Talk:Israelites

In my attempt to improve this article to get it back to being neutral, how about we change this sentence to "Modern Levantine populations who claim Israelite origins/descent" rather than we ASSUME using WP:SYNTH and WP:OR that Levantine groups share any actual "ancestry" with characters from the Bible? We need actual WP:RS that confirms Israelites existed genetically, and that modern day groups share said ancestry in a concrete highly academic manner, preferably secular and scientific due to WP:BIAS. Thoughts? I think this works well with the other subheader about non-Levantine populations claiming descent for continuity purposes. JJNito197 (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

What does it mean to "exist genetically"? Since Israelites existed, presumably they had genetics just like any other people group, generally resembling the people around them. I believe the article already discusses Levantine genetic ancestry-which is the closest we’re likely to get. It’s not like human ethnic groups each have unique genetics.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

We cannot use WP:SYNTH. Just because people share Levantine genetic ancestry, doesn't mean they share Israelite ancestry (which has not been ascertained academically). If this were the case and if we are going down this route, what's to say we don't put Lebanese, Jordanians, Syrians, Palestinian people, or even Alawites there instead of solely Jews and Samaritans, because they have "Levantine genetics" and their affinity and ancestry is stronger to the region than other groups. What's your case for not putting them there? Because the sources that are currently there are not strong nor academic enough to make the claim that only Jews and Samaritans are genetic heirs, worded so concrete with 'Israelite ancestry'. Is the reason this is worded this way because those groups 'claim' it to be the case? That's exactly my reasoning for the change. JJNito197 (talk) 12:51, 3 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Should the subheader change from "Modern Levantine groups with Israelite ancestry" to "Modern Levantine populations who claim Israelite ancestry"? This works with the proceeding subheader regarding non-Levantine groups that claim Israelite origins. Or alternatively remove the subheaders completely. JJNito197 (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes. It is WP:SYNTH to link modern day groups genetically with characters from the Bible. Using Canaanite DNA which pretty much every group in the Levant has does not mean it comes from the Israelites specifically. Otherwise we might as well put every group in the Levant there. This is why using "claim" is better. JJNito197 (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

No genetic evidence has been found linking Israelites to any modern-day ethnic group. No "discovered" Israelite has been found linking to any modern-day group genetically. Using WP:SYNTH to link Canaanite DNA to Israelites is a "claim", not reality. JJNito197 (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

No genetic evidence has been found linking Israelites to any modern-day ethnic group. Every human being is genetically linked to every other human being.

This fits in with the idea that most contemporary Jews are descended from ancient Hebrew and Israelite residents of the Levant -- The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people - Nature Polygnotus (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

NO; BAD RFC This comes on the heels of a basically identical RFC. This is frivolous. It is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Is there a procedure in place for frivolous RFCs or does this mean we have to rehash this again? Slava570 (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I think we should just not allow RfCs in CTOP areas. Or at least allow people to opt out. Polygnotus (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Oppose WP:CLAIM says To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying disregard for evidence. Also I would need reliable sources for the claim that Modern Levantine populations claim Israelite origins/descent, it is simply what they are. If they all came from Belgium that would be more remarkable. Polygnotus (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

So you agree that we should put every group in the Levant in there anyway? JJNito197 (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The RfC is about the wording of a header, not about men made of straw. You don't need thousands of ancient skeletons. The DNA of living people is evidence of their ancestors. That's the entire point of genetics. Polygnotus (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

It's unsourced and WP SYNTH. We know the Irish decend from Celts due to skeletons and genetic studies. We don't know modern-day groups descend from Israelites due to a lack of skeletons and no genetic studies, that is my point. JJNito197 (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

No one dug up thousands of Celtic skeletons to "prove" that Irish people descend from them. We know because the DNA of living people is evidence of their ancestry. There is no serious scientist in the world who agrees with you. Polygnotus (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

WP:IDONTGETIT. This is grounded in science, not a lack thereof. JJNito197 (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I know you don't get it. We've established that already. I got Nature on my side, what do you have? Polygnotus (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I think you are confusing Israelites and Canaanites, these are separate conceptions; Canaanites existed hence the genetics studies and skeletons. JJNito197 (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@JJNito197 Please answer the question. Where are the reliable sources that support your claims? Please post their URLs and the specific quotes. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

It's about the subheader in question. Sorry, I think we are fundementally opposed to each other on this matter. This is why I reached out to the science community on Wikipedia. JJNito197 (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I think that what you mean is that you can't specifically isolate Israelite ancestry distinct from other people in that region, right? That may be true, but that works for any ancient group. There is no uniquely Celtic DNA. Not in Celts nor in Irish people. But that doesn't mean that Irish people didn't descend from Celts. Genetics isn't about finding something unique that no neighbour shares. If we follow your logic, then we can't prove that any group descended from any other group. According to scientists there is a "genetic continuity" between modern Jews and ancient people from the Levantine area. If you disagree with that you'd have to argue with them, not me. We report genome-wide data from 33 Ashkenazi Jews (AJ), dated to the 14th century, obtained following a salvage excavation at the medieval Jewish cemetery of Erfurt, Germany. The Erfurt individuals are genetically similar to modern AJ...[1] Polygnotus (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't disagree? But the link is through the Canaanites not Israelites. This is my point. No Israelite has been tested genetically to make links with modern-day populations, but Canaanites have. The majority of the population of the region descends from Canaanites genetically, and some groups "claim" that to be Israelite DNA. That is my reason for the change. You don't honestly believe that the genetics these groups have comes from the 12 Tribes of Israel do you? They are not even mentioned extra-biblically, and according to biblical studies, were scattered from the region anyway. Thanks JJNito197 (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

If you are saying that there is nothing distinctly Israelite about their genetics, and its the same as Canaanite, then Canaanite DNA is Israelite DNA. Obviously. So that undermines your point.

This is the third and last time I ask you: Where are the reliable sources that support your claims? Please post their URLs and the specific quotes.

If your response does not contain quotes from and links to reliable sources then its time to move on. Polygnotus (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Acquaint yourself with WP:SYNTH, just because groups have Levantine DNA, it doesn't mean it's synonymous with the 12 Tribes of Israel. Can you provide me with an actual cite that links Israelites with modern-day groups genetically? Because that Nature article nor its citation does not suffice on its own. It proves absolutely nothing what you are claiming, especially not a concrete genetic link with Israelites. Just vaguely "the Levant" which is ambiguous at the very least. I think we are at an impasse here. JJNito197 (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Comment @JJNito197 should not be changing the RFC after the voting has already started. The addition makes it not neutral and an even worse RFC. Please move the non-neutral addition to another location. Slava570 (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Bad rfc would support a WP:CBAN of JJN from this article and talk page Mikewem (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Looks like JJN is making an attempt to outpace their 36 comments they bludgeoned the other rfc with. My recommendation is to not engage (barring the presentation of any new sources by JJN) Mikewem (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm sorry Mikewem, I think we are fundementally opposed to each other on this matter. This is why I reached out to the science community on Wikipedia. JJNito197 (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I agree. It's best not to engage with JJNito. The nearly identical RFC on the Ashkenazi Jews page ended about a week ago, and anyone who enjoys torture can see an estimated five or six rounds of this exact same conversation between him and myself and between him and numerous other editors. JJNito needs to have the last word, so it's best to just let him have it. Slava570 (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Comment I think we should analyse the citations used for the subheader and how WP:SYNTH is being used to to make the claim on the subheader "Modern Levantine groups with Israelite ancestry" without reliable sources in the body of the text.

1 Rabbi Yisrael Meir haKohen (Chofetz Chayim), The Concise Book of Mitzvoth, p. xxxv. This version of the list was prepared in 1968. (Not a RS, a religious position that doesn't even mention genetics WP:NPOV)

2 The Ramban's addition to the Rambam's Sefer HaMitzvot (Not a RS, a religious position that doesn't even mention genetics WP:NPOV)

3 [2] (Not a RS, a website that doesn't even mention genetics)

4 Gil, Moshe. [1983] 1997. A History of Palestine, 634–1099. Cambridge University Press. pp. 222–3: "David Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Ben-Zvi claimed that the population at the time of the Arab conquest was mainly Christian, of Jewish origins, which underwent conversion to avoid a tax burden, basing their argument on 'the fact that at the time of the Arab conquest, the population of Palestine was mainly Christian and that during the Crusaders' conquest some four hundred years later, it was mainly Muslim. As neither the Byzantines nor the Muslims carried out any large-scale population resettlement projects, the Christians were the offspring of the Jewish and Samaritan farmers who converted to Christianity in the Byzantine period; while the Muslim fellaheen in Palestine in modern times are descendants of those Christians who were the descendants of Jews, and had turned to Islam before the Crusaders' conquest." (WP:SYNTH, the cite doesn't talk about Palestinians being descendants of Israelites, just that they are descendants of Jews)

5 [3] (Not a RS, doesn't link Palestinains with Israelites) JJNito197 (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Note: I believe that Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words) applies to this RFC. @JJNito197, I think you may be very close to that limit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you for the heads up. JJNito197 (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

See above for WP:SYNTH JJNito197 (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

No, Bad RFC per Slava570, Polygnotus, and Mikewem PaladinDenn (talk) 09:30, 18 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

• Bad RFC I think both leads are misleading and also guides the reader into a certain point of view by the phrasing of both statements. I agree with Slava570, Polygnotus, and Mikewem. Agnieszka653 (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

  I agree with Slava. Engaging with JJN is something for bots or Don Quijote to try. Activism is a different genre, which doesn't relent and doesn't accept logical arguments. Cut your losses. Arminden (talk) 08:47, 4 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

  There's nothing logical claiming to descend genetically to the 12 tribes of Israel friend. I hope you are not casting aspersions about me either, I'm saying this as a scientist. Address the sources and why it's WP synth. JJNito197 (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

  I'll go against my own advise and reply, for once. Who's talking about the 12 tribes of Israel or even about genetics, for Zeus' sake? The Israelites are an archaeological and historical fact. Jews and Samaritans can prove cultural and religious continuity going back to the two Israelite kingdoms. That's more than enough. Genetics are a superfluous new element, brought in because of doubters like you, and it took the discussion onto a side track. But even there there've been some results supporting the concept, which can be taken as a bonus, not more than that. But that's so well known, well accepted and mainstream that questioning it is beyond fringe, therefore back to what I said: why waste one's breath? Cheers, Arminden (talk) 13:34, 4 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

  "Jews and Samaritans can prove cultural and religious continuity" I agree somewhat but this is not anything to do with the RFC anyway. The concern is when the article took on a fringe genetic twang with substandard WP SYNTH sources being used as "proof" and presented it to "doubters" like me, pretending it was not academically contested (see Historicity of the Bible), and thought I wouldn't notice or have the gall to question it. Sorry to rain on your parade - It's categorically WP SYNTH with those sources present. Wikipedia doesn't care what is true, it cares what can be sourced from RS without SYNTH being used. JJNito197 (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

  @JJNito197 By my count you are now at 1020 words not including quotes (although that wouldn't change the count). Please do not reply in this RFC anymore. Slava570 (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

  Yep. And it's about semantics. I'm not sure JJN would ever let go, but since he insists that he agrees "somewhat" to the facts, but not to the refs, did you check if he's right on that? Because there are plenty of good sources for everything he's trying to shoot down. Arminden (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

  A sentence of something to the effect of: "The consensus of modern scholarship in archeology and genetics is that Jews and Samaritans are descended from Israelites." should be added to the section. JJN has objected to each presented source which concerns the modern scholarship, so I haven’t added the sentence while this rfc is ongoing. My understanding is that JJN has agreed not to revert the addition of the sentence and sources, so I guess we can start workshopping it. Mikewem (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

  But I'm not going to contest when this RFC closes; I have not seen a response from any uninvolved editor with scientific proclivities as to who this rfc was originally directed, in my attempt to circumvent people's belief systems on this topic. Everybody who voted is involved previously, see below, see above, and see the other rfc. At least I leave this subject matter knowing I exposed this breach of WP SYNTH in Wikipedia to every uninvolved editor. JJNito197 (talk) 10:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

  see the other rfc. At least you've now admitted that this RFC is connected to the previous one. It was disruptive to start another RFC a week after the other one finished. This RFC should never have been started to begin with because we have already received an answer from a large number of editors. This is getting old, and you should not even be here. Slava570 (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

  Completely different RFC and it's about the subheader. And I received no answers from scientists hence the same people popping up in this thread aswell as the other RFC. Why should I not be here? Do you know what WP SYNTH is? JJNito197 (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

  Do you know what WP SYNTH is? how many times are you going to ask me the same thing? You have received numerous responses from scientists in the form of sources. Slava570 (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

  Read WP:SYNTH and see the sources I provided, or rather the sources you are defending currently, which is acting in contravention of this fundemental tenet. I'm right dude. Burden is yours to disprove this isn't WP SYNTH, not me. Bring better sources to the table. The uninitiated can see this, patently. JJNito197 (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

A WP:1AM dispute resulted in a full page tag being added on the grounds that the sub-section title Modern Levantine groups with Israelite ancestry violates neutrality because of the WP:FRINGE view that there were no Israelites and therefore Israelite ancestry is impossible. This has been discussed to death in multiple threads on this page and in a related rfc and in a related ani report (that ended as unresolved due to auto-archival)

Should we remove the npov tag? An overwhelming amount of text has already been written on the question, I would think responses of Yes or No will be sufficient to establish consensus. Mikewem (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes we should remove the tag. Mikewem (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes we should remove the tag. Slava570 (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

No the issue is not that Israelites "existed" it's whether modern-day groups share genetic ancestry with them. JJNito197 (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes. Reliable sources support removing the tag.—-Ermenrich (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes: the tag should be removed. I agree that the reliable sources support the section as it stands. Teflawn (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, significant reliable sources have supported the contested claim and no reliable source has been provided that support the opposing point of view. PaladinDenn (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Done I have removed the tag. You can probably interpret that as a Yes if you'd like. Polygnotus (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Sorry I looked. (1) Tags that relate to sections and not to the article as a whole should be placed on the disputed section and not article-wide. (2) The section in question is atrociously written but its problems are not related to the existence of Israelites. The first sentence says "have historically been regarded" without saying who so regarded them. Since the three sources are Jewish religious sources and a Samaritan website, a correct statement of what the sources support is that Jews and Samaritans have historically regarded themselves as (etc). That's true. If you want to support a wider belief, find some sources for it. Shouldn't be hard. The second sentence has "it is held" with again no indication of who holds it. Instead of arguing over crappy wording, why not write something that meets Wikipedia standards? At the moment, the article would improve if that section was deleted. Zero ^talk 15:03, 4 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for this. Yes, it seems to me that the ultimate goal of this wider discussion is to rewrite the section with less (or maybe even no) equivocation and with modern sourcing. We have more than plenty of sources to do that from across different articles. We have a recent closed rfc that supports saying Jews descend from Israelites in wikivoice.

And yet my understanding is that JJN’s bad rfc currently ties our hands from making those improvements to the section here until the rfc is closed. I also have every reason to believe that JJN will speedily revert any unequivocated claims added to that section, as evidenced by their continued bludgeoning of their bad rfc.

I don’t think we could implement these improvements without JJN first getting a cban from this page. Mikewem (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I can’t imagine that outright deletion is on the table. It may be. But I’m not seeing an appetite for that. Mikewem (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Bad rfc, you mean what zero said doesn't align with my reasoning? Zero summed up my issues resolutely. If it wasn't for me bringing up the subheader, and the sources being used, you wouldn't have even considered the issue or agreed it needed to change; is it your position to maintain to status quo with no improvement? See above. You need to really read WP:AGF, and no, an open RFC doesn't mean your hands are tied. JJNito197 (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't understand this sentence: "These tribes consolidated into a nation and were enslaved in Egypt before being liberated by Moses" Mevsherd (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The Nation state page clarifies A nation, sometimes used in the sense of a common ethnicity.... Israelites and Jews are often referred to as a people, a nation, or an ethnicity. Slava570 (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Based on the title of this section, I think the OP may be misreading the text to imply that "consolidated into a nation" also occurred in Egypt? Though that does not really follow from the grammar of the sentence.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The full text definitely implies that. "Jacob and his twelve sons migrated to Egypt, where each son became the eponymous progenitor of an Israelite tribe. These tribes consolidated into a nation and were enslaved in Egypt before..." Mevsherd (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The term and usage is correct. ‘Nation’ is one of the words used by scholarly sources to describe the result of a consolidation of tribes into a people.

For quick, on-wiki examples of this concept of a nation (in the sense of a people) within a nation (in the sense of a state), maybe First Nations in Canada could be illustrative. Or on the other side of the border you could consider one of the many US indigenous nations, maybe Choctaw Nation (disambiguation) as an arbitrary example. That page says Choctaw Nation may also refer to: Choctaw people, an indigenous ethnic group of the Southeastern Woodlands of North America. If neither of those work, we could likely find examples of the use of the term in other continents.

It’s also possible that none of these examples of this use of the word ‘nation’ will resonate with you, which is a perfectly fair point of view to hold. But the definition does resonate with scholars, and Wikipedia articles are written based on scholarly views and scholarly language. Mikewem (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

And I don’t feel it needs clarification but others may: this sentence in the lead explicitly deals with the biblical narrative regarding where the consolidation happened. The archeological and genetic records generally show that the consolidation happened in Canaan rather than Egypt. Mikewem (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I think it's confusing. Just because "nation," like most words, has more than one meaning doesn't mean the writing is clear. You wouldn't write: "English colonists in the New World formed a nation in the mid-16th century, and formed a nation in the 1776." That would confuse people. Since this is about what the Tanakh says, can you provide the passage? Or source? Mevsherd (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

What if the word nation in the sentence was linked to the Wikipedia article on ethnicity? Do you think that would help? The ethnicity page also says Ethnicity is sometimes used interchangeably with nation A wikilink to nation might also work. Slava570 (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Whoever wrote this likely had Gen 46:3 in mind. Or some scholarly source that discusses the verse in mind. It says something to the effect of Fear not to go down to Egypt, for I will make you there into a great nation. I think wikilinking to nation is reasonable and helpful. And preferable to adding a Bible cite. Mikewem (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

That quote is a promise by God, and precedes the move to Egypt. It's not a description of something the Israelites did. There doesn't appear to be a source. Mevsherd (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Sounds like it might be that none of this resonates with you, which is a completely fair, completely fine, and completely valid point of view to hold. I’ll add the nation link to help other readers. Mikewem (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The claim is unsourced. There is no source that says that, including the Tanakh. Unsourced and misleading claims should be removed. Mevsherd (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

In the Biblical narrative isn't a promise from God by definition something that is fulfilled in the real world? So I don't think that's misleading. Unsourced maybe, but not misleading. This paragraph is only relating the Biblical story, not saying this was the historical truth. Slava570 (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

It's about Bible translations, theology vs history, the modern concepts of nation and nation state, so about mixing apples with pears. You'll never solve it. The pro arguments are good on the theoretical level, but "people" is the more common term and less problematic. Arminden (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

God's promises are definitely *not* something that are fulfilled by definition. That's basically the story.... Anyway, a proposed edit:

"God promised that he would make Israel a great nation in Egypt, so Israel went to Egypt and they were enslaved before being liberated by Moses..." Mevsherd (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The whole story of the Bible is God NOT keeping his promises , you say? I guess this ends any discussion here as not worth the trouble. Says a non-believer with some grasp of religion, theology. Arminden (talk) 07:50, 2 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm not an expert in the Bible. It was something that I thought was true, but maybe I misspoke. Either way, I think the proposed sentence is not well written. I think it would be better to look at sources first before introducing any changes. Slava570 (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

If you're going to revert an edit based on "no consensus," you need to participate in the conversation. The claim is unsourced. It is confusing and seemingly not true. There is no source in the article for it, and the one source suggested is Gen 46:3 (by you), which does not say what the article says. And, we probably shouldn't be inserting our own interpretations of the Tanakh (Bible) anyway. Mevsherd (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I did realize as soon as I hit enter that I should have included a link to this thread in my edit summary, I’m sorry for neglecting to do that. I’m seeing 5 editors on this thread, and so far, only one has supported deleting the phrase entirely, which means the change (at this moment) has no consensus. Mikewem (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Can anyone provide a source for the statement? Or even a reason to think it is true, such as a verse that says that? Mevsherd (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

There’s a large amount of quotes we could take from Prophets that say something to the effect of ‘the words of God are true’. For thousands of years, and continuing through the modern era, the overwhelming consensus of scholars from across different religions and cultures have looked to phrases like these to support the idea that within the framework of the literary narrative, the things God says are true in the context of the narrative.

Either way, does a past tense presentation from later in the narrative do anything for you?

Deut 4:34 Or has any deity ventured to go and take one nation from the midst of another by prodigious acts, by signs and portents, by war, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm and awesome power, as the ETERNAL your God did for you in Egypt before your very eyes? Mikewem (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Please propose a change to the article with a source. Thank you. Mevsherd (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I don’t see that any change is needed for this sentence. It might make sense to add the phrase to the body so that it’s not only appearing in the lead. The citation in the body for this stuff is the entire book of Genesis. Do you think we need to add a citation to Deut 4:34 there? Mikewem (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Please address the presented reasons that a change is needed, the objections to the article, etc. They've been presented several times, as recently as yesterday. Mevsherd (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Asked and answered. I don’t see a need for more back and forth on this. I will add the phrase and supporting verse to the body. Mikewem (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello Ermenrich, Slava570, and Arminden. In your views, is there consensus for these repeated deletions of summaries of Bible text? And in your views, is the phrase unsourced? Lastly, does the summary I wrote (After a famine in Canaan, the tribes went to Egypt where they consolidated into a nation and were enslaved by the Egyptians.) contain personal interpretation? Mikewem (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Go ahead, but I'd slso much prefer "people". Nation has too many meanings, and the main European, post-French Revolution one doesn't fit the bill at all. Arminden (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I think the edits are perfectly understandable. I support keeping them, including the word nation, which in my opinion is not confusing in this context. I prefer nation over people. The Jews and Israelites are called a people as well as a nation, but in this context, I think "consolidated into a nation" works well. "Consolidated into a people" seems clunky in its own way. Slava570 (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I prefer the people wording myself- it’s more understandable in contemporary English.—-Ermenrich (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks everyone for your responses. Based on Mevsherd’s repeated removals, I can’t tell if the dispute is solely about "nation vs people", it might be about something else. Either way, it’s at RSN now. Mikewem (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm not sure about "tribes grew from a family." I think of family as being much smaller than a tribe, let alone tribes in the plural. I prefer "consolidated into a nation" but if we add in family, can it say extended family? Slava570 (talk) 11:36, 11 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I changed "tribes" to "they". Mikewem (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm basically ok with it... Slava570 (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Please don't make changes in the middle of discussions at the RSN. And, no, that change solves no problems. As the title of this section indicates, the problem is the word "nation". And, the Jewish Study Bible seems an unlikely reliable source. Are you really going to force yet another RSN debate? What explains the insistence on the word "nation, when neither it nor a synonym is used in the text? And why summarize, when the summary is the same length as what is being summarized? A point of summarizing is to condense.

Proposal: In Egypt, the Israelites "multiplied and increased very greatly, so that the land was filled with them" and were enslaved.

Also, please stop misrepresenting. straw-mannirg, etc. It's hard to assume good faith when people do that. Mevsherd (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

My understanding is that the discussion at RSN was about the word nation. No changes were made to that. Why would these new changes force another discussion? I don't understand what's so controversial about them...

Your proposal is not well written: "multiplied and increased very greatly" is poor English. I don't want to make you feel bad, but there's no way around it. Slava570 (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

It's a quote from the Tanakh. It is what the text actually says. Notice, it says nothing about forming a nation. Mevsherd (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

OK gotcha, sorry about that... I don't have a problem with the word nation. If you hover over the word, it gives readers more info. Slava570 (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Folks, what's going on here? Nation? Families? Why not clan or bunch? We're not called to rewrite & update an outdated religious book, but to summarise it, using its own wording. Really. C'mon. Arminden (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

"Nation" is the word that both the primary source and the secondary source use, so that’s what we should go with for now, per our sourcing policies and per the discussion at RSN. In this case, using a word other than nation would mean rewriting the text of the religious book, and I’m not seeing a need to do that. Nation and Nation state are different terms with different meanings. Each term appears in its correct context and is linked in this article. If nothing else, I think it creates a good opportunity for interested readers to learn about the pre-Napoleonic sense of the word and to learn that the two terms are not perfect synonyms.

"Family" is the term the secondary source uses, so that’s what I went with. I think I remember also seeing the term "clan" used somewhere in the secondary source, though not as prominently, and I’m not able to re-locate it at the moment. I think family has a clearer meaning than clan, so I opted to go with family.

"Bunch" does not appear in either the primary or secondary source, so it has no basis for use. Mikewem (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

This is basically a test of Wikipedia's ability to withstand a barrage of misinformation and gaming.

Nobody has given a primary source that uses "nation," except in quotes of Moses and God. The reference in the primary source appears to be "multiplied and increased very greatly, so that the land was filled with them"..." That is not accurately summarized as growing into a nation. The secondary source is an interpretation. Interpretations are not facts.

I've made several proposals..... Mevsherd (talk) 05:21, 12 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Mikewem, for primary source, I take it you are pointing to Genesis 46:3? If so, for the aid of Mevsherd, here is the Bible gateway for the verse, so you can flick through different versions to see how they translate it. Nation seems to be the most common, with people also employed by some. Ideally, to avoid these sorts of contestations, we should be used secondary sources discussing the texts. I would suggest Mevsherd that you read WP:PRIMARY. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Now, if we also then look at the "The Jewish Study Bible: Featuring The Jewish Publication Society TANAKH Translation", as was used for a citation around Exodus 1:7, for Genesis 46:3 they have the following:

• (Translated Torah text) And He said, "I am God, the God of your father. Fear not to go down to Egypt, for I will make you there into a great nation.
• (Editors' commentary) 46.1-7: Jacob sets out for Egypt. With Jacob's departure for Egypt, the tale of Joseph rejoins the patriarchal story from which it separated when Joseph was sold into slavery in ch 37· At the same time, these verses look forward to the next seemingly inseparable challenge to the House of Israel, the affliction in Egypt. 2-4: God's only speech in chs 37-50 reiterates the promise to Abraham and Isaac (cf. 12.2-3; 26.2-5), assuring Jacob that his departure from the promised land will not void God's commitment to his forebears. I Myself will also bring you back (v. 4) looks forward to the exodus and underscores the fact that, as the Passover Haggadah puts it, "Our father Jacob did not come down to strike roots in Egypt but only to sojourn there." joseph's hand shall close your eyes (v. 4) means that Joseph will lovingly attend to his father's needs at the moment of the latter's death.

As mentioned here, the translation of the Torah that the book uses is the New Jewish Publication Society of America Tanakh, which was developed by an "interdenominational" team of scholars and rabbis, with the goal of it to adhere in translation as close as possible to the Masoretic Hebrew texts. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Now that looks like very sound RS.

"Family" - think of the numbers: Numbers 1:46 speaks of 603,550 men above 20 of age at Mount Sinai, so by including women, children, and the Levites one reaches into the low millions. Nice family.

"Bunch": no humour allowed here?

OK, so pre-Napoleonic nation it is. But I'd still prefer "one people", which creates no aspersions and is good old English open to every non-native speaker. Arminden (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

That is God speaking. God is not a reliable source. It is not even God saying what happened; it is God promising. God's promises are not the same as what happens (ask Job). That is what led to the RSN.

No primary source has been provided in which the narrator says "nation." The only primary sources have been quotes of Moses and God.

The secondary source is providing an interpretation. Interpretations are not facts. Mevsherd (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Wikipedia is principally based on secondary sources, including interpretations, so that's fair game. See here: WP:SECONDARY Slava570 (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Interpretations are not to be stated as facts. See: "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources..."

You can't insert an interpretation/worldview/etc. from the Jewish Study Bible as a fact in "Wikipedia's voice" just because it is from a secondary source.

But, you knew that. This is a game. Mevsherd (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

"fair game" is just a figure of speech. There's probably a fine line between interpretation and opinion, but if you want to challenge an interpretation by a secondary source, you would need another secondary source that contradicts the claim. Slava570 (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Wait, your comments earlier indicated you had a problem with sources supporting the characterisation of a family growing into a nation, because they were not primary sources, but now you are arguing that primary sources can't be used as they are 'by God' who is not a reliable source. Sorry but I am confused now. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Are you asking for a primary source, that is not the text of the bible, for the biblical narrative as to the origin of Israelites? And we can't use modern academia as these are interpretations of the biblical narrative? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I made precisely this point at RSN, which has kind of a shitshow of a discussion anyway. Asking any question about biblical anything over there attracts a bunch of types who want its use banned from Wikipedia for any purpose, arguing from a variety of perspectives that I can't exactly call "neutral." Mervsherd, on the other hand, has been so inconsistent and mischaracterized the discussion in so many ways that I find it hard to WP:AFG - he may in fact be WP:NOTHERE.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

At RSN, they promised to "needlessly protract" this. What a great use of editor time. Mikewem (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Arminden, the sources for the narrative say that at some point between the time of the nuclear family of Jacob’s children (plus their households) and the time of enslavement (before the time of liberation and before the time of Sinai), the Israelites grew from a family into a nation. If our summary of the narrative does not properly convey that timeline, then the summary should be made more clear.

As far as the non-native speakers, it has a Latin root, natio (birth, race), so arguably, any readers who speak languages with Latin influence have a pretty good shot at naturally understanding our meaning (fun fact of the day: both "native" and "nature" have the same Latin root as "nation")

Humor is allowed, but only if collegial eye rolls in response are allowed. Mikewem (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

This has been and continues to be frustrating. Thank you Cdjp1 for taking some of the flak. I’m convinced that my initial guess was right and that none of this really resonates with Mevsherd, which is totally fine and valid, but which does not excuse standing in the way of improvements and does not excuse repeating the same questions and objections for 2 weeks.

I think Deut 4:34 is an equally strong primary verse to look at for support of our summary. I’ll add Bernard M. Levinson’s summary of Deuteronomy on page 356, where the word nation appears another 4 times, to the citation. Mikewem (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I really have no care as to the result (whether it is included, or what form that takes), but more sources, especially RS, is always something to support. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I think it’s fair to conclude that this dispute is most likely about more than just one single word. I’m not married to the word, but it’s the word that RS use, which means it’s good enough for me. Mikewem (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]