Talk:Amalek

message: I added: No reference to Amalek or the Amalekites has ever been found outside Biblical or Biblical-based sources; it is therefore unclear whether such a nation ever really existed. to the lead section. I was looking for exactly that information and had to read almost the entire article before I finally stumbled upon it in the section called "Alternative theories of origins", with which this information is not connected at all. This obviously is important information that shouldn't be buried somewhere halfway down the page. Why was this edit reverted without even a reason for the revert given? This article treats Biblical myths as if they were true when there is no evidence at all to support that. 81.206.240.225 (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the possibility that the whole narrative around Amelelites is sheer invention and there were never such people at all is insufficiently prominent. I put the sole reference to it in some years ago and it was in its own section marked "Historicity" but someone moved it to "Alternative theories of origin" where it doesn't belong, you are right. I will put it back.Smeat75 (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. 81.206.240.225 (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

text:  I still think there should be some kind of mention of this in the lead section, but putting in this extra heading is a big improvement for the article. 81.206.240.225 (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was my edit reverted? 

message: Why is this article almost exclusively pro-Judeo-Christian viewpoint? The Muslims and Arabs have had a rich history telling of the Amalekite people and their origins from ʿImliq bin Laudh bin Iram bin Sam bin Nuh. Palmyrans, the Pharaohs of Egypt even the fair-skinned Berbers of North Africa who were kicked out of Kanaan by Joshua, as well as the former inhabitants of Yathrib, were very well known to have Amalekite origin. One could even argue that the reason for "Edom" being labeled as the procreator of the Amalekite race could be due to a typo between the daleth (ד) in the name of "Edom" (אדם) and the resh (ר) in "Aram" (ארם), but that is beside the point. Point being, this article is completely biased and needs changing or perhaps someone could simply create a new article for the Islamic viewpoint.--MuslimKnight786 (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I even tried to edit nothing changed… 24.48.97.170 (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblically one-sidedness? 

message: Would you agree that the current lede is a gross understatement, inconsistent with the Torah and other sources and inconsistent with the way the rest of this article reads:    
:Amalek ... was a nation described in the Hebrew Bible as a staunch enemy of the Israelites.
What can we say in the lede that seems more representative of the Torah?  
:Amalek ... was a nation that Yahweh ordered destroyed utterly, though a few were spared, angering Yahweh.
??? I've changed the text to this.  Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  lede far tamer than the text and the Torah 

message: Do the Amalekites still exist today, or have any descendants today, or are they all gone now? Splashen (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: According to some Israeli politicians and rabbis the Palestinians are Amaleks. // Liftarn (talk) 07:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see reply and rationale for edits within "Religious and modern scholarly discussion" below. Let me know if you'd like to discuss. Thanks! Mstraney (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do They still exist today? 

message: Can we have a section on modern references to Amalek 86.5.202.27 (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern references 

message: A video link was removed in good faith by [] to a speech by Netenyahu talking about the current war in Gaza in the context of the Amelkites.  I don't particularly like the source for this (Middle East Eye) which seems to have links with the Muslim Brotherhood (and so Hamas) but there's no doubt that he said this (although the relevance may be debated)
I think these comments should be in the article as they are relevant and timely.  
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/11/benjamin-netanyahu-amalek-israel-palestine-gaza-saul-samuel-old-testament/
https://www.salon.com/2023/11/13/bibi-netanyahus-bible-lessons-how-hes-selling-gaza-to-jewish-and-christian-far-right/
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/07/1211133201/netanyahus-references-to-violent-biblical-passages-raise-alarm-among-critics
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/netanyahu-cites-amalek-theory-to-justify-gaza-killings/articleshow/104802548.cms?from=mdr
I thought I'd start conversation on here rather than get in edit wars on a contentious subject.
09:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll reinsert the Youtube clip as a first step.  Any concerns (I can't find a better source, but others are welcome to try). Please let me know any concerns. JASpencer (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Netenyahu 

message: I believe adding the video of IDF soldiers chanting, first posted here:
https://twitter.com/YinonMagal/status/1732652279461757102
Should be added to the section of the arab-israeli conflict, both due to its relevancy by showing how Amalek is understood by the soldiers in the current war (made clear by the last 2 verses of the chant showing all Gazans are meant by Amalek), and due to its inclusion as evidence in the case South Africa v. Israel before the ICJ, making it notable. Should it be added in the Netanyahu section given the connection made between these two instances in the south african case, or should it be added as a seperate paragraph given the time between them? 134.3.159.138 (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence cited in the case South Africa v. Israel of IDF soldiers chants referencing Amalek. 

message: On what basis is there no genealogical relationship between the Amalekites and the Arabs? On what basis are Islamic and Arab sources labeled as claims, while the fundamentally distorted book on the Jewish religion is merely taken? The article is highly politicized😂. 91.186.228.246 (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  wow 

message: According to Arab historian ibn Khaldoun, the Amaleks are an ancient Arabian tribe who lived in Arabia, in Hejaz precisely before being expelled by the Arabs of Yemen to the levant.  He points out that historian al tabari confused them with the Canaanites. Yet the canaanites are Hamitic people unlike the amaleks who were Semitic. He also recalls Roman historian Orisius affiliating the Amaleks to essau, but ibn khaldoun rejected this claim, yet Orisius makes no distinction between the Amaleks and the Phoenicians who settled in Carthage and ibn khaldoun seems to confirm this. On this matter, Ibn khaldoun affiliated the berbers to the Hamitic Canaanites while the phoenians are Semitic amalek Arabs. 
hopefully this would help.  Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Few useful informations