Talk:Jebusites

message: Is anyone aware of any extrabiblical ancient sources which refer to Jebusites or to a people having a similar name? --Briangotts (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources 

message: Jebusite
Using the term "conquest" makes a judgment that King David actually "conquered" Jerusalem, rather than co-opting its management, as the Jebusite Hypothesis (in this Article) suggests. For that reason, "occupation" is a more neutral word and seems preferable, although perhaps still other words might be better (and if so, please suggest). 
The lack of any information (even Biblical) asserting massacre of the inhabitants suggests peaceful occupation (or even making an offer that the management couldn't refuse--such as steak dinners forever for Zadoq/Araunah and his descendants in exchange for nominal substitution of "Yahweh" for "El Elyon" as alternative to massacre). Therefore, I propose to change "conquest" to "occupation" in a week or so if no contrary consensus emerges.
PraeceptorIP (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:NOR - our analysis is immaterial, we go by what reliable sources say. Dougweller (talk) 09:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conquest vs. Occupation Controversy 

message: There are many, and they should be added to this article, which currently only discusses the biblical vision of the Jebusites. Archaeology has provided much information, some of which upholds and others which contradict the biblical narrative. I'll work on adding some of these to the article. Tiamuttalk 18:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: First rate. I will look forward to seeing your additions soon. Please include the wall and also the two towers near Gihon. PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources beyond the biblical 

message: Tanakh: this term, which represents a complete unit of its own in Judaism, cannot possibly be used to refer to a part of the "Bible", which is essentially a Christian term, so it's better to stick to "Old Testament".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamour (talk • contribs) 18:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ethnic origin 

message: I turned up this: 
http://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/public/mgsa-l/2006-March/006774.html
which claims that the article, "The Origin of Palestinians and Their Genetic Relatedness With Other Mediterranean Populations" was retracted by the journal that originally published it. This article is used as the sole reference for a claim about genetic studies in the "Modern Usage" section. 
I don't have access to this journal, so I can't verify either that it was the original publisher, or that it issued a retraction. And perhaps there are other genetic studies that have reached similar conclusions. But if this is really the only source, and it was retracted, then I'm thinking that, "Also modern genetic studies shows Palestinians are direct descendants of Canaanite people" should be removed from the article. 
Can anyone help?
Grease Bandit (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetic Studies

message: The lines at the end of this subsection are politically loaded and cite highly controversial references:
First of all, it is not in Wikipedias place to state a subjective analysis of the motivation of the Palestinian Authorities for teaching what they teach; for all we know, they actually do believe it's their history. The references given to back this claim are known ideological sources, and they do not provide evidence for any of the claims, only opinions. They ridicule Arafat for first claiming to be a Canaanite, and then claiming to be a Jebusite which is supposed to be a contradiction. It is not, Jebusites are considered a subgroup of Canaanites. Furthermore, how exactly would one use archeological evidence to link Palestinians to the Jebusites? There's cultural, linguistic, genetic and historical evidence in the Wikipedia article on Palestinian people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people) linking them to ancient inhabitants (without naming Jebusites in particular). Simply stating that there is no archaeological evidence, adds nothing but a biased point of view.
Because of this, the following lines should be removed from the Modern Use section. Or at the very least, they should be balanced with some actual evidence.
"The claim is used as an attempt to prove a connection between Palestinians and Jerusalem that predates the Muslim conquest. There is, however, no archaeological evidence linking the Arab-Palestinians of today with the Jebusites of the Canaanite period.ref name=MEQ-PJE>David Wenkel,". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.39.125.35 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 24 October 2010
:Looks like a reliable source to me as Wenkel is writing in a peer reviewed journal. If you want to balance it, go ahead, but note that Wenkel also cites Eric Cline, another reliable source. Maybe attribute it, but it shouldn't be removed. Dougweller (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  David Wenkel, with his "Masters degree in Christian thought" is of course not a reliable source.  And MEQ did not even claim peer-review back when Wenkel's article was published, so that argument doesn't apply.  Just to be clear, since there isn't any evidence that Jebusites actually existed, there isn't any evidence that any group today is descended from them either.  (There is much stronger evidence that Palestinians and Jews share lots of their ancestry.) It is just a shame to see this material presented with such weak sources in such a biased fashion. Zerotalk 12:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased opinions stated as facts 

message: See WP:NORN#Edit says that source doesn't directly mention subject of article. Dougweller (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: Just found the text below in the article. Dougweller (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving a question from the article to the talk page 

message: The Jebusites. They're found. They're found. Here is your proof: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130710114327.htm.
Anonymous71.164.209.8 (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't say that. It says "Because the inscription is not in Hebrew, it is likely to have been written by one of the non-Israeli residents of Jerusalem, perhaps Jebusites, who were part of the city population in the time of Kings David and Solomon." In other words, pure speculation based on no real evidence. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Like many other articles, they just used the biblical name for the people supposed living around then. This adds nothing to the historical evidence of Jebusites. Zerotalk 01:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Jebusites are found. 

message: Cyberbot II has detected links on Jebusite which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global
If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.bible-history.com/map-israel-joshua/map-israel-joshua_the_jebusites_encyclopedia.html
*:Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on [[Jebusite]] 

message: Cyberbot II has detected links on Jebusite which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global
If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.bible-history.com/map-israel-joshua/map-israel-joshua_the_jebusites_encyclopedia.html
*:Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on [[Jebusite]] 

message: יבוסי given as a plural (and obviously not in construct-state)? Yeesh. Amateurish way to start.
120.148.217.45 (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2015
:Meh. The article doesn't say it's plural grammatically, and the Bible uses the grammatically singular Yevusi all the time to refer to the Jebusites as a group. It's either always or almost always just Yevusi in the Bible, not Yevusim, even though it generally refers to more than one person. Can you think of a counter-example? Alephb (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic Hebrew issue 

message: At the present end of the article is this statement: "Archaeological excavation and records that are conclusively dated from the 'post-exilic' period consistently undermine the historical record of the Old Testament," citing the minimalist Silberman. This is not balanced. Others, such as William G. Dever, take a different position. (See, e.g., the foregoing William G. Dever WP article.) This statement is biased and should be deleted or replaced with a balanced or NPOV statement. PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of balance, NPOV 

message: A well meaning but uninformed unregistered user changed the BCE dates citations to BC. Scholarly use for Ancient Near East uniformly designates these dates before the common era as BCE, not BC. Thank you. PraeceptorIP (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: PraeceptorIP, thanks for your concern. In this case, there is a Wikipedia policy that covers the issue, known as MOS:ERA. To summarize: editors are free to start an article using either BC/AD or BCE/CE conventions. Once an article uses a convention, it cannot be changed without prior discussion and consensus on the talk page. In this case, that means that this article must be left in BCE form. In other articles, the policy will require sticking with BC/AD. I'd personally rather that we had a single standard across the board at Wikipedia, but those are the rules. Alephb (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC/BCE 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jebusite. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221223704/http://www.biblicalwritings.com/shalem-deity-the-anchor-bible-dictionary/ to http://www.biblicalwritings.com/shalem-deity-the-anchor-bible-dictionary/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified