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.
Wait, if this is only going to cover up to 1799, should we rename this article History of the Jews in Israel of Antiquity ? Maybe it would be better to have this article complete the history in a summarial fashion up until the present, and allow other articles, like the British Mandate of Palestine to elaborate the details of those other periods? - Eric 19:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Land of Israel is a religious term, but this purports to be a historical article. I know many people take the Bible as literal history, but shouldn't an encyclopedia make a distinction? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fourtildas (talk • contribs) 17:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
There are a number of archaeological sources from Egypt and the northern Mediterranean that mention a kingdom named Yisrael. It is more than a religious term, but was a national one since not only did Jews use the term, but also Samaritan, Egyptian, and even Arabic sources talk about a land called Yisrael.--EhavEliyahu 10:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Lame title
"Israel" is defined as where Jews came from. It's like saying "History of the French in France". Duh. Fourtildas (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Islamic and Crusader periods
The information mentioned in this section relies on one source, A History of Palestine that is. The Jews almost single-handedly defended Haifa against the Crusaders I think this is not totally correct. Yamanam (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you provide another source? Anyway, this is not a POV issue. That's an issue of insufficient sources. The best way to handle this issue it to attribute the information to the source in the body of the text, i.e. "Source X says that...". DrorK (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
POV was removed and I added "Citation needed", still, this section promotes for a POV, will wait until the citation are added and see what could be done to eliminate POV. Another thing, concerning "Sefer HaCharedim Mitzvat Tshuva Chapter 3" what is this? is it a Jewish holy book? I wasn't able to find info about it on the net. Yamanam (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Sefer Ha-Chredim (ספר החרדים), i.e. The Book of the Revered ones, is a book written in Safed during the 16th century by Rabbi Elazar Azkari (רבי אלעזר אזכרי). It is a book aimed primarily at providing religious guidance, but apparently he also mentions some historical facts. In this case it is brought as the source for citation of Maimonides. I am not sure I subscribe to the interpretation that there was a synagogue on the Temple Mount when Maimonides visited it. By saying "great, holy house" Maimonides could have referred to one of the mosques, or to another building there. Maimonides didn't consider Islam a non-sacred practice. Anyway, I don't have access to the content of the book, so I need further input as to what exactly is written there.
As I said, when only one reliable source mentions data that seems problematic and yet worth mentioning, the best way to mention it is with a clear attribution. DrorK (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Concerning A History of Palestine, I found that it was cited only once in this section, therefor I added "citations needed". Yamanam (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I am also dubious of the fact a synagogue stood on the Temple Mount when Rambam was there. The Minchas Yitzchak (Vol. 6:1)has a responsa which suggests that he did not ascend the mount either. Chesdovi (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Ascending the Temple Mount is a taboo according to most rabbis, although many Jews visit this site anyway (most of these visitors are secular). The idea that Maimonides (Rambam) broke this taboo is indeed quite peculiar. After all, he is one of the most acknowledged rabbis in all times, and ascending the Mount would have been a statement for generations if he indeed did it. DrorK (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Recent edits and proposals for further editing
I don't plan on becoming a regular editor of this article, but I was bored this afternoon and did some bold editing. So I'd like to explain what I've done, and make some suggestions if anyone cares to take them up.
First, the article is, in my view, far too focused on political history. It's meant to be a history of the Jewish people, not a record of events. That means, for a start, that it should be paying far more attention to such basic things as demographic change ("people" means the masses).
Second, it needs some definitions. If it's a history of the Jewish people, then define Jew. If it's about the Jews in the Land of Israel, define that. Those two things need to appear at the very top of the article.
Third, it needs to get away from simply rehashing the bible. There are plenty of scholarly works about the Jews and their history, and I've added resources (Bibliography) some for the period from the emergence of Israel in the early Iron Age to the Second Temple period.
Fourth, it's far too detailed. It might be an idea to divide the coverage into a few basic periods to begin with - pre-Exilic, post-Exilic, Classical, Islamic, Modern. If these need to be subdivided it will become apparent, but start with the broad-brush approach.
All the best.. (I like the illustrations - keep them). PiCo (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Geonic period is missing
Glaring omission. Chesdovi (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Missing sources and opinion
The idea that early israel is polytheistic is absurd and needs very credible evidence in the face of the early bible's specific statement in support of monotheism.
In addition the statnets indicating that the history is 'made up' must also be supported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairnsquare (talk • contribs) 21:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Fairnsquare, the bible is not a historic reference. I agree that the paragraph about early Jewish polytheism needs references, but do not preface the paragraph with a bible verse and a statement that "the following paragraph is wrong". You should add a fact tag, which will show 'citation needed' on the article itself (which I just did). —Dkived (talk) 02:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Most historians of the ancient Hebrews agree that the Hebrew faith developed from an early polytheism--in common with other Near Eastern or Cannanitic groups--to Henotheism (the belief that, while there may be many gods, only one has true dominion over the group; and is therefore the only one to be worshipped), to an eventual genuine monotheism (around the time of Ezra). Since I will not take up another ten pages' worth of space here, I will just mention the vestiges of the early polytheistic Hebrew faith, that are still found in the Bible: Many terms for the God of Israel are in the plural; e.g. elohim. There are many specific passages throughout the Bible that also imply the possibility of more than one god. See the first two commandments of the Decalogue. If you pick up any standard history of Ancient Israel, or the Ancient Near East, you can see these issues discussed in much greater detail. 66.108.110.241 (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Allen Roth
I would have to question the statement that there are specific passages throughout the Bible that would imply the remote possiblity of more than one god. There needs to be a verified way of bringing this idea to the forefront instead of a blanket statement such as this. The first commandment states that you will have no other god before me, the second states that you will not have any graven image, or likeness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.244.11.164 (talk) 03:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
"... 500 years of ... Christian rule" must be wrong
"After the conquest, Jewish communities began to grow and flourish. Umar allowed and encouraged Jews to settle in Jerusalem. It was first time, after almost 500 years of oppressive Christian rule, that Jews were allowed to enter and worship freely in their holy city.[53]" This statement says that there were "Christian" rule in Jerusalem from around AD 140. Constantine and Licinius edict of tolerance against Christians appeared in AD 313 and there were no "Christian" rule in Jerusalem from that day. Christians were more or less persecuted in most of the fourth century. A better statement could be:
"After the conquest, Jewish communities began to grow and flourish. Umar allowed and encouraged Jews to settle in Jerusalem. It was the first time, after almost 500 years of oppressive Roman / Byzantine rule, except Tisha B'Av and the Jewish revolt of AD 613-614, that Jews were allowed to enter and worship freely in their holy city. Reirbyggar (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree, certainly the "500 years" are greatly exaggerated - barely 280 years (~350-634) with interruptions of Persian rule and Samaritan revolts. Two small corrections - Jewish revolt against Heraclius lasted 614-628, only in 629 the Jews were massacred and expelled from Jerusalem. Second thing - describing the history of non-Christian peoples it is customary to use CE, not AD, when describing the era.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
please, make a reference from history of jews in palestine to this article
Fortunately this is the same article already.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
British Mandate (1917-1948)
A good article in Wikipedia on the Israel-Palestine issueeventually be eventually settled so that both sides are happy with it. This article has a long way to go. It also clearly written by someon with a good knowledge of English. However the use of idiomatic phrases is sometimes off-centre.
In 1917, at the end of World War I - It ended in 1918.
Israel (known at the time as South Western Syria) - What became Israel in 1948 is only part of what was South Western Syria.
Today's Israel - A native English speaker would never put a capital T.
In 1947, following increasing levels of violence, the British government withdrew from Palestine. - the British withdrew in 1948.
into two states, Jewish and Arab. What about the City of Jerusalem. Resolution 181(II) describes the Arab state before the Jewish state. 9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_181]
the adoption of the Partition Plan by the United Nations General Assembly - What was adopted was not the Plan but a recommendation to adopt and implement the plan. The first assumes the UNGA has greater powers that it acuall was given under the UN Charter. Many articles make the same mistake and I have spent the last few weeks altering any number containing the error. Even the Declaration of 14 May 1948 makes the same mistake - AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY
David Ben-Gurion, made a declaration of independence and the state of Israel was established - Israel was established only when it had defeated the Arab armies. I have used the words of the official English translation. It is worth noting the use of the phrase in Eretz-Israel. To comply with resolution 181, Ben-Gurion should have perhps used a phrase such as in the area set aside for the Jewish state in Resolution 181(II) of the United Nation General Assembly. The failure to limit the new state to the area covered in Resolution 181 could be construed as evidence of the new state having different ideas, thereby justifying the invasion by the Arab states.
to be continued. Trahelliven (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Immediately following the adoption of the Partition Plan by the United Nations General Assembly, the Palestinian Arab leadership rejected the plan to create the, as yet unnamed, Jewish State and launched a guerilla war. - I omitted to mention the deletion of the suggestion that the responsibility for the civil war was solely that of the Arabs. The discussion is best left to the article 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. In any event there is not a single reference in the whole paragragh.Trahelliven (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Propose to delete this article
I notice the article has the notice "This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2007)"
Since the only sources are Zionist advocacy sites which obviously don't meet Wikipedia's standards, the entire article should be deleted. This may seem extreme, but it seems it is the only way to get people to include proper citations. Although there would not be much left of the article if it had to have proper citations. So I will delete it. Fourtildas (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Josephus isn't a "Zionist advocacy site." --GHcool (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
But it is. I agree in that it should be deleted. There is more and more the history-making here in Wikipedia. Certain people need for this but: "the account of Noah's Ark and the Tower of Babel, for example, have long been recognised as theological rather than historical, and scholars today have similarly come to the conclusion that the accounts of the Exodus, the conquest of Canaan, and large amounts of the stories of early kings such as David and Solomon, are fictional." "Niels Peter Lemche, of the Copenhagen School of Biblical Studies, submits that the picture of ancient Israel "is contrary to any image of ancient Palestinian society that can be established on the basis of ancient sources from Palestine or referring to Palestine and that there is no way this image in the Bible can be reconciled with the historical past of the region." {Niels Peter Lemche. On the Problems of Reconstructing Pre-Hellenistic Israelite (Palestinian) History. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures. Retrieved on 2007-05-10.} (2008.05.13) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.216.43.149 (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete this article. I agree with previous statements that this article is not scholarly, nor does it cite scholarly or historical sources. There is a clear Zionist theme in this article. Also, the title does not define "Israel" and "Land of Israel" sounds like what current borders define Israel to be. This article is theologically based and talks about a fluid and ill-defined "Israel." Delete this article.
Like it or not, everything said in the article is truth and facts. "Zionist" as you define it, or otherwise, you just have a hard time admitting it because it works against your own lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.184.141 (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC) --Tritomex (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I support deletion - this article is a rehash of material available in several other articles. PiCo (talk) 06:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Of course this article has to stay, and the section regarding ancient Israel have to be expanded. User Fourtildas and 83.216.43.149 You should not use Wikipedia for promoting your personal political positions. This is not a political site and you are trying to make it political. Some of removed parts have to be restored.
This is an extremely important article, hence the attempts by some to delete it. How soon until the articles on the Jewish temples are deleted? Jews are the oldest continuous ethnic group in the Land of Israel - get over it. There's plenty of space elsewhere in the world to make into a Jew-free paradise. - A Non-Jewish Scot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.118.192 (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment
This article is incomplete with very limited and one sided sources - ignoring many more authoritative and complete sources. It includes none of the academically accepted and respected scholars.I does not meet Wikipedia criteria and has a clearly political agenda. It should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.32.11.172 (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Your blatant call to delete this article is ridiculous. You obviously didn't read the article or looked at its "Reference" and "Bibliography" sections. Anyway, if there's anything you think should be added/removed from this article, it'll help if you could give specific examples this time. -Shalom11111 (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I am strongly against your idea, first and foremost because it could be seen as having political and not scientific taste. Second the article History of the Jewish community in Palestine does not match almost any of Wikipedia criteria and it looks like it was created with only one purpose, namely to exist under such name.Tritomex (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
It is not my idea. It was proposed long ago, while i corrected the merging procedure.Greyshark09 (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Further to the apparent consensus above, I carried out the merge. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I also think this merge was a good move, but Oncenawhile, you did transfer all the information from the article "History of the Jewish community in Palestine" to this one properly? It seems like the article is missing some stuff found at this old version.
Also, everyone, please see my new proposal below. Thanks, Shalom11111 (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
The lead finishes with the Roman capture of Jerusalem in 66 BCE.
Is anyone prepared to complete the lead? Trahelliven (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Just added the proper tag. Shalom11111 (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Problem with Dawson quote
There's a problem with the Dawson quote on the lack of permanent settlers and (Arabic) nationalism in the area prior to Jewish settlers in the late 19th century. I've come across this because I'be been challenged to look for evidence to a fact I often read and keep citing to anti-Semites who demand that Israel should give "Palestine back to the Palestines", which is that the area was sparsely populated, especially not by any Arab settlers, except for some Ottoman officials and itinerant Beduin tribes that walked in and out of the area without any idea of a "Palestine", before the Jewish settlers arrived, and no Arab ever cared about the land up until the Jewish settlers had turned the desert fruitful again.
So, the problem with said Dawson quote is that all that Google coughs up for that quote is Wikipedia and other people quoting from the book, but no genuine source. Archive.org holds three different searchable editions (Montreal 1888, London 1888, plus an undated "revised" edition with a preface for the second edition dated 1892) of Modern Science in Bible Lands, two of them don't even have 450 pages (as p. 450 is where the quote is supposed to be from), and none holds the quote: [1] Same about this searchable edition on Google Books: [2]
From what I've gathered browsing through the three available editions on Archive.org, it would also be rather strange for Dawson to be making definite statements on any modern nationalisms or ethnic makeover within the area, because all he seems to care about is his basic thesis of using geological, geographical, and archeological facts to prove the Bible right about things such as the Great Flood. --217.225.210.31 (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
The mention of Dawson in the article starts with a citation to a book of Parfitt, but Parfitt's book does not mention either Dawson or his book. I also agree that the quotation does not appear in Dawson's book. In fact, even if it did appear what it contributes to this article is approximately zero. So it is gone. Zerotalk 22:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems also rather stunning that the internet is full of online and digitized print sources attributing that quote to p. 450 of the book by Dawson. And sadly, now I'm left to venture further for any sources backing up my claim resembling the content of the apocryphic Dawson quote now gone. --217.225.210.31 (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Proposal to change the article's name
I propose changing the article's name from "History of the Jews in the Land of Israel" to "History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel". This new name makes so much more sense and fits perfectly. That is because Judaism's history and the religion itself have a lot do with the Land of Israel. Since the page "History of Judaism in the Land of Israel" doesn't exist, and because this article already has extensive coverage about Judaism's history in the Land of Israel, this new move will do the job. Please share your thought on this, thanks, Shalom11111 (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I am not opposing this but the standard, used in over 221 articles, is to write "History of the Jews in" and then the place. That also includes Judaism. --IRISZOOM (talk) 04:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but as briefly explained, this article is completely different than other similar ones. Because the history of the Jews, and the events that happened Jews in those countries, are the main topic in those 221 articles - Judaism itself barely plays any rule. However, when it comes to the Land of Israel, it's a totally different case. Judaism was started in this place. This religion's strong connection to the land of Israel is evidenced not only by the Bible, but also by archaeological, scientific, historical findings etc. (this article already demonstrates this bond, so I don't think any major changes will have to be made). Therefore, the current name is undoubtedly the right and proper one. -Shalom11111 (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Anyone have a reason why this is the standard? Or is it just the way it was done originally and now it is too extensive to change? It seems unnecessarily wordy, let alone the fact that it may be considered anti-Semitic or at the very least othering. It also doesn't match the formatting of other religions like "History of Christianity in..." or "History of Islam in..." where these articles do not use the demonyms "Christians" or "Muslims." Shouldn't all of these "History of the Jews in..." articles be changed to "History of Judaism in..." to match this standard? Notwithstanding, there are also the strange outliers of Jewish history and Muslim history in Palestine, which don't match either of these standards. Nquinn91 (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I think it's because of the ethnoreligious nature of the modern Jewish identity. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Map
There were no Jews in Transjordan, Transjordan isn't "land of Israel", so why is this map even here?? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Because as the article makes clear to those who bother to read it, there certainly were Jews in Tansjordan, through most of their history. Epson Salts (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
What about those who bother to think? I fail to see how 4th century Jews are connected to anything related to 20th century administrative divisions. There were no Jews in Transjordan anytime near this time period. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Those who bother to think understand that the 20th C. administration included the previous history as one of the factors for making their decision. Epson Salts (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Huh?? File:Map Land of Israel.jpg this map, based on biblical scripture, is more relevant to the article than this. Jews lived everywhere in the Levant, I don't see a map of every single state that ever existed across the centuries. "History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel'". This is so irrelevant, an attempt to show that Judaism is a mirror of Zionism, and to claim that Jordan is part of this mysterious indefinite "Land of Israel" . Makeandtoss (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Take a look at some of the other maps already in the article, which clearly show the extent of Jewish kingdoms (rather than "a place where jews lived") into Transjordan. Epson Salts (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
How long did the largest extent of the Hasmonean kingdom last? Months? Borders, populations and states during that time of history were not constant at all like what you are trying to portrait them as. The territories gained by the Hasmoneans in Transjordan were soon lost to the Nabataeans during the Battle of Gadara. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
You can read about it here Hasmonean kingdom - ain't it great that we have an encyclopedia? Now, do you have any policy-based arguments, rather that the inane " Kingdom x didn't last very long"? Epson Salts (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually I was hoping you yourself would read about it, since you mentioned the "extent of Jewish kingdoms". Yes I do have policy-based arguments, irrelevancy. The map is in no way related to this article. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I have read it. Did you? where did you come up with the ridiculous notion that it lasted "a few months'? I've explained the relevance to you. Epson Salts (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
110BC-93BC, 17 years, now compare that to a 4,000 year old history of the Levant. "a few months" was figuratively used. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually, 140 BCE–37 BCE, or more than 100 years. That's longer than Jordan - you know, that artificial country established by 20th c. Western Imperialism, the kind you like to denounce when it concerns Jews- has existed as an independent nation. But the Hasmonean Kingdom was not the only one to extend across the Jordan river, do yourself a favor and actually read the article. Epson Salts (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure what point you are trying to make. I am talking about how long the Hasmoneans extended into Transjordanian territories, I am not discussing the Hasmonean kingdom. And yes, the Hasmoneans were not the only kingdom to extend across the Jordan river. Kingdom of Israel had Jerash and Madaba, these two don't really represent Jordan. Any type of Jewish settlement in Transjordan was either too short or covered a small area. Meanwhile, you are trying to portray that Jews had this longstanding deep-rooted presence in Transjordan that 2,000 years later, they demanded that they be settled in Transjordan (in addition to Palestine) rather than "the promised land" (with biblical scriptures evidence) that covered Lebanon for example. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
The point I've been making is that "The Land of Israel" most certainly included areas across the Jordan river, and that this historical connection of Jews to those areas was a factor considered by the League of Nations when it was contemplating the borders of the Mandate awarded to Britain for the establishment of a Jewish National Home therein. Epson Salts (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it has long been clear that you subscribe to that entirely false myth. Zerotalk 23:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
It a myth that that "The Land of Israel" included areas across the Jordan river? Do tell. Epson Salts (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
It is not a myth that some of the many rabbinical definitions of Eretz Yisrael included land east of the Jordan River. After all, some of them extended over most of the Middle East. The myth is that either the British government or the League of Nations ever considered land east of the Jordan River as part of the "Jewish homeland". They did not. The first serious consideration of that was made by the Peel Commission in 1937 and rejected. Zerotalk 00:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
:No, that's false, the League of Nations certainly considered it, and that's why they gave the British a mandate to create a Jewish national home in Palestine which included Transjordan. The British may not have wanted to implement that, and convinced the League to allow them to exclude Transjordan from the Jewish national home provisions, which they did, but it is simply incorrect to state the the League did not consider it. Epson Salts (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
You believe in a myth created during the mandate period by the Revisionist Zionists and still perpetrated today by people who should know better. The San Remo conference did not define "Palestine" but left it up to the Principal Powers to decide between themselves. Britain only chose to include Transjordan in the mandate text so that they would have the legal authority to deal with it as they wanted, which was to create an Arab entity. The Mandate for Palestine document was written by Britain and already made the disposition of Transjordan clear before it was rubber-stamped by the LofN. All of this is supported by many fine secondary sources as well as by all the primary sources. The FAQ that Once pointed you to elsewhere quotes from some of them. Zerotalk 01:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
sorry, but no. I am going to go by what reliable historians, published in a peer-reviewed journal say - [3], not what a couple anonymous Wikipedia editors say in a "FAQ" that they put together, all by themselves. Epson Salts (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Since that FAQ consists entirely of quotes from peer-reviewed academic sources, plus one primary source, that reply doesn't even make sense. The first quote (the primary source) is also presented by Friedman, which by itself should make you realise that you are missing something. I know Friedman's paper almost by heart. The only real difference between Friedman's version and the accepted version is that he starts with the assumption that of the Balfour Declaration it "was generally understood that it would cover the area of biblical Palestine". He provides no evidence for that at all, not a single citation, which is odd given that he surely knows that most historians dispute it. Then, as if in support, he produces a private letter from someone who wasn't in a senior post at the time of the Balfour Declaration but in 1920 wrote a private letter saying that the Hedjaz Railway should lie outside Palestine (so leaving only a small fraction of Transjordan inside Palestine). That doesn't support your version. He does not make the claims about the San Remo conference that you do, and he does not make the claims about the League of Nations that you do. Friedman's fringe view of the Balfour Declaration leads him to write with a different emphasis, but I don't think he disputes any of the facts I wrote here. Zerotalk 05:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Parts of Transjordan were indeed considered for the Jewish homeland since they were considered part of Palestine (see: Survey of Eastern Palestine) and then explicitly excluded. It would not be necessary to explicitly exclude something nobody thought was included, now would it? There are sources in Once's "FAQ" that support this. If you have access to the full article you linked to above, please add it to the so-called-FAQ. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
If you are talking about the meaning of "Palestine" then of course it had many interpretations by different people (though never with the bulk of Transjordan included). That is not much relevant because "considered for the Jewish homeland since they were considered part of Palestine" doesn't follow. The Balfour Declaration said "in Palestine" and not "in all of Palestine" on purpose, which is very well documented (the simplest proof being that early drafts did actually say all of Palestine). The British left themselves maximum freedom by being vague. As any country would if they could. Zerotalk 05:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, the Transjordan memorandum excluded Jewish settlement east of the Jordan River in 1922, quite a time before the borders of Transjordan were even defined. So to claim that Transjordan was supposed to be left for Jewish settlement, in the borders that were defined LONG after (1928-1933, 1925-1927) Jewish settlement was explicitly prohibited, is simply hilarious. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
You are proving the point made above - if there was a memorandum required to explictly exclude settlement east of the river, that quite clearly shows that prior to the memorandum, such settlement was being considered. Epson Salts (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Or it could have simply been just to make things clearer. Even if such settlement was being considered, who told you it would have been on the same borders that were defined later? Now imagine that the eastern borders of Transjordan were drawn differently, further east towards Saudi Arabian territory, would Jews now also want to claim these territories too?! Assuming that a settlement deal was already discussed, would it magically include more territories years later?? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Quite correct. As it says at Trans-Jordan memorandum, "The memorandum described how the British government planned to implement the article of the Mandate for Palestine which allowed exclusion of Transjordan from the provisions regarding Jewish settlement." There was an article in place already. Also the statement "such settlement was being considered" doesn't have much meaning. Does considered for 5 minutes count? Of course everything was considered at some stage, but the key point is that Britain never took upon itself an obligation, nor accepted an obligation from anyone else, to incorporate Transjordan into the Jewish homeland. Zerotalk 14:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Both you and Maketoss above are arguing against strawmen I never said the borders ultimately decided upon were the same ones initially considered. I said that the historical connection of Jews to the area - which included territory across the jordan river- was a factor in deciding to award the mandate to the British for the creation of a Jewish homeland. I was also pointing out that statement made earlier by you that it is a myth that "that either the British government or the League of Nations ever considered land east of the Jordan River as part of the "Jewish homeland". "- you are now belatedly conceding that they did indeed consider it. We are making progress. Epson Salts (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
You are just playing word games, so I believe it is time to end this pointless exchange. Zerotalk 14:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
You made a blustering, false comment, and were forced to retract it. I am not surprised you want to walk away from this discussion now. So long. Epson Salts (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
It's high time you were banned. Zerotalk 15:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Seeing as your actual arguments don't seem to hold any substance, I am sure resorting to banning your opponents would be your preferred method. Epson Salts (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
"the historical connection of Jews to the area" again and again and again, trying to portrait as if the Jews have had a longstanding deep-rooted presence in Transjordan, which as I have historically showed you, is not true at all. If I were to succumb to your perception on what it takes to have a "historical connection", then by that logic it should include distant places such as Babylonia, Mesopotamia, Damascus, Sidon, Tyre, Sinai even the Red Sea would belong to the Jews. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
You have not shown that at all.What you have shown is that one of the ancient Jewish kingdoms, the Hasmonean one, controlled parts of Transjordan for only 17 years. The Kingdom of Israel, under David and Solomon controlled far larger swaths of Transjordan, for hundreds of years . That is quite different from making a claim to areas where Jews were exiled, or happened to live. I surprised you don't see that. Epson Salts (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Jerash and Madaba north of the Dead Sea are "far larger swaths"? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Take a look at the map. These are far larger swaths then what the Hasmonean Kingdom held, yes. Epson Salts (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
you're trying to have the cake and eat it too, aren't you? Either the Hasmonean Kingdom is significant, or it isn't. Epson Salts (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I have said this a number of times. Control of the Hasmonean kingdom in parts of Transjordan lasted around 17 years, the kingdom of Israel barely controlled two towns, none of these two have any significance. Why? Because there are FAR more significant territories to the Jewish people such as Babylonia or the Sinai or Lebanon. You are not presenting anything to counter my arguments and I think its a waste of time for me to keep repeating my points. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't plan to continue this discussion with someone who dishonestly looks at a map showing the Kingdom of Israel controlling roughly 6000 square miles east of the Jordan, and describing it as "barely two towns", so this will likely be my last post here. For completion's sake, you could look at this map as well - . If you don't understand the difference between claiming a connection to a place that was ruled by you for hundreds of years (far longer than your artificial country of Jordan has been in existence) and making a claim to place where some of your country men were exiled or passed through, that's your problem, and probably an indication that you shouldn't be editing articles like this one. The reasons why the map is relevant have been explained to you, by me and by No more mr Nice Guy, and I won't bother repeating them, no matter how much you harangue me. So , unless you've got something new to add to this discussion, the map is going to stay, and you are going to move on. Epson Salts (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
What discussion? The only thing you kept saying was that my country was "artificial", which I don't think its insulting. I did add something new, its down below. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
As we all know, the borders of Transjordan, and later Jordan, are completely artificial. They don't follow any previous borders or even natural features in most parts. There's a big chunk of desert nobody cared about that the British put in there so they'd have land continuity to Iraq and its oil. But, some parts of Jordan were indeed Jewish in the past and are indeed considered parts of the "Land of Israel" by some people and there's no reason not to show how control of this area changed over time. I'm not even sure what you guys are objecting to, exactly? Putting the map there does in no way imply that Jordan in its current borders is part of LoI. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
It is the only contemporary map in the article outside of modern-day Israel, how exactly does it not imply anything? Makeandtoss (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
There really aren't that many substantially different modern maps that apply to the area. I suppose we could add a map that shows Ottoman divisions. I honestly don't think this map implies anything, but maybe the caption can clarify? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
The presence of the map implies that the Emirate of Transjordan had an existing Jewish population (false), is a part of the Land of Israel (there are many interpretations to this mysterious land), that it had a unified government with Mandatory Palestine (false), that it was destined for Jewish settlement and then stolen away (false) and that the borders of the entire Mandate were known since its inception (false). Makeandtoss (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it implies any of that. There's a section about the Mandate and a map of the Mandate to illustrate. The section should contain the explanation that would alleviate any implications you think you see there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
The article's name "History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel", the section talks about Aliyah, Jewish national home and the partition plan. Not only the map is irrelevant in the context but its unchallenged presence implies a whole number of stuff. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Discontinuing the discussion won't make the map any more relevant. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I have nothing to add, really. You think it implies something. I think it doesn't. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Its irrelevant, thats why it implies something. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
It is relevant, as explained at length. It implies none of the things you imagine. Epson Salts (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Explained at length? All we discussed was historicity, and frankly original research. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
yes - see above. Epson Salts (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
See above what? Original research? Transjordan was not promised to Jews, thats a historical fact. Lets end this farce, stop procrastinating. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I am not going to rehash the lengthy discussion above. The salient points are - you falsely claimed there were never any Jews in Transjordan, and proven wrong; "The Land of Israel" most certainly included areas across the Jordan river; on the basis of that historical connection , when the Mandate for Palestine was being formed, making parts of the area East of the Jordan river a part of the Jewish homeland were requested by the Zionist organization, and considered by the League of nations. That is enough to establish the relevancy of this map, which shows the actual borders of the mandate.Epson Salts (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
When were these requests made?? Settlement was formally excluded in 1922. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, so? How is that related to what i wrote above? Epson Salts (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
"making parts of the area East of the Jordan river a part of the Jewish homeland were requested by the Zionist organization, and considered by the League of nations" Jewish settlement was excluded before the eastern borders of Transjordan were even drawn, now you are saying that the League of nations considered something they had already decided on? Or that the requests by the organization were even taken seriously? Makeandtoss (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Of course the request were taken seriously, that they were ultimately not granted is a different matter. Again, what doe this have to do with the map's relevancy? Epson Salts (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
"Of course" does not suffice, where is your source for that? If the Zionist requests were not taken seriously by the LoN and/or Britain, then this delegitimizes any Jewish "claims" to Transjordan, and questions these requests' notability/relevancy. And yes, that's in the case that there were any requests of the kind. Let me reemphasize, the requests should specifically mention Transjordan in the exact same borders of the map you want on this article. This brings us back to the fact that Jewish settlement was formally exlcuded in 1922, while the borders were finalized some 10 years later. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Do you think the LON meetings were a joke? a show put on by the British and other parties to fool the world? Epson Salts (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Quite an amusing statement! What meetings?! The only documented meeting is the approval of the Transjordan memorandum in 1922, the meetings of your fabrication have no place in Wikipedia. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Look, it is pointless and tiresome to debate with someone who has no grasp of even basic facts. Your false claim that there were never any Jews in Transjordan was one example, this is another. Have a read: San Remo conferenceEpson Salts (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
San Remo conference doesn't have a single mention of Transjordan. I did not deny Jewish settlement, I denied a notable one. There have been no mention of any Jews in Transjordan for more than a Millenia. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Your first words in this section are "There were no Jews in Transjordan" Epson Salts (talk) 14:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I should have clarified about notability. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
You do not have consensus to do that, and that would be disruptive. Epson Salts (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
WP:ONUS is clear. You are not presenting any effort or will to reach consensus, and that is, disruptive. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what exactly you think you are doing here. Not engaging in consensus reaching is disruptive behaviour, this is under WP:ARBPIA3 and this type of behaviour will lead to sanctions. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
There's a very lengthy discussion right above, where I (and another editor) explain why I (and he) object to your removing a map that has been in the article for a long time, and thus has consensus. I think you misunderstand what "consensus" means - it doesn't mean everyone has to agree with you, nor that new compromises have to be made just because you don't like what is currently in the article. Epson Salts (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah that same lengthy discussion contained why I (and another editor) explain why I (and he) object to the presence of this map. Its alleged "consensus" is being challenged, and you have got no solid argument to back it up. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you and another editor object to material that has consensus. You need to show that consensus has changed. You have not done so . I have presented my arguments above. Epson Salts (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
If we object then it no longer has consensus. My responses to your arguments went unheeded, you have changed the topic a number of times. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
no, that's not they way it works. Once material has consensus as this map has- you need to show there is consensus to remove it. I have not changed the topic even once, and have addressed all your arguments. You are welcome to try the various venues for dispute resolution open to you. Epson Salts (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I told you that the San Remo article doesn't have a mention of Transjordan, and that as a tiny example of how my responses go unheeded. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
You should know by now that Wikipedia articles are not sources we can rely on. There is no shortage of sources the discuss Transjordan in the context of the San Remo conference. Epson Salts (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
You want sources? Here's a source explicitly saying that east of the Jordan River is not part of the Land of Israel. [4] There are zero reasons why you should continue to resist this map's exclusion. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
And here's one that says the opposite [1] There are numerous reasons to include the map, spelled out for you above. Continuing to insist that you are right and we must accept your position is not helpful. Epson Salts (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
The article is called history of Jews and Judaism not Jews and Zionism. According to Judaism, the Land of Israel is where Jewish law had been practiced. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I love it when non-Jews attempt to teach Jews what Judaism is. Such arrogance is always amusing. Rest assured, Jewish law was practiced throughout the Kingdom of Israel and the Hasmonean Kingdom, on both sides of the Jordan. Epson Salts (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh wait let me check WP:RESTASSURED, nvm it doesn't exist. Wikipedia works with sources, in case you didn't know. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Do you have a source that states that the tribes of Reuben, Gad and Manasseh did not practice jewish law? Or that half of Manasseh practiced it (on the west side of Jordan) but the other half did not? seriously, you're clutching at straws here. Epson Salts (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I have a source that does not recognize that there was anything notable about any Jewish settlement in Transjordan. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Indeed - there was nothing 'notable' about it - it was a Jewish settlement just like on the other side of the Jordan, with the same jewish law practiced three. You are making my point for me - surely if 1/6 of the Jewish population that happened to reside on the other side of the Jordan did not practice Jewish law, THAT would be notable. Epson Salts (talk)
Obviously there is a lot more than just practising Jewish law. Any Jewish settlement does not correspond to the modern map of Transjordan in any way whatsoever. And as a matter of fact, the Jordan River had been designated as a boundary of the Land of Israel as early as 1880 by the Palestine Exploration Fund. All requests by Zionists to further their claims east of the Jordan were not taken seriously at all by the British, who designed the borders of the map you are trying to restore. Quotes from an elaborate source published by the University of Chicago press.
"At an early stage of the PEF’s survey, the Jordan River became recognized as a border."
"The War Office published its version of the maps in 1879, with publication of the PEF maps delayed a year by agreement. The twenty- six maps published in 1880 presented a Palestine conforming to the biblical formulae “from Dan to Beersheba” for the north- south axis and “from the Jordan to the Sea” for the east- west axis"."
"So as the Zionists cited the two and a half Transjordanian tribes as authorizing forebears, their more flexible claim to land east of the Jordan replicated the Bible’s ambivalence about the Jordan as a border."
"In San Remo, "British officials were aware of but not convinced by Zionist boundary proposals"."
" If ancient Israel “ever did” include lands east of the Jordan, Richards reasons, then the many centuries without Jewish presence signaled a lesser degree of attachment"
" Approving the modification in 1922, the League of Nations granted international recognition to the Jordan boundary and, one could add, to the Palestine Exploration Fund map. A single mandate governed Palestine and Transjordan, yet the Jordan River border distinguished the two “countries” in British as well as international eyes."
"Zionists from time to time petitioned the British for the right to develop lands east of the Jordan, but by 1923 the Jordan River had force as a boundary" again 1923 is before the boundaries of the map you are trying to restore, were finalized (1930s)
"Some biblical ambivalence seems to have been replicated in the tepid approach and easy surrender of Zionist attachment to the east bank"
"When the White Paper bestowed Transjordan on Emir Abdullah, the Zionist leadership acquiesced and concentrated its efforts west of the Jordan" again, before the boundaries were finalized [5]
What I am saying is backed with reliable sources, what you are saying, is frankly not. Wikipedia works with sources; verifiability. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Everything I'm saying is backed up by sources - you just don't understadn (or pretend to not understand) what I am saying, which is what your own sources say - that the Land of Israel included parts of Transjordan, that on that basis the Zionist organization lobbied for some lands east of the Jodan to be included in the Mandate, and that thus this map, showing the final mandate borders, is relevant to this article. Epson Salts (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps but not in its current form or position. If that is the reason for it to be in the article, it needs a much more logical position, a much more explanatory caption, and sources. Readers should be made aware of many of the facts raised in this discussion, such as the fact that only very small parts of today's Jordan were ever within the Biblical boundaries, and even then only for short periods of time, as well as the fact that the Zionist request at the 1919 Paris Peace conference also only included a sliver of today's Jordan in their proposal for what they then termed "Palestine". Oncenawhile (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
WHat more logical position is there than the section that discusses the Mandate? I am open to alternative captions.. Epson Salts (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes thanks "some lands east of the Jordan". The Zionists did not request territories that were defined 15 years later, unless they had a fun time-travelling experience. No a caption would not suffice, this requires too much elaboration, to an extent it becomes irrelevant. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Several editors disagree with you about the relevancy. I suggest a more productive way forward is to try and find a caption that will work. Epson Salts (talk)
Did you not read? There's an entire sentence before the word "irrelevant" above. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I did read, and pointed out to you that people disagree with you about the relevancy. You can keep insisting that you are right and we all need to accept your position, and we will get nowhere, or you can start working toward a possible solution, by suggesting captions that are better. Epson Salts (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Its either you didn't read or... I said, if we are going to elaborate, the paragraph, or god knows how many lines this will take, will be too much to be relevant when placed in an article like this. Seriously, if you want this discussion to end soon, avoid this condescending behaviour. Again a caption would not suffice, there are too many points to be brought up. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
The points don't need to be in the caption, they can be in the article. Epson Salts (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Do you know how many people just read the lead of the article and then its images and captions only? Too many. Too many people will be mislead. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Captions are not intended to be article summaries. We can find one that is not misleading. I don't think the current one's misleading, either. Epson Salts (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
A lot of things are used in a way they are no intended to be used. The current caption is misleading because it lacks elaboration. The whole map is misleading: 1- the Jordan River has been considered as a border of two distinct territories since 1879 2- Jewish settlement east of the River was not taken seriously in 1879, and was explicitly denied in 1921 3- any Jewish settlement does not correspond to the borders of the Emirate, which were finalized in 1930s, decades after the two things I just mentioned. This is all sourced, don't try to bend around them. Do you want me to keep repeating my arguments or are you going to reply to them? Makeandtoss (talk) 07:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with these assertions f yours (That Jewish settlment east of the Jordan was not taken seriously, or that it was "denied" in 1923). The caption does not say these things, either. What is your suggestion for a better caption? Epson Salts (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't really matter if you agree or disagree. Its facts, supported by reliable sources. Settlement was not taken seriously as seen "In San Remo, "British officials were aware of but not convinced by Zionist boundary proposals"." and yes it was explicitly denied by the Transjordan memorandum. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Epson Salts is a sockpuppet of NoCal100 and has been blocked. Ive stricken his comments here. nableezy - 20:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I have just modified 3 external links on History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 4 external links on History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 4 external links on History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Some typographic error corrections - (1) Section: 'Classical era'; Subsection: 'Roman era'; 3rd paragraph; 2nd sentence: change "...and heroic last stand..." to "...and the heroic last stand..." (2) Section: 'Classical era'; Subsection: 'Roman era'; 8th paragraph (2nd to last); 4th sentence: change "...centered in the Galilee." to "...centered in Galilee." Greg Stokley (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Partly done: the first part - Done
The removal of "the" - Not done - could be centered in "the region of Galilee" or "in the Galilee" but "in Galilee" sounds weird DannyS712 (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 December 2018
Two typo errors to correct. (1) Section: Classical era; Subsection: Roman era; 3rd paragraph; 2nd sentence: Change "... the siege of Jerusalem (69–70 CE) and the heroic last stand at Gamla where 9,000 died and Massada (72–73 CE)..." to the following → "... the siege of Jerusalem (69–70 CE), the heroic last stand at Gamla, where 9,000 died, and Massada (72–73 CE)..." Changes are to replace and after "(69-70 CE)" with a comma, and add commas before "where" and after "9,000 died". (2) Section: Classical era; Subsection: Roman era; 8th (second to last) paragraph; 4th sentence: Change "... in the Galilee." to this → "... in Galilee." The change is deleting the word "the" before "Galilee". Greg Stokley (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:History of the Jews in Abkhazia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Unacceptable source
To editor Reenem:This is an anonymous article from an organization internationally known for its propaganda. Please try to stick to scholarly sources. Zerotalk 06:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry propaganda? The fact that it's from the Israeli Foreign Ministry automatically means it's unreliable? I've seen official government sources used before.--RM (Be my friend) 20:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No. Israel was founded in 1948, unless you mean the ancient Kingdom of Israel. Zerotalk 14:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
This is actually a bad argument. After all, lots of articles on Jewish history in different countries cover eras before their political independence. The main reason not to move it is because it would muddle things given that this history encompasses what is now Israel and the occupied territories that are part of the historic Land of Israel.--RM (Be my friend) 19:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
No The current title is the usual mixup, if it was History of the Jews and Judaism, it would be fine. Land of Israel and Israel are not the same thing. I'm not even entirely clear what Land of Israel actually means, I suspect it means different things to different people.Selfstudier (talk) 10:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
What about better title, "History of Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel"? which usually little concise title. --122.2.10.69 (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
It also used a term "Israel" is widely used (including the "Land of Israel") from ancient, medieval to modern times, but also in case of the ethnicity background of Jewish people and Judaism, to be as a single word. --122.2.10.69 (talk) 06:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 July 2021
The fourth sentence should be changed from
"During biblical times, two kingdoms occupied the highland zone"
to
"During biblical times, two Jewish kingdoms occupied the highland zone" 77.124.94.250 (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Not done: This does not need to be explicitly stated. The lead is already long, and since the two kingdoms are linked in the same sentence it seems unnecessary. Terasail[✉️] 16:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
The source of the statement that the Israelites were an outgrowth of the Canaanites is false. Whoever wrote that piece should study the history of ancient Israel because the source states various false statements. Jake pres (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:History of Israel which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
This page needs a lot of work.
The above debate has raised a clearer issue regarding this page: it has been sorely under attended and is need of particular attention in many key areas.
To address a key point made above: “a misportrayal of the contents of the page, which is overwhelmingly about Jews and the history of communities, not Judaism, which receives barely a mention on the page after the 7th century.”
To merely propose that the “Judaism” component of the page title be removed because this element seems to have been under addressed is a missed opportunity to properly explore the connection between Jews and Judaism that the page’s author very wisely conflated in its inception. Judaism is an ethno-religion whose genesis is based in a particular region of the world from which *both* the ethnic group and its religious observance emerge. It is important that additional sections be added to explore the ethno-religious genesis so this article doesn’t merely become a history of Jews in the Land of Israel. We already have separatearticles for that, and - like I said - a huge missed opportunity for a nuanced and necessary article meant to explore the dual elements central to the genesis of a people and their religion.Mistamystery (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
To fulfil the encyclopedic function of having discrete topics, pages need a clear scope, and 'people + religion' is not a clear scope. Conflation is typically a negative on Wikipedia. As it stands, this page is already beyond the preferable length of a page (history pages tends to get out of hand), so the possibility of over-expanding this page along the lines of the conflated topic in its title (but not in its current scope on page) is not a missed opportunity; it would simply turn a problem that is currently limited to a title into a bloated and less functional page for the platform and its readers. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
And as I have commented above in the RM, the scope of this article is not at all clear, it is arbitrarily mixing up Jews with religion and a religious geography across an unclear time frame. It is pretty much a fork of parts of other articles This article is about the genesis of both the people and the religion within not only the land in which they emerged, but their continued relationship with that land (and concepts of, relationship to) in context of their ethno-national-religious development pretty much makes this point for me. Selfstudier (talk) 08:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Clarifying things like scope and time frame in this edit are achievable goals. As is “de-forking” any apparent parts of other articles so this article retains its own necessary signature and topical focus.
On the topic of the “mixture” of Jewish religion and religious geography, I would handily disagree that there is anything arbitrary about it (though I would agree that some haphazard article editing and construction may give the impression based upon the current form of this article).
And perhaps I should have started my paragraph with “It appears this article was intended to be…” I have already made it clear: this article has found itself far too concerned with restating Jewish chronology at length at the expense of including accompanying information pertaining to the development of the religious evolution of the community, and I believe that should be remedied (so long as the article is about the connection between people x religion x place)Mistamystery (talk) 11:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Mistamystery is correct, as an ethnoreligion, the religion and the ethnicity are wrapped up together, but not identical. Andre🚐 00:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
That doesn't mean there's space here for an article conflating topics. Between Jewish history and Origins of Judaism there appear to be a range of pages covering aspects or parts of the actual "history of Judaism" (which is barely covered here at all). Judaism is in fact alone among major world religions in not having a clear, coherent, standalone history page covering its theological and doctrinal development, which is pretty extraordinary. If someone is serious about developing a page on the history of Judaism as a religious history, I would suggest expanding Origins of Judaism, as this has already expanded beyond its initial remit to the end of the 6th century rabbinic period, so covering not just the origins of Judaism but the much later stages of the formalization of rabbinic doctrine and dogma; it just needs later medieval and modern developments adding onto the end. The structure for all this is laid out clearly in works such as A History of Judaism. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
The reality of history is that religion was a big part of it - for all Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, whatever, groups. History of Jewish theology seems like an interesting redlink, so I agree with you there. Andre🚐 19:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I am not advocating for a bulking up of this article. I agree with you that focused and tightly on-topic edits of topics are the goal, and I truly do believe it’s achievable here.
This is why I said this page needs a lot of work (and that included it being overly bulky - which I may not have included because I didn’t want my initial list to be overly long). Mistamystery (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Partly done: the first part - 
Done
Not done - could be centered in "the region of Galilee" or "in the Galilee" but "in Galilee" sounds weird DannyS712 (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Done Jack Frost (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Not done: This does not need to be explicitly stated. The lead is already long, and since the two kingdoms are linked in the same sentence it seems unnecessary. Terasail[✉️] 16:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
