This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Esther article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 730 days |
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
well, the Xerxes article mentions the connection, the Artaxerxes one doesn't. What is the basis for either identification? The Herodotus reference of course relies on the identification with Xerxes. dab (ᛏ) 07:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the POV comments that Esther's family didn't avail themselves of the opportunity to return under Cyrus' decree. Nothing like that is stated in the Book of Esther. Perhaps they were prevented from returning against their will. It is not even agreed that the events happen after the decree. If one interpets the statement about exile under Nebuchadnezzar as referring to Mordecai himself not to his ancestor Kish (as many do) then Mordercai is a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar. If that is the case then Ahasuerus is most likely identical to the Ahasuerus mentioned in Tobit as an ally of Nebuchanezzar. This Ahasuerus is also called Achiachar generally considered indentical to Cyaxares (Akhuwakhshtra), placing the events long before Cyrus decree before the conquest of Babylon by the Persians in fact. Some will point to the description of Ahasuerus ruling from Cush to India which seems to contradict the idea that this occurs while the Babylonian empire still existed, but it is not certain which Cush this refers to - Cush in Sudan/Ethiopia or Cush in Iran. Even if Sudan is intended this could merely be a biased view of history in which Nebuchnezzar is being deliberately snubbed and portrayed as a vassal of his ally Ahasuerus. Kuratowski's Ghost 02:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The antisemitic edict was never reversed per-se, as occurs with Daniel and praying to false Gods elsewhere in the Bible, Persian royal decrees were irreversible. Ahasuares simply issued a contrary, but not exactly opposite, decree. I have editted the article to note this.
There is a lot of vandalims. I have gone back about 15 edits and still haven't found where the last non-vandalism edit starts. Could an admin help out.
Does anyone know why the box is there about the paragraph on Christine de Pizan and how to get rid of it?... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tayloraapplegate ( talk • contribs)
@ Jdphiladelphia: Pretty much everything we "know" that it happened in the Ancient world is owing to doubt. Of course, those scribes died and can no longer be asked what was their intention. So, in that respect, we will never know for sure. What WP:SCHOLARSHIP can say, based upon empirical evidence, is that it looks very much like an intentional change to the text. And that full professor tried to interpret what might have been such intention. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
The Hebrew name Hadassah is absent from the Greek versions, and was probably added to the Hebrew text in the 2nd century CE or later by a Jewish editor in an attempt to make the heroine more Jewish."
There was pushback on my removal of the term "Jewess" so I'm placing my edit to align with WP:EDITCON and asking for discussion before we start an edit war. If an edit war(I see multiple reversions without some kind of *new* consensus) starts I will ask for administrative intervention.
Here's my case for removal of the term and replacement with "Jew, "Jewish prophet," or "Jewish woman"
WP:EDITCON - upon a cursory glance, ever other female prophet in Judaism is referred to as a Jewish prophet, a prophet, or a figure. Never "Jewess" - is there a strong reason to change this? I believe not.
Further, the term "Jewess" redirects to "Jews" and the article does not mention the term. In fact, I'm hard pressed to find the term "Jewess" outside of articles about art or literature. I am not finding it in many articles about Judaism or Jewish figures. I am not finding it in the articles, especially the introduction section, of any contemporary Jewish figures.
My interpretation of this is an implicit consensus that the term "Jewess" is to be avoided and "Jew" or "Jewish person/man/woman" are strongly preferred. I see no reason to change that.
WP:RNPOV - there is not a readon to use an outdated word that is widely viewed as offensive. Sure, that alone is not enough to merit removal, but it does make the term "Jewess" a Word To Watch.
From the policy: "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and relevant sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings."
If we can agree that use of the term "Jewess" has "been established by the majority of the current reliable and relevant sources" as useful terminology for referring specifically to female Jewish prophets as "Jewess" despite its percieved offensiveness, I'm more than happy to develop a consensus in line with that.
MOS:IDENTITY - we should try to be using the terms in line with the majority of credible sources, not how Jewish people may refer to each other. That term is, to me, quite obviously "Jew." There are some sources that use the term *internally* - a Jewish writer, writing about Judaism and referring to Esther, a Jewish woman, as a "Jewess" - but the majority of sources are using the term "prophet", "Jew", or "Jewish queen"
I think we should align ourselves with the scholarly consensus, even if it seems implicit. Carlp941 ( talk) 21:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
"If we can agree that use of the term "Jewess" has "been established by the majority of the current reliable and relevant sources" as useful terminology for referring specifically to female Jewish prophets as "Jewess" despite its percieved offensiveness, I'm more than happy to develop a consensus in line with that."
This paragraph may be confusing, rewording here: "If we can agree that use of the term "Jewess" has "been established by the majority of the current reliable and relevant sources" as useful terminology for referring specifically to female Jewish prophets despite the terms percieved offensiveness, I'm more than happy to develop a consensus in line with that. " Carlp941 ( talk) 21:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
"Jewess" can reasonably be considered by the typical Wikipedia reader offensive. That might be true but we do not cater for the average reader. We cater for the assumed reader, who is of no less than reasonably well educated. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 06:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Abihail was Esther’s mother, not father 2603:7000:2405:E4D7:DD44:75D9:B9FD:7052 ( talk) 11:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
To the assertions in “Historicity” and in the note c: “Persian kings did not marry outside of seven Persian noble families, making it unlikely that there was a Jewish queen Esther“ and „Xerxes could not have wed a Jewess because this was contrary to the practices of Persian monarchs who married only into one of the seven leading Persian families.“ - - - Claudius Aelianus reports: Aspasia, a Greek girl from Phocaea, became the wife of the Persian Prince Cyrus, son of Darius, and after his death she became the first of the wifes of his brother, the Persian King Artaxerxes II. 91.89.11.105 ( talk) 22:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
It is not logically acceptable to claim without investigation that the Book of Esther is a "novella rather than history." There is no proof of this, or proof that it is not true. SO rather than claiming it as an absolute fact, it should have been presented as one belief as opposed to various others. For instance, "The Book of Esther is BELIEVED BY SOME to be more of a novella than history. THE REASONS FOR THIS VIEWPOINT ARE AS FOLLOWS:..." To claim outright that it isn't history is offensive and illogical. You need to examine other perspectives, as well. There are plenty of logical explanations for why it WOULD be history, despite APPARENT contradictions. There is always a way to represent BOTH sides of the argument. 73.1.239.131 ( talk) 18:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Esther article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 730 days |
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
well, the Xerxes article mentions the connection, the Artaxerxes one doesn't. What is the basis for either identification? The Herodotus reference of course relies on the identification with Xerxes. dab (ᛏ) 07:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the POV comments that Esther's family didn't avail themselves of the opportunity to return under Cyrus' decree. Nothing like that is stated in the Book of Esther. Perhaps they were prevented from returning against their will. It is not even agreed that the events happen after the decree. If one interpets the statement about exile under Nebuchadnezzar as referring to Mordecai himself not to his ancestor Kish (as many do) then Mordercai is a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar. If that is the case then Ahasuerus is most likely identical to the Ahasuerus mentioned in Tobit as an ally of Nebuchanezzar. This Ahasuerus is also called Achiachar generally considered indentical to Cyaxares (Akhuwakhshtra), placing the events long before Cyrus decree before the conquest of Babylon by the Persians in fact. Some will point to the description of Ahasuerus ruling from Cush to India which seems to contradict the idea that this occurs while the Babylonian empire still existed, but it is not certain which Cush this refers to - Cush in Sudan/Ethiopia or Cush in Iran. Even if Sudan is intended this could merely be a biased view of history in which Nebuchnezzar is being deliberately snubbed and portrayed as a vassal of his ally Ahasuerus. Kuratowski's Ghost 02:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The antisemitic edict was never reversed per-se, as occurs with Daniel and praying to false Gods elsewhere in the Bible, Persian royal decrees were irreversible. Ahasuares simply issued a contrary, but not exactly opposite, decree. I have editted the article to note this.
There is a lot of vandalims. I have gone back about 15 edits and still haven't found where the last non-vandalism edit starts. Could an admin help out.
Does anyone know why the box is there about the paragraph on Christine de Pizan and how to get rid of it?... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tayloraapplegate ( talk • contribs)
@ Jdphiladelphia: Pretty much everything we "know" that it happened in the Ancient world is owing to doubt. Of course, those scribes died and can no longer be asked what was their intention. So, in that respect, we will never know for sure. What WP:SCHOLARSHIP can say, based upon empirical evidence, is that it looks very much like an intentional change to the text. And that full professor tried to interpret what might have been such intention. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
The Hebrew name Hadassah is absent from the Greek versions, and was probably added to the Hebrew text in the 2nd century CE or later by a Jewish editor in an attempt to make the heroine more Jewish."
There was pushback on my removal of the term "Jewess" so I'm placing my edit to align with WP:EDITCON and asking for discussion before we start an edit war. If an edit war(I see multiple reversions without some kind of *new* consensus) starts I will ask for administrative intervention.
Here's my case for removal of the term and replacement with "Jew, "Jewish prophet," or "Jewish woman"
WP:EDITCON - upon a cursory glance, ever other female prophet in Judaism is referred to as a Jewish prophet, a prophet, or a figure. Never "Jewess" - is there a strong reason to change this? I believe not.
Further, the term "Jewess" redirects to "Jews" and the article does not mention the term. In fact, I'm hard pressed to find the term "Jewess" outside of articles about art or literature. I am not finding it in many articles about Judaism or Jewish figures. I am not finding it in the articles, especially the introduction section, of any contemporary Jewish figures.
My interpretation of this is an implicit consensus that the term "Jewess" is to be avoided and "Jew" or "Jewish person/man/woman" are strongly preferred. I see no reason to change that.
WP:RNPOV - there is not a readon to use an outdated word that is widely viewed as offensive. Sure, that alone is not enough to merit removal, but it does make the term "Jewess" a Word To Watch.
From the policy: "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and relevant sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings."
If we can agree that use of the term "Jewess" has "been established by the majority of the current reliable and relevant sources" as useful terminology for referring specifically to female Jewish prophets as "Jewess" despite its percieved offensiveness, I'm more than happy to develop a consensus in line with that.
MOS:IDENTITY - we should try to be using the terms in line with the majority of credible sources, not how Jewish people may refer to each other. That term is, to me, quite obviously "Jew." There are some sources that use the term *internally* - a Jewish writer, writing about Judaism and referring to Esther, a Jewish woman, as a "Jewess" - but the majority of sources are using the term "prophet", "Jew", or "Jewish queen"
I think we should align ourselves with the scholarly consensus, even if it seems implicit. Carlp941 ( talk) 21:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
"If we can agree that use of the term "Jewess" has "been established by the majority of the current reliable and relevant sources" as useful terminology for referring specifically to female Jewish prophets as "Jewess" despite its percieved offensiveness, I'm more than happy to develop a consensus in line with that."
This paragraph may be confusing, rewording here: "If we can agree that use of the term "Jewess" has "been established by the majority of the current reliable and relevant sources" as useful terminology for referring specifically to female Jewish prophets despite the terms percieved offensiveness, I'm more than happy to develop a consensus in line with that. " Carlp941 ( talk) 21:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
"Jewess" can reasonably be considered by the typical Wikipedia reader offensive. That might be true but we do not cater for the average reader. We cater for the assumed reader, who is of no less than reasonably well educated. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 06:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Abihail was Esther’s mother, not father 2603:7000:2405:E4D7:DD44:75D9:B9FD:7052 ( talk) 11:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
To the assertions in “Historicity” and in the note c: “Persian kings did not marry outside of seven Persian noble families, making it unlikely that there was a Jewish queen Esther“ and „Xerxes could not have wed a Jewess because this was contrary to the practices of Persian monarchs who married only into one of the seven leading Persian families.“ - - - Claudius Aelianus reports: Aspasia, a Greek girl from Phocaea, became the wife of the Persian Prince Cyrus, son of Darius, and after his death she became the first of the wifes of his brother, the Persian King Artaxerxes II. 91.89.11.105 ( talk) 22:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
It is not logically acceptable to claim without investigation that the Book of Esther is a "novella rather than history." There is no proof of this, or proof that it is not true. SO rather than claiming it as an absolute fact, it should have been presented as one belief as opposed to various others. For instance, "The Book of Esther is BELIEVED BY SOME to be more of a novella than history. THE REASONS FOR THIS VIEWPOINT ARE AS FOLLOWS:..." To claim outright that it isn't history is offensive and illogical. You need to examine other perspectives, as well. There are plenty of logical explanations for why it WOULD be history, despite APPARENT contradictions. There is always a way to represent BOTH sides of the argument. 73.1.239.131 ( talk) 18:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)