Talk:Hebrews

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

"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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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