Jump to content

Talk:Esther

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 91.89.11.105 (talk) at 22:32, 10 January 2023. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


Ahasuerus

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)

The identification with Xerxes I is based on the fact that the most plausible explanation of the name Ahasurus is that it is derived from Khshayarsha as is Xerxes. Xerxes II is too late therefore Xerxes I. Artaxerxes II based on the fact that the Septuagint version of Esther calls him Artaxerxes as does Josephus plus the description of the extent of his empire which doesn't fit Artaxerxes I. Kuratowski's Ghost 14:33, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Besides these most popular identifications there are several other theories including identifications with various Cyaxares, Cyrus, Camyses, Darius, Arses etc. The information from Greek historians is problematic and is by no means certain that they name the kings consistently, one historians Artaxerxes III appears to match anothers Artaxerxes II for example (can't remember the details off hand) the bottom line is that not enough information is known to be certain about which king was which in Greek sources let alone which king matches Ahasuerus. Kuratowski's Ghost 15:19, 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)

Reversing the edict

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.

Vandalims

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.

Quote box under "Esther's rhetoric in practice"?

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)

Esther and Mordecai attested

They are not historically attested in mainstream history. We do not cater to pseudohistory. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you talking to? I do not see anyone claiming that Esther is a historical figure. Dimadick (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick: I was talking about [1]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if not historical, the scroll still refers to historical figures and period. In a historical fiction book you list the underlying history as background, no?--Geshem Bracha (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:BURDEN is upon you to show that Esther and Mordecai have historicity according to WP:CHOPSY. I'm afraid that, academically speaking, their historicity is dead in the water. Does Shaye J. D. Cohen, a traditional Jew in daily life, believe that they have historicity?? Is that what he would teach at Harvard? The Great Firewall against mainstream science and mainstream history did not work for him, but morally and politically he is just an Yeshiva boy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is this debate about with respect to text in the article itself? AnonMoos (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The gist: did Esther and Mordecai really exist, or were they fictional characters? Mainstream historians chose for the later option. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have problems reading my question. WHAT ACTUAL TEXT ON THE ACTUAL ARTICLE ITSELF is involved in this dispute? AnonMoos (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I offered the diff above. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the patience to try to pick through it in that particular non-user-friendly form right now (I may or may not do so later), but thanks, I guess. The discussion in this talk page subsection would have more useful if it had been about text found on the article, not general abstract principles... AnonMoos (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, that editor claimed that it is a fact that Esther and Mordecai have historicity and edited the article in a clumsy way, probably as POV-pushing. I did not analyze everything that editor did, I just assumed from the edit summary that they are POV-pushing against WP:RS/AC. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While the text was rather long, what you removed was a theory that Esther and Amestris were the same person. Dimadick (talk) 08:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

how its written

That artical left out a lot of facts. 2600:100A:B021:8B28:7820:AB90:5762:B220 (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It leaves out a LOT of facts

This artical left out way to many facts. It seems like it could be more imformed. 2600:100A:B021:8B28:7820:AB90:5762:B220 (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible and Esther is true!

The bible has been proven by many briliant men and woman example, J Warner Wallace the movie case for christ the list could go on and on. Saying its just stories only proves that you havent researched it enough. If you want proof read Gods Crime Scene or watch Case for Christ. 2600:100A:B021:8B28:7820:AB90:5762:B220 (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE (pseudohistory). Or lying for Jesus. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Atheist forums

About Starting out a “historicity” section of a Holy Book with “it’s just fiction bro” sounds less encyclopedic and more of what you get on New Atheist forums: Tucker states that "the book is best understood as a novella". So, Tucker does not deny that it is basically fiction.

Copy/paste from novella: A novella is a narrative prose fiction whose length is shorter than that of most novels, but longer than most short stories. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: I agree, but we will have to write what the sources say as they say it. --65.94.99.123 (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to present historicity

An ISP user has left this message on my personal talk page; I'm including my response.

Dear Achar Sva, I am sure you have noticed that I am not entirely happy with the edits you make on the page for Esther. This has nothing to do with the quality of your sources, which, appear to me to be solid. It has to do with you wishing to leave out some material, or not fully include the things in. Anyways, I am committed to not removing your statements as long as they represent the sources. Would appreciate if you did the same for mine. Thanks --65.94.99.123 (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

: Thank you for your message. I suggest you get an account and a username so that communication can be easier. More to the point, discussion of article content belongs on article talk pages, so I'll transfer this there.

My overall comment is that although having proper sources is essential, it's not sufficient. The overall aim for any article is to present the broad balance of scholarly opinion, which means that the material in the article has to be appropriate. I ask the ISP to set out his/her suggestions for the shape of this section, with the proposed sources.Achar Sva (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, so I am happy to include pretty much anything you want, as long as we 1) represent sources accurately... and 2) include what else that is relevant they say. Thus, when the source says that merely "a popular theory states something about Esther and Mordechai and others have come up with other theories" we have to state it that way... I like the shape it is in right now. If there is something you do not like, let me know. I am happy to compromise as long as you are willing to @Achar Sva: 65.94.99.123 (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved a sentence, because there were two sentences next to each other talking about historicity (the moved sentence now talks about the feast of purim). Otherwise I'm happy with the section as it. Achar Sva (talk) 10:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt

@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)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: good discussion. And true. I agree with your comments. I suggest this tweak to the second sentence:
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."
That will avoid others thinking it was saying the name "Esther" was added to the Hebrew text. Also, there are so many sources that say Esther is a Persian name, but this article makes that fact sound uncertain.
Speaking of "an attempt to make the heroine more Jewish," I found this verse interesting: Esther 2:10, "Esther had not revealed her nationality and family background, because Mordecai had forbidden her to do so." She was obedient to Mordecai, and it seems that using a Hebrew name would have been a dead giveaway that her family background was Yahudi or Jewish.
Who knows... maybe it was the Greeks who omitted her Hebrew name in the Greek text which is another way to look at this. After all, the Greek Text is a translation of the Hebrew text, right? The Greek Text (Septuagint) is based upon Hebrew texts that are about 12 centuries older than the texts upon which the Hebrew text (Masoretic Text) is based.
Personal note: I just discovered this page is about the Person of Queen Esther, and there's a second page about the Book of Queen Esther. I plan to read both Pages and both Talk pages carefully (love this topic, both the Person and the Book). Plus Vashti. JD (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Jewess"

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

There is Mary the Jewess, of course. As for biblical prophetesses, it would be anachronistic to refer to Hebrew or Israelite prophets (like Deborah) as Jewish anyway. StAnselm (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mary The Jewess is not a Jewish prophet, and "the Jewess" is one of her given titles according to the overwhelming weight of scholarship. Are the other prominent Jewish figures who are referred to as "Jewess" in recent, established sources? One exception seems to make for a norm rather than breaking one.
Replying to your edit summary, is WP:EDITCON a weak argument here? I believe I am following the policy, and conforming to consensus reached himplicitly by the language used in other articles about Jewish prophets. Am I misapplying policy? I'm not super experienced so I am more than open to correction here.
If it's anachronistic, I think we should remove the term entirely and go with something like:
"Hadassah, who went by the name of Esther, is chosen to fulfill this role due to her beauty." Carlp941 (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WP:EDITCON is a weak argument if you're arguing from usage across the encyclopedia. In fact, the consensus for this article is to use the term - your proposed change was reverted. Now, that consensus can change, but it will need to be via discussion and explicit consensus. Anyway, I wasn't saying it was anachronistic for Esther - just for earlier prophetesses. StAnselm (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction - I genuinely appreciate it! I'll respond more in depth to other points in the lower thread. Carlp941 (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also see this 2009 article from Nashim: A Journal of Jewish Women's Studies & Gender Issues (!) uses the term in the abstract. StAnselm (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that article is cited by this page, but it probably should be.
Anywho, I think we should align this article with policy and use alternatives to obscene terms because the alternatives would NOT cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. For three main reasons, we should discard, from this article, the term "Jewess":
  • "Jewess" can reasonably be considered by the typical Wikipedia reader offensive.
  • The broad consensus of reliable sources is that "Jewess" is outdated and offensive
  • No understanding is lost by discarding "Jewess."
"Jewess" can reasonably be considered by the typical Wikipedia reader offensive. Multiple dictionaries consider the term dated and offensive. Wiktionary considers it "dated." Oxford calls it "usually offensive." Mirriam Webster says it is "sometimes offensive." I don't see the term "Jewess" in any recent news articles about Judaism, Jewish women, or any specific Jewish Women. To find the term, I'd probably have to read a dated piece of writing, and google it and I'd get a flag saying it is offensive.
The broad consensus of reliable sources is that "Jewess" is outdated and offensive. Most credible sources that use the term immediately describe the term as offensive.
  • Soliciting Individual Change in an Interpersonal Setting: The Case of Racially or Sexually Offensive Language in The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science refers to "Jewess" as "widely regarded as an ethnic slur"
  • A Labour politican was suspended for her use of the term, and Jewish News, who broke the story, referred to the term as a slur.
  • Additionally, see the dictionary links above.
I want to illustrate the point that "Jewess" has not been established by the majority of the current reliable and relevant sources as the preferred terminology for Esther, and alternative terminology is strongly preferred. Alternative terminology is either referring to her by name, as a woman, as a prophet, or a Jewish woman. I will use the bibliography as an unscientific test case to show that most relevant and recent sources do not use the term at all, much less specifically for referring to Esther.
Here's my tally of the sources in the bibliography using the term "Jewess" - I'll note when they refer specifically to Esther, and italicize the ones that do not refer to her, but just use the term. I'll directly quote any single instances. Lastly, I'll note the age of a source if it is relevant (ie the source is not recent). I've only read one of these sources (The Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible) in its entirety, these instances were found via "Ctrl+F".
  • Sexuality and Gender in Early Modern Europe: Institutions, Texts, Images- on page 42 - It's a quote about popular attitudes against interfaith relations, comparing Jewish women to dogs
  • A Catholic Introduction to the Bible: The Old Testament - uses it twice to refer to Esther.
  • The New Oxford Annotated Bible - not used in the actual text, but once in the index to refer to Esther
  • Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther - uses it to say Esther was not identified by her ethnicity in the Bible: "Esther, who is no less Jewish, is never identified as “the Jewess”"
  • Tobit, Judith, and Esther: Ignatius Catholic Study Bible - refers to Esther in footnotes as "a Jewess"
  • Jewish Encyclopedia - "The next day at the banquet, when Esther preferred her request, both the king and the grand vizier learned for the first time that the queen was a Jewess." from 1936.
  • Women of the Old Testament. - Esther is referred to by the term by Mordecai in quotation - not by the author directly. From 1936
  • The Religious Policy of Xerxes and the "Book of Esther" - uses the term in a general sense - "Xerxes could not marry a Jewess" From 1975.
  • The Dictionary of The Bible - From 1995. Gives the history of the name Judith
  • Veiling Esther, Unveiling Her Story: The Reception of a Biblical Book in Islamic Lands
  • Great Women of the Bible: In Art and Literature - "the story of the Jewess Esther"
  • Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther - tells the origin of the name Judith
The ones that don't use the term are the following. I'll note if the source is old.
  • "Has 'Esther' been found at Qumran? 4QProto-Esther and the 'Esther' corpus" - uses "Jewish woman" From 1996
  • Esther's Revenge at Susa: From Sennacherib to Ahasuerus - just calls her "Esther"
  • Esther before Ahasuerus - uses "Jewish heroine"
  • The Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible - primarily calls her "Esther" - calls her "heroine" once or twice
  • An Introduction to the Old Testament Historical Books. From 1993.
  • Historical Fictions and Hellenistic Jewish Identity
  • Esther and Additions to Esther - refers to her as a heroine, a Jewish girl, a Queen, etc
  • The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority - refers to her by name
  • The Oxford Bible Commentary - refers to her by name, "heroine," and "woman"
  • Jews and Anti-Judaism in Esther and the Church - refers to her mostly by name
  • Esther 6: Person - refers to her by name and "Isrealite"
  • Ancient synagogues in Bar'am and Capernaum - from 2001
  • "The Samaritan Version of the Esther Story"
  • From the Shahs to Los Angeles: Three Generations of Iranian Jewish Women between Religion and Culture - mostly referred to by name
  • "Semitic Terms for 'Myrtle': A Study in Covert" - from 1998
  • Esther, a True First Lady: A Post-Feminist Icon in a Secular World - from 2001
  • The Oxford Companion to the Bible - from 1993
  • "Sad Fate of Iran's Jews"
  • The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls
  • The Subject of Botticelli's "Derelitta" - from 1940
  • Unveiling Esther as a Pragmatic Radical Rhetoric - uses "Jew" - from 2000
Sources with no access and/or no mention of Esther
  • "Esther", LXX, EC Marsh.
  • The Ancient Languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia
  • "Les modèles Araméens du Livre d'Esther dans la Grotte 4 de Qumrān" - I don't speak French well enough to understand this.
  • Aspects of Esther: A Phenomenological Exploration of the Megillah of Esther and the Origins of Purim". Journal for the Study of the Old Testament - paywalled everywhere I checked
  • The Art of Italy in the Royal Collection
  • The Meaning of the name Esther
  • Persia and the Bible
  • "Historical Background of the Book of Esther"
  • "Notes on Esther"
A clear plurality of reliable sources refer to Esther as something other than "Jewess" - one even uses the term as an example of a slur (Sexuality and Gender in Early Modern Europe). These are sources considered credible by the consensus of this article. They use a different term and lose no understanding of her as a Jewish prophet by avoiding "Jewess." No understanding is lost by discarding "Jewess."
Given this evidence, I think we should replace "Jewess" with "Jew." I also believe "Jewish woman" would be acceptable. Removing any ethnically specific language with something like ""Hadassah, who went by the name of Esther, is chosen to fulfill this role due to her beauty." would be okay as well, it's pretty obvious Esther is Jewish when reading the article. The infobox explicitly says she is Jewish. Carlp941 (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlp941: you now present a strong argument, and I am happy to withdraw my objections to the removal. If we don't hear anything from User:Derrick Purdy (who did the initial revert), we can say the new consensus is not to have it (and change, for example, the Vashti article as well). StAnselm (talk) 05:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A typical Wikipedia storm in a teacup.Achar Sva (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
excellent! thanks for hearing me out!
Would you like to make the edits? Carlp941 (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done StAnselm (talk) 06:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

I'm following the guidelines set out by Wikipedia:Offensive material, and am basically quoting them here. We generally do cater to the average reader of Wikipedia when considering the use of offensive material.
From the guideline:
Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Carlp941 (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The term might be seen as dated and even somewhat offensive by some readers, but that is not to the level of being vulgar or obscene. The word is a perfectly acceptable word with unambiguous meaning to an averagely educated reader. I think you are misunderstanding the guidelines. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not misunderstanding the guidelines, I am following them faithfully, I quoted them directly. I'll quote them again. Here's the footnote to "typical wikipedia readers"
Here a "typical Wikipedia reader" is defined by the cultural beliefs of the majority of the website readers (not active editors) that are literate in an article's language. Clarifying this viewpoint may require a broad spectrum of input and discussion, as cultural views can differ widely.
I am not going to only consider the average educated reader because Wikipedia:NOTTEXTBOOK, and we should not assume any level of familiarity with the study of Jewish prophets. I think we should consider what academics think, and weigh it heavily, but it's not the only people we should consider. And I think you'll find that the typical expert sees it as a slur. See my post above for more details. I am also considering the viewpoint of the typical english speaker who is very unlikely to be familiar with the term. I had not heard the term until I read this article. There is no scientific polling on the term, as there is for other terms that refer to ethnic background, so I can't assume popular familiarity with it. I can only guess what an average reader might do - which is to search for them online or in a dictionary. All of them note that it is dated, offensive, and/or a slur. Slurs are obscene. If we can replace them without losing important context, we should. I have written at length about this above, so I'll avoid rehashing.
Simply put, I believe you are being far too restrictive in your definition the typical reader, and assuming a level of familiarity and education that cannot be assumed. I think I've demonstrated its offensiveness. If there is context that is lost, I am open to hearing that. I am happy to change my mind if "Jewess" adds context I am not aware of.
Anywho, this point is now moot, the article does not include any terms in the intro that specifically say she was a Jewish woman. And I am okay with that, or the inclusion of less controversial terms. I am asking you to please not reinclude the term unless a new consensus is reached. I've made more than a mountain out of this molehill. Carlp941 (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By misunderstanding I meant you are equating 'vulgar and obscene' with offensive: they are not the same thing. The word Jewess is neither vulgar nor obscene. It might offend your sensibilities but so what? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely don't mean this as an insult, but this is really splitting hairs. The policy I linked is on offensive content, and uses the words vulgar and obscene to describe offensiveness. I think it is reasonable to use the words interchangeably. Telling me, essentially, "who cares that you think of the term" - when I have presented a strong case for why it's the broad view of academia and the general public that it is offensive - and that nothing of value is lost by its omission - is disrespectful to the time I spent researching this topic. Lastly, this is now a moot point, a consensus has been reached that I am happy with, can we please not drag this out? I do not wish to argue about the term for the sake of arguing about the term. If you have a strong case for changing this consensus, please present it, I'll happily hear it out. Otherwise I will stop replying to this thread. Carlp941 (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One way the two terms differ (V+O and offensive) is that the second is open to opinion whereas the first isn't. What is offensive various hugely between people while what is obscene and vulgar far less so. Even those who use vulgar and obscene words know they are v and o.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Esther’s mother

Abihail was Esther’s mother, not father 2603:7000:2405:E4D7:DD44:75D9:B9FD:7052 (talk) 11:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not. Abihail was the father of Queen Esther and uncle of Mordecai. (Esther 2:15; Esther 9:29) Rafaelosornio (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historicity

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) 22:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Esther&oldid=1132852525"