Talk:Hebrews

Judaism Top‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancient Near East High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ethnic groups

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Jewish history Top‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palestine Mid‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hebrews article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Ethnonym

In its introduction, the article mentions that "Hebrews" may be used as an ethnonym. However, no mention is made of which people are meant, when it's used as an ethnonym. Downstrike (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently states that the term is not an ethnonym and then goes on to give it an ethnic definition ("synonymous with the Semitic-speaking Israelites"). Douglas Knight's article "Hebrews" in The The Oxford Companion to the Bible says explicitly that it is an ethnic term: "An ethnic term, it antedated the common sociopolitical names Israel or Judah in the monarchic period, as well as the more ethnoreligious appellative Jew in later times." I'd fix it myself, but I'm out of my area here. Srnec (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Defining sentence

@Walter Görlitz: Regarding this revert, I'm curious what you find worse about the new version? I was trying to avoid defining it as a term in the Hebrew Bible only, or implying this is the most important thing about it, since it's a term used in many contexts, as later sentences explain. -- Beland (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your version had a bad disambiguation link in it, pushed the pronunciation into the second paragraph and had several other problems. It was too large of a change to let stand without consensus. The current state has had discussions and edits over the past few years so I'd want acceptance before such a major modification. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how would you prefer to rearrange things so that it's not defined as a word in the Hebrew Bible? I'll note the article does not give the English pronunciation at all; the first sentence only gives the Hebrew pronunciation. It also defers the Greek spelling to the second paragraph. -- Beland (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That looks great and very details; thanks for the editorial oversight! -- Beland (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

lad to help. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Jew" derogatory in many languages.

The statement that the historical term for "Jew" is still considered derogatory in many languages is currently there in the lede (In Armenian, Italian, Modern Greek, Serbian, Russian, Romanian, and a few other modern languages, there is a pejorative connotation associated with the word corresponding to the word Jew; because of that, in each of these languages, the primary word used is that which corresponds to "Hebrew") and is well-sourced. A re-statement of this fact with a concrete example has also existed in the section "use as a synonym for "Jews"" for a long time until a user called @Walter Görlitz: removed it for being unsourced. So I added the re-statement back with two sources and a link to an entire article - a well-sourced one at that - which discusses this very issue in detail. My edit was reverted by Walter again without explanation. My hope with this message is to get Walter's explanation for removing sourced content which has existed in the article for a while, and still exists in a paraphrased form in the lede, as well as to hopefully resolve the issue and add the content, in a form that everyone is happy with, back to the article. YourAverageMax (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@YourAverageMax: It does not belong in the lede. The sources are in the body, but one is an opinion piece and the other is unclear. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me like you are questioning the premise of the article zhyd, which is taken for granted by the 200 million or so people who are familiar with the term, am I correct? If so, here are a few more sources which describe the term's negative connotations: a meta-source which includes 2 other sources in itself, a Russian online dictionary, another Russian metasource of dictionaries. Tell me how many more sources you need to concede that the information (which, I repeat, is already summarised in a more generalised form in the lede, regardless of whether you agree it should be there or not) that you keep removing is correct. YourAverageMax (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. I'm not questioning the premise of the article, I'm questioning if this belongs in the opening of the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. If you're against this sentence being in the lede then why did you remove it from where it wasn't in the lede but kept it where it was (and is)? Also, isn't it you who is supposed to be convincing me why your changes are beneficial? If you had problems with sourcing, fine, I've taken care of that. But now your motifs are unclear, and since you're the one making claims (that something which has been in the article for a long time should be removed), the burden of proof is on you to explain them. YourAverageMax (talk) 12:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The expanded use is in the "use as synonym for" section. What's to be confused about that? If you want to remove all of that section's content from the lede, that might be too much. The lede is to be a summary of the article's contents. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the lede is meant to be a summary of the article's contents. So what sense does it make to remove a factual statement from the body of the article but leave it there in the lede? What you have achieved with that edit is left the lede with new information which isn't present anywhere else in the article.

Also, I don't want to remove anything. I simply want to keep the article the same way as it always was. It's you who is proposing to make changes - which is also the reason why I'm confused as to why I'm the one who has to convince you to restore the article back to normal. Do you agree with me that it makes more sense for me to revert your changes for now and see whether to re-implement them as a result of this discussion? YourAverageMax (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, quotes use the double tick, or " symbol, not two individual ticks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I'd used the " symbol, I'd get quadruple ticks, which imo looks confusing. But if you don't, fine, I'll use them from now on. YourAverageMax (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:QUOTATIONS, MOS:ITALQUOTE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arabs are Hebrews as descendants of Eber

Hebrew comes from the name Eber, a patriarch of whom all Hebrews are descended from. He had two sons, Peleg, who gave rise to the Israelites and Ishmaelites (modern day Adnanite Arabs), and Joktan (modern day Qahtanite Arabs) therefore all Arabs are apparently Hebrew.. Ismail7Hussein (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]