Revision as of 00:40, 21 April 2017 editJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 edits →Sources: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:39, 21 April 2017 edit undoDebresser (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors110,467 edits →Sources: Reply.Next edit → | ||
Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
I have made the change I proposed here, with sources. I shall be happy to receive constructive criticism, suggestions and improvements. Please try and find additional or better sources. ] (]) 23:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC) | I have made the change I proposed here, with sources. I shall be happy to receive constructive criticism, suggestions and improvements. Please try and find additional or better sources. ] (]) 23:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC) | ||
:What change proposed here? You proposed nothing here. ] (]) 00:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC) | :What change proposed here? You proposed nothing here. ] (]) 00:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC) | ||
:: how is not a proposal? ] (]) 08:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
==RfC Jewish history== | ==RfC Jewish history== |
Revision as of 08:39, 21 April 2017
Skip to table of contents |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jews article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Judaism or Jewish people. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Judaism or Jewish people at the Reference desk. |
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage Template:Vital article
Jews was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. |
For prior discussions of the infobox in the top right corner of the article, please visit Talk:Jews/infobox. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jews article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Individual reassessment
GA Reassessment
- This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Jews/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
This article contains a lot of citation needed tags, and it's been like this for a while. Thus, the article fails GA criteria 2 (verifiable).--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- The issues haven't been resolved. Closing the reassessment now.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Disputed tag on periods of independence
Moving this here - is unsourced and disputed
Israelites enjoyed political independence twice in ancient history, first during the periods of the Biblical judges followed by the United Monarchy.
Was apparently discussed some back in 2015 at Talk:Jews/Archive_26#1350_to_586_BCE and may go back further.
The above is unsourced so cannot be in the article in any case. The "period of Biblical judges" is an ... interesting construct, given that the current scholarship treats the notion of "Israelite" gingerly for the pre-monarchic "tribal" period... Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- That talkpage discussion shows unanimous consensus for the text as it stood. The tag was added in this edit with the edit summary "United Monarchy's existence is disputed", and no discussion followed. In view of the consensus of all 4 editors in the discussion, I think the correct thing to do is to restore the text and remove the drive-by tagging. To which I will proceed. Debresser (talk) 08:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- In case it isn't obvious, I dispute it. It is also unsourced as I pointed out above. Please source it per BURDEN but better just take it out so we can discuss it, as this section is intended to do. Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- That was not obvious. Okay, perhaps you yourself could find a source or two for this statement? Shouldn't be that hard. Debresser (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- The content is both unsourced and dubious. Most scholarly sources say that whether such a period as the one described in Judges is dubious, and even it it existed, whether the Israelites were independent or something else is unknown. You have now twice added unsourced dubious content to Misplaced Pages. Please don't do that. The WP:BURDEN is on you to show that the mainstream view is that the Israelites were independent during "the period of the judges". If you want we can hold an RfC as to whether this unsourced and dubious claim should stay in the article; I think you have been around long enough to know how that would turn out. Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Wow you restored it again. Terrible. Please justify the restoration under the policies. Thanks. Like I said, very happy to launch RfC, where your stance will be SNOW rejected. Do we really need that? I will wait til the end of the day and if this is not removed or extremely well sourced, I will launch the RfC. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Of course I restored it. There are 4 editors who agree with this version, and you alone disagree. In any case, since El_C protected the page (IMHO a bit overly protective), I won't be able to add the source till after the protection expires, so please give me till after the Shabbat. After all, what is the hurry; this was in the article for years. Debresser (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)\
- You have time to edit war but not to comply with basic WP policies. Great. Please provide diffs of 4 editors "approving" this unsourced, highly dubious content in a putative Good Article. In the meantime I will start the complete waste of everyone's time RfC. This is one for the history books. Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Of course I restored it. There are 4 editors who agree with this version, and you alone disagree. In any case, since El_C protected the page (IMHO a bit overly protective), I won't be able to add the source till after the protection expires, so please give me till after the Shabbat. After all, what is the hurry; this was in the article for years. Debresser (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)\
- Wow you restored it again. Terrible. Please justify the restoration under the policies. Thanks. Like I said, very happy to launch RfC, where your stance will be SNOW rejected. Do we really need that? I will wait til the end of the day and if this is not removed or extremely well sourced, I will launch the RfC. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- The content is both unsourced and dubious. Most scholarly sources say that whether such a period as the one described in Judges is dubious, and even it it existed, whether the Israelites were independent or something else is unknown. You have now twice added unsourced dubious content to Misplaced Pages. Please don't do that. The WP:BURDEN is on you to show that the mainstream view is that the Israelites were independent during "the period of the judges". If you want we can hold an RfC as to whether this unsourced and dubious claim should stay in the article; I think you have been around long enough to know how that would turn out. Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- That was not obvious. Okay, perhaps you yourself could find a source or two for this statement? Shouldn't be that hard. Debresser (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- In case it isn't obvious, I dispute it. It is also unsourced as I pointed out above. Please source it per BURDEN but better just take it out so we can discuss it, as this section is intended to do. Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support removal unless someone can find a source per WP:V Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Sources
Per Jytdog's suggestion, let me ask the question here that I asked there. What would be a good source for a nation's independence? By discussing a nation as such, the independence is implied. Sources would not often stress the fact of political independece of a nation as such. Debresser (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Another question is if we need one source to mention both periods, or can they be sourced independently? I think we can source each period separately. If necessary, the sentence could be modified a bit, e.g. "The Israelites were a nation during the time of the Judges and the period of the United Kingdom." Debresser (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
By the way, loud voices notwithstanding, it is not hard to source the independence of the Israelites during the United Kingdom. The question of the accuracy of the Biblical story does not detract from the consensus of historians regarding the fact that there was a United Kingdom. That seems to be a misunderstanding by some editors. The real problem is with the period of the Judges, since sources are rather clear that there was independence, but of tribes, not as one big nation. How should the article reflect that? "Perhaps say The Israelites were independent tribes during the time of the Judges and an independent nation during the period of the United Kingdom." Debresser (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- You will not be able to find good RS making claims that the Israelites were independent during a period (the "biblical judges") that mainstream sources say probably never existed.
- The question about what kind of sources is fake in any case. You either have sources that support this statement (which you need to have per WP:BURDEN to restore it), or you don't. Bring sources now, or concede that the content comes out until there is actual consensus for it or an amended version of it. Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Could you please fix that first sentence? I don't understand what you mean. I am, however, surprised by your categorical statement ("you will not be able"). Regarding the period of the United Kingdom I have already found a good source. Also, please don't make any demands here. You are not the one to decide how things should work on Misplaced Pages. Debresser (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Contemporary historians strongly doubt whether "the period of the biblical judges" existed. Hence, you will not find RS discussing qualities of the Israelites during a probably-nonexistent period. One of the problems with the content is that it treats something that probably didn't exist as though it does. Please put up the sources you actually have to support your restoration of this content, or withdraw your demand that the content stay. If you do the latter we can have the article unlocked and I can withdraw the RfC below and we can get back to normal editing. (and please don't abuse edit notes in the future, as you did here).Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you are talking about "abuse edit notes". I do know that I have had it with you bossing people around. Please take a break from this article for 24 hours and calm down. After that, perhaps we can make some progress here.
- You post above claims that historians "strongly doubt" and then continues to say "probably didn't exist". So now you have shown your POV. Unfortunately, that POV is not supported by academic sources. Which you will see when I add them. (Not that I have a problem with discussing them beforehand, but not as long as you put out demands. Don't want to retract your futile Rfc, leave it, it will anyways be redundant as soon as I can edit the article.) Debresser (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Please read the article on Biblical judges and the sources cited there. I have written this three times now; glad you are finally actually reading what i am writing. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- The purpose of the lockdown is to reach consensus. You have just expressed your intent to continue edit warring. If you have sources for this statement, please provide them so that we can try to reach consensus. Alternatively, please propose other content.Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Don't twist my words. I said I'll provide sources. Which should resolve the issue. No edit war from my side. Unless you intend to remove the text again after the block expires, in which case you will be edit warring. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- crickets. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- Don't twist my words. I said I'll provide sources. Which should resolve the issue. No edit war from my side. Unless you intend to remove the text again after the block expires, in which case you will be edit warring. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Contemporary historians strongly doubt whether "the period of the biblical judges" existed. Hence, you will not find RS discussing qualities of the Israelites during a probably-nonexistent period. One of the problems with the content is that it treats something that probably didn't exist as though it does. Please put up the sources you actually have to support your restoration of this content, or withdraw your demand that the content stay. If you do the latter we can have the article unlocked and I can withdraw the RfC below and we can get back to normal editing. (and please don't abuse edit notes in the future, as you did here).Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Could you please fix that first sentence? I don't understand what you mean. I am, however, surprised by your categorical statement ("you will not be able"). Regarding the period of the United Kingdom I have already found a good source. Also, please don't make any demands here. You are not the one to decide how things should work on Misplaced Pages. Debresser (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I have made the change I proposed here, with sources. I shall be happy to receive constructive criticism, suggestions and improvements. Please try and find additional or better sources. Debresser (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- What change proposed here? You proposed nothing here. Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- how is this not a proposal? Debresser (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
RfC Jewish history
|
The article currently includes the following content:
Israelites enjoyed political independence twice in ancient history, first during the periods of the Biblical judges followed by the United Monarchy.
This content is unsourced and had been tagged "disputed" since February 2016 (per the version as of a few days ago which you can see here). I moved it to talk in the section above, and it was restored by an editor saying that it "has the consensus of four editors", as you can see above.
The question - should this content be in the article? Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
!votes
- no There is no basis any policy and guideline for this content to stay. The "enjoyed" is weirdly POV language. Our article on the Biblical judges says (with five sources provided):
Likewise, there is doubt among scholars that a period resembling the one described in the Book of Judges existed in ancient Israel
It also doesn't really fit in its context. And in any case the WP:BURDEN is on someone restoring unsourced content moved to talk to source it. Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC) - Close Rfc as ill-conceived This Rfc was opened hastily and unnecessarily. After the page is unblocked, I will add sources. As to the question of the Rfc itself, this text had the unanimous support of all four editors who participated in the original discussion, and I think Jytdog, whom I used to know as a good and rational editor, has lost his cool over nothing. I'd advise him to chill. Debresser (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- No If it's not well-sourced, it doesn't belong. The previous discussion on the matter was a handful of editors that wanted to say something without doing actual research. It's time to correct their error. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- No The period of Judges and the Davidic United Monarchy are at least dubious, since archaeological evidence for them is lacking. I don't doubt that the country was inhabited, but it wasn't ruled by Judges nor it was a Davidic United Monarchy, or at least the past academic consensus upon those "facts" has crumbled. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
discussion
A good question would be, what is considered a good source for a nation being independent. Sources that discuss a nation, imply by that fact alone that it is independent. Debresser (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- No, that is not a relevant question here. The only relevant question is - should content be in a Good Article that is dubious (tagged so for over a year), unsourced, and in Misplaced Pages's voice? The answer to this is a complete no brainer. For content proposed on talk page, your question can be discussed at leisure; it is a different issue. Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, calm down, will you. As I said, I will add sources after the page is unprotected. If you want to discuss this, you should have waited and discussed, instead of opening an Rfc in such a hurry. Not befitting for the experienced editor that you are. Debresser (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Not responding further - your remarks here remain offtopic. Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- The page can be unprotected early if sources are provided to everyone's satisfaction. Use the talk page for that. El_C 22:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, calm down, will you. As I said, I will add sources after the page is unprotected. If you want to discuss this, you should have waited and discussed, instead of opening an Rfc in such a hurry. Not befitting for the experienced editor that you are. Debresser (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delisted good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Ethnic groups articles
- Top-importance Ethnic groups articles
- WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
- B-Class Judaism articles
- Top-importance Judaism articles
- B-Class Jewish history-related articles
- Top-importance Jewish history-related articles
- WikiProject Jewish history articles
- B-Class Israel-related articles
- Top-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- Misplaced Pages requests for comment