Talk:Israelites

Modern Levantine groups with Israelite ancestry

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)

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)

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)

RFC

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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... Polygnotus (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  "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)

  @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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

Either too high prose, or plain gibberish

"In addition, various Y haplogroups associated with the Cohanim, which were of ancient Near Eastern origin, were due to non-biological Israelite descendants of Cohanim adopting the Cohanim identity. They might've also arose due to sporadic non-paternity events, especially with Judeans or foreigners like Babylonians, Greco-Romans etc."

Either I'm truly stupid, or this is incomprehensible nonsense. Concise is good, but not at the expense of becoming gibberish. Arminden (talk) 06:05, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't really get it either. People who were not descendants of the Kohen (Aaronite priests) adopted the cultural identity of the Kohen for various reasons. So far, so good. Somewhat similar to the Rajputisation in Northern India, where farmers and marginalized people adopted the cultural identity of the Rajputs for reasons of social prestige. The ancestry of these converted/assimilated Kohens is less easy to guess, because it was not recorded. It reminds me of a joke about cultural assimilation from a Lucky Luke story. It depicted proud Mexicans and Native Americans who were unaware that they had recent French/Parisian ancestry, because it did not fit with the identities and social status which their parents adopted in the Wild West. (The parents adopted the identity of whatever group was dominant in a certain area). Dimadick (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Is “non-paternity event” a term of art, or is it the gibberish the phrase seems to me?—-Ermenrich (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I just learned about this term for the first time. It's now wiki-linked, but I agree the paragraph should be made clearer for the average reader.... Slava570 (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Aren't you a bit too old to be asking us what a non-paternity event and being a cuckold means? It typically means that someone's wife had a lover who was the biological father to the legally-acknowledged children of her husband. In an old Greek joke about bastards of this type: "Who was the father of the sons of Zebedee (the apostles James and John)? That is known only to Zebedee's wife." Dimadick (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

The words “non-paternity event” do not self-evidently refer to cuckolding without explanation (I assume because it’s supposed to be a neutral scientific term).—-Ermenrich (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

When working on genealogy and related texts, you typically only find non-paternity events when discussing the disputed paternity of several historical figures.:

• For example, Queen Victoria's legal father was Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn, but her reputed biological father was John Conroy (the reputed lover of Victoria's mother, and the domineering father-figure who Victoria hated with a passion in her early life). See the article on the Legitimacy of Queen Victoria.
• In the case of Alfonso XII of Spain, his legal father was the famously effeminate and reputedly homosexual Francisco de Asís, Duke of Cádiz. The identity of his biological father is disputed between a number of his mother's reputed lovers, with the leading candidates being Captain Enrique Puigmoltó y Mayans and Colonel Federico Puig Romero.
• On a less famous case from Austria-Hungary, we have Alois Hitler. His stepfather and legal father was Johann Georg Hiedler. The identity of his biological father is disputed between several candidates: Johann Georg Hiedler, Johann Nepomuk Hiedler, and Leopold Frankenberger. Dimadick (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

The author of the study does use the term “non-paternity event” (without defining it). The author describes the possible cause of these speculated NPEs as intermarriage or conversion. These causes do not seem to meet the common definition of NPE, because in cases of marriage or intentional coupling, paternity is firmly established, and matches what is expected, and there is no question about why the kid has the genetics they have. If a kid has a Babylonian father, then it should not be a mystery to anyone why the kid has only Babylonian genes on the Y chromosome.

• My suggestion would be to remove this term from our article. Or, if there is some reason it cannot be removed, then we should add an RS’s definition of NPE at the end of this paragraph for WP:BALANCE.

Mikewem (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Fables and reality

I am in the dark when it comes to Near East history and ethnohistory vis-a-vis Wikipedia articles usage of sources. But I am not entirely in the dark with research and fields like history and archeology themself (they are very much related to my profession); I am still very much capable of recognizing abuse of academic research, primarily history and archeology, for the ideological and political purposes. Long story short, I see lots of academic sources used in these articles on topic of Israel history, broadly construed, with lots of suspicious names used as RS and as if they are part of mainstream consensus, and lots of others missing - what interests me is how you, editors contributing to the scope, deal with the problem, do you even distinguished between "schools" of thought, methodology and provenience in Near Eastern scholarship; maybe, best way to say it is, basically, do you acknowledge weaponization of archaeology and history? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:36, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

It’s not at all clear what you’re talking about. Do you have something concrete you’d like improved about the article?—Ermenrich (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Concrete? Yes. I am asking how editors here distinguish between distinct academic paradigms in ancient Near Eastern scholarship when evaluating Reliable Sources. Specifically, how does this article (and other related ones) ensure neutrality when balancing: a) scholars working within the tradition of Biblical archaeology/Maximalism, whose historical syntheses are thoroughly criticized by secular academics for embedding theological and/or nationalistic (with far more significant repercussions) assumptions into data interpretation; and b) critical, secular historians and anthropologists (such as the Copenhagen School or minimalist researchers like Philip R. Davies and Niels Peter Lemche, to mention just few) who treat the biblical narrative purely as later ideological literature and rely strictly on Levantine material culture (of course without rreading into it explanations and narratives that fits particular ideology). Right now, a look at the references shows they are overwhelmingly dominated by biblical studies scholars, while critical secular historiography is pushed aside. Unless it's actually intended, this forces even the 'Historical timeline' to act as a mere echo of the 'Biblical timeline.' If the article treats biblically-guided scholarship as the 'mainstream consensus' while marginalizing critical, secular historiography and archeology, it creates a systemic bias. Before I propose specific textual edits, I am asking what criteria or consensus do editors here use to evaluate the provenance, methodology, and potential ideological biases of these conflicting academic schools? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 05:14, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I think you need to be more concrete without throwing around labels. If there’s a balance problem: where and what? I doubt asking for a theory of the article will get anyone anywhere.—-Ermenrich (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

A quick pass over the text of the Historical timeline section appears to me to show neither maximalism nor minimalism being prominently featured anywhere. Which is exactly what our WP:FRINGE guideline calls for. Mikewem (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Does that apply to the 'Biblical timeline' section as well? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:24, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

If you're implying that there's something wrong with that section, again: what?--Ermenrich (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Biblical timeline sections are meant to convey a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) summary of the pertinent content of the Bible to the reader.

This can be extremely difficult to achieve.

Best practice is to not exclusively source these summaries to Bible verses. Though, many sources are written from the perspective of a specific religion or specific interpretation, so their summaries of the events of the text may very well be more about an interpretation than a literary overview of what the plot points are.

Any specific interpretations do not go in biblical timeline or biblical account sections. Those go in section with names like “In Judaism” or “In Christianity”. Mikewem (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Revised opening paragraph for clarity and accuracy. Please update.

The ancient Israelites, also known as the Children of Israel, were a Semitic-speaking people who lived in Canaan during the Iron Age. They are associated with the Hebrews and spoke Biblical Hebrew, an archaic form of the Hebrew language. According to the Bible, the Israelites were comprised of twelve tribes who founded the United Kingdom of Israel, which became the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Their modern descendants are the Jews and Samaritans. -> 04:29, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

References