Talk:Esther/Archive 1

Archive 1

Hadashatu and other nonsense

Hadassah might look similar to Hadashatu to an English speaker but its actually completely different in Hebrew, Hadashatu is cognate of Hebrew Chadash (chet-dalet-shin) and means "new" not bride nor is it a standard title of Ishtar. In semitic languages it doesn't look anything like Hadassah (he-dalet-samech) meaning myrtle. Ishtar is not the Aramaic for Esther. There are no known Elamite deities named Humman, Uman or whataver or Mashti. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps Isaac Asimov let me down? How about "Ishtar and Marduk were also cousins, as Esther and Mordecai are", is that wrong? What do you have to say about this: "Humban was an Elamite god, the principal god of Elam and was known there as 'The Master of Heaven.' His first wife was the Elamite goddess Pinikir, but he later married Kiririsha, a goddess from Liyan, an Elamite port on the Lower Sea (Persian/Arabian Gulf). They had a son named Hutran." [1] Pfalstad 01:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

p347 of the Archeology of Elam by D. T. Potts has a table which lists Humban as an Elamite god, attested in various places.. Go on amazon [2] and search inside the book for "humban pantheon". Kiririsha is mentioned too but I don't know if/where she is attested. Pfalstad 02:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The name Humban is a reading that has been dismissed as far as I know as has Mashti.

Explicitly the reading is thought to be Huban, with a connection to Babylonian Humbaba being purely conjectural. Kuratowski's Ghost 11:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Moreover the H in Huban is hard, Khuban is the standard transliteration. Khumban- occurs as an element in the royal name Khumbanigash there is also an element Khumma- in royal names. Their meaning can only be conjectured at. Haman in Hebrew has a soft h trying to get Haman out of these is silly. Kuratowski's Ghost 13:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Some of the info added is simply irrelavant to the article. All the Babylonian gods and godesses are part of a close family tree making many of the some sort of cousin of each other, something which is never emphasized explicitly. Kuratowski's Ghost 11:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The fact that Herodotus fails to mention Esther and Mordecai is irrelevant there is a lot that he doesn't mention. Kuratowski's Ghost 11:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, given that Marduka was mentioned as a Persian official in an inscription, odds are it's based on a true event.. It might be a good idea to add to the historicity section to more completely address this theory. There's a lot of stuff in the talk, but I think it's worth moving it to the article, given how common this theory is on the web and Isaac Asimov and such. Maybe also merge the historicity info in Esther and Book of Esther. Pfalstad 13:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the info should be merged into the section in Book of Esther. Mention also needs to be made of Dr Chaim Cheifetz's proposal that Omanes and Anadatos mentioned by Strabo are references to Haman and Hammedatha. Strabo describes them as deities worshipped with Anahita but no such deities are known in Persian sources, Cheifetz proposes that they are Haman and Hammedatha being worshipped as martyrs. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Clarifying name

`Ashtoreth is the presumed cross-language Hebrew/Canaanite COGNATE correspondence to Ishtar, based on common Proto-Semitic linguistic heritage, while Esther could very well be a simple direct BORROWING from late Akkadian into Hebrew (after the `Ayin sound had disappeared from the Akkadian languages, etc.). Similarly, "Foot" is the native English cognate to the Greek word pous/pod-, while "pod-", as in "podiatrist", is a direct borrowing of this Greek cognate form into English. So there's no real conflict between `Ashtoreth and Esther. AnonMoos 19:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

See article doublet (linguistics) ... AnonMoos

This is "original research" and also flawed - there is no reason for the "sh" of Ishtar to turn into an "s" in a supposed Hebrew borrowing. Kuratowski's Ghost 03:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude, it is NOT "original research"!!!! For someone who knows actually something about some subjects and is not a troll, you are certainly incredibly annoying and difficult to work with. A random source that I happen to have in front of me right now is the "Dictionary of the Bible" by John L. McKenzie, and there are plenty more out there to be found without too much difficulty. Furthermore, there is plenty of reason for Akkadian Š to become Hebrew S, because the sound-values of the conventional cuneiform transcriptions were determined basically by correlating Proto-Semitic reconstructed sounds with cross-linguistic transcriptions of the second millennium B.C., and are by no means necessarily accurate phonetic literal IPA transcriptions (especially for outlying dialects, or those not of the second millennium B.C.). For example, Hebrew Sargon (with samekh) corresponds to the name which in conventional scholarly cuneiform transcription appears as Šarru-kin. AnonMoos 04:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll grant you Assyrian Akkadian (supposed) "sh" becoming "s" in Hebrew. Give a reference in the article and it will be acceptable. Kuratowski's Ghost 04:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted section "Talmud"

I deleted a section headed "Talmud" that contained only this string of words: "The talmud a religious text of Judaism states that where 600,000 female prophets and 600,000 male prophets yet it states only 7 of female prophet's names are known she is included in that group of 7." Since it is beyond my comprehension, I have moved it here for one more learned in kabbalistic lore to translate. ➥the Epopt 03:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

La Historia de Colombia

This article has a main heading titled "La Historia de Colombia". Doesn't this mean, "The History of Colombia" when translated from Spanish into English? I'm sure this must be a vandalism that slipped through the cracks, but I'm not sure what this should be reverted to. Could someone please fix this, or explain it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Catto (talk • contribs) 18:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually the Bible never says those exact words, but it does say that Ahasuerus was drunk and wished for Vashti to Display her Beauty I.e. yes you know what!!

Disambiguation

The disambiguation consists of two lines (I added the second one because I feel that it is very likely that users looking for the biblical book will use "Esther" as a search term), but due to the way that the template for general disambiguation is set up, I cannot figure out how to make the two lines within the disambiguation line up, and I think it looks somewhat odd as is. Can somebody help me out? CopaceticThought (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The {} sign/s

One or more of the sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning have been removed pending further discussion. (The category Category:Bible stories is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories) Thank you. IZAK 08:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If we remove the NPOV notice, can we also take the 'marginal' out of Some marginal modern scholars? What is a 'marginal scholar'? Most scholars will not take the biblical account for historical fact. dab 10:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Only true of you exclude all Bible believing Christian scholars and all Jewish scholars other than the minority Humanistic Jews. :P Kuratowski's Ghost 00:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Bible believing Christian scholars", meaning, literally believing in the literal letter? How can you be a scholar if there is no room for debate? More to the point, how many of them are there? I imagine they cluster in the American midwest, but worldwide, they must be pretty rare. dab (ᛏ) 07:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well only the fundamentalists believe that every single word is divinely inspired truth (and fundamentalists are not a negligible group). Many will recognize that the story is "dramatized" but there is a big difference bewteen recognizing dramatization and adhering to 19th century crank arguments. Kuratowski's Ghost 15:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is amazing that Greek stories can be recorded as fact (these people believed in Gods and Goddesses who were mythical)so why would their stories not be mythical also?207.119.91.193 20:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that everyone is expected to know that they are myths. However some stories are attested to be true. Such as the story of ancient Tyre which has long since been Proven true. Arlen22 (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Arlen22

"The severity of the verdict was meant to provide an example to all women in the empire concerning obediance and submission "

This was sourced to Esther 1:17. In the New American Standard Bible this reads ""For the queen's conduct will become known to all the women causing them to look with contempt on their husbands by saying, 'King Ahasuerus commanded Queen Vashti to be brought in to his presence, but she did not come.'" I've reverted it to the earlier version of the sentence with the original request for citation, as I don't see how this citation can be used as a reference for the sentence. Not only does it not say what the sentence says, we probably need a WP:RS for this. Dougweller (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
She was deposed to prevent that from happening ""For the queen's conduct will become known to all the women causing them to look with contempt on their husbands by saying, 'King Ahasuerus commanded Queen Vashti to be brought in to his presence, but she did not come.'"Arlen22 (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Arlen22
Should we include verses 16-21? Arlen22 (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Arlen22

No. 'Was meant' is an interpretation. We need a source for the interpretation. Dougweller (talk) 07:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, if you mean replace the sentence with a paraphrase of those verses, and cite the verses, that would probably work. Dougweller (talk) 07:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

ESTHER IS REAL

Stop smoking what ever you are smoking!!!!! The bible has never been proven wrong but everything points to its reality! There is no way to proven it wrong!

The above was written by the IP 67.50.215.221 Samboy 00:06, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• sign
• cut down on the !'s
• this is just, like, your opinion, many people will laugh in your face for such reasoning
• There is no way to proven it wrong – you bet there is. it's even self-contradictory, in parts. The parts that cannot be proven wrong are worthless as factual statement anyway. Falsifiability.

Falsifiability, the Bible actually doesn't contradict itself. Certain interpretations of the Bible contradict themselves, most of them interpreted so intentionally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RCIWesner (talk • contribs) 08:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

dab 10:50, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) No one will believe you if you don't provide credible sources, Dbachmann. I have never seen the bible contradict itself. Arlen22 (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Arlen22

Bad reasoning on name derivation

"Some critics of the historicity of the Book of Esther seized on this as evidence to support a view that the story of Esther derived from a myth about Ishtar. However, in Hebrew the goddess was referred to by the Hebrew cognate of her name - Ashtoreth. "Esther" cannot be derived directly from the latter."

The English names "Joshua" and "Jesus" both descend from the Hebrew name "Yehoshua". The fact that we got "Jesus" from "Yehoshua" does not in any way prove we didn't get "Joshua" from "Yehoshua" as well. It is by no means evidence that the name "Esther" did not descend from "Ishtar" because the name "Ashtoreth" also descended from "Ishtar". I vote to have the text in italics above removed from the article. It's pretty obvious that people taking the Bible's accuracy entirely on faith are trying to influence the content of this article by downplaying possible objections or criticisms. Wje 14:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you read the article properly, it considered the possibility that it derives from a late form of Ishtar. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That argument, while worth noting, it also presented as being very solid, followed by a "But some people believe it really happened." I have no numbers to show, but I'm pretty sure more people believe it as fact of history than of convoluted twist of borrowed myths (Jews, Christians, and some Muslims and Agnostics besides, all in all a pretty high count). RCIWesner (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think devoting three paragraphs that try to decipher the origin of the name 'Esther' is overkill and belongs in a separate article on the name itself and not in a 'supposed' encyclopedia article on the biblical/historical person. MapleLeaf

I think it should be boiled down to what's accepted, what is provable, and what is plausible. None of this "This name sounds like this other name from this other language that.. isn't actually related. So these other guys that don't speak the language at all are right." Giving Esther's name an article of its own may be a bit much I think, but if the discourse can't be contained in here, then that seems to be the best way to do it. RCIWesner (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Unbiased presentation of information

I don't know enough about this particular subject, otherwise I would have revised it myself, but I really think that there's a desperate need for a clean-up mission here - the article is filled with undertones that detract from the information being presented, for instance, if you look at this paragraph:

"The King also issued a second edict allowing the Jews to arm themselves, and this precipitated a series of reprisals by the Jews against their enemies. This fight began on the 13th of Adar, the date the Jews were originally slated to be exterminated. Esther and the Jews went on to kill not only their would be executioners but also their wives and children, this altogether meaning three hundred killed in Susa alone, seventy-five thousand killed (fifteen thousand in the Greek biblical account) in the rest of the empire."

This is filled with rhetoric that paints a certain picture and the figures provided are unsubstantiated with primary resources. Girl-razor (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The article shows clear traces of tendentious editing. It is pointless to keep this article separate from Book of Esther anyway, as all it can ever do is report on the content of the Book of Esther and its reception. --dab (��) 10:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Merging Rabbinic with Biblical Article

I'd like to see discussion of the rabbinic literature kept apart from the article about the Biblical book of Esther, because they were written so far apart in time, and because the book of Esther is important to Christian religion, while rabbinic literature is not. Unfree (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

from http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/ :

We are bound, however, to mention some critical objections.

(1) The Babylonian festival corresponding to Purim was not the spring festival of Zagmuk, but the summer festival of Ishtar, which is probably the Sacaea of Berossus, an orgiastic festival analogous to Purim.

riiiight, Purim occurs in summer not spring and is celebrated with wild orgies, sure :P Kuratowski's Ghost 02:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(2) According to Jensens theory, Mordecai, and not Esther, ought to be the direct cause of Hamans ruin.

(3) No such Babylonian account as Jensen postulates can be indicated. (4) The identifications of names are hazardous. Fancy a descendant of Kish called Marduk, and an Agagite called Hamman! Elsewhere Mordecai (Ezra ii. ~ Neh. viL 7) occurs among names which are certainly not Persian (Bigvai is no exception), and Haman (Tobit xiv. 50) appears as a nephew of Achiachar, which is not a Persian name. Esther, moreover, ought to be parallel to Judith; fancy likening the representative of Israel to the goddess Ishtar!

Achiachar is generally understood to be the Persian name Akhuwakhshatra = Cyaxares. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:09, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would like to see a counterpoint on the idea that Esther is historical fiction (to make the entry more balanced). Anyone know of one? -- Ram-Man

Most of the Old Testament is Mythology, and, aside from a minority of relgious nuts, this is the consensus of the vast majority of scholarship.99.150.202.21 (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The arguments against its historicty are typical 19th century pseudo-scholarship. Lets take a look:

As opposed to the staunch, solid scholarly rigor that the writers of the Bible were toiling under.99.150.202.21 (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Vashti allegedly comes from an Elamite water spirit Mashti - but that name is entirely fabricated and not attested in any source - it is a fabrication based on the attested Persian water spirit Mah and the name Vashti in Esther.
2. Haman allegedly comes from an Elamite or Babylonian god or demon named Human or Uman or Humban or Humnan again all of which are unattested fabricated names - they are frabrications based the attested Persian earth spirit Asman and the unrelated Babylonian demon Humbaba and the name Haman from Esther.
3. Mordecai is supposedely Marduk but the name in fact means "servant of Marduk" and is an attested genuine name in the form Mardaka. Its use amongst Jews can be undertood by the fact that "Marduk" was the creator in Babylonian mythology and that his name could conceiveably have been used by Jews simply to mean God.
4. Esther is supposed to be Ishtar despite the fact that Judaism was well aware of the goddess Ishtar whom it calls Ashtoreth and opposed to her worship (duh). The names are phonetically unrelated in Hebrew - roots aleph-samech-tav-resh for Esther vs ayin-shin-tav-resh for Ishtar/Ashtoreth. Esther was named Hadassah in Hebrew meaning myrtle and "astra" is a known word for myrtle from the region of Media, related to the Indo-European root for "star" based on the appearance of the flowers. While still conjectural it is far more sensible that the name Esther is related to this word and is simply a translation of her Hebrew name. The only real connection with "Ishtar" would then be the coincidence that "Ishtar" is probably also related to the ancient root for "star". Ishtar being the goddess identified iwth the planet Venus.
5. Hamantaschen are supposed to derive from the cakes baked to honour Ishtar mentioned in Jeremiah but hamantaschen were invented in Eastern Europe in relatively recent times.

Kuratowski's Ghost 00:09, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The "balance" is that the Bible says what it says, and all the historical facts we have contradict it, as the Book of Esther article says. Would you like to combine the two articles and make one title redirect to the other? I think that would be a great idea. -- isis 15:55 Dec 13, 2002 (UTC)

Depending on who you identify Ahasuerus with there are some contradictions with what various Greek historians claim but the Greek historians in fact contradict each other as well as Persian records. Kuratowski's Ghost 02:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have to admit that I am extremely uncomfortable with a section entitled "History" that then goes on to summarize just what the Megillah says. Could we just call it "The Story"? Ok, that sounded lame - but unless there is absolute proof, I dislike leaving it as "History". FlaviaR (talk) 06:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Vashti Naked?

I've checked every version of the bible on Bible Gateway[3] and I can't find any that say that the king ordered his first queen, Vashti to appear naked before his guests. Does anyone have a bible that says this? --24.22.98.21 (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's in Talmud, that's why you can't find it. FlaviaR (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference Please Arlen22 (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Arlen22

Actually the Bible does not say that Vashti was ever naked, but it does say that Ahasuerus was drunk and asked VAshti to display her beauty to his guests--98.166.90.125 (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

This page seems to be prone to vandalism. Perhaps we should semiprotect it, to exclude IP users from editing it/ Opinions? Debresser (talk) 13:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Although reverting nonsense sometimes gets old and it becomes even more so when its the same idiot over and over, I only see seven or eight obvious cases of vandalism in the last 3+ months. I think this falls well below the threshold to protect a page. Ckruschke (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Sassanids?

Can we delete the Sassanid reference? There is plenty of historical evidence that the story of Esther predates the Sassanids by hundreds of years. I think whoever added that reference is confusing scholarship about Esther with scholarship about the tomb that is often purported to be Esther's. The tomb may date from the Sassanids (i.e. even if biblical Esther were real, the tomb would not be hers). However, the existence of the story of Esther definitively predates the Sassanids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckstar (talk • contribs) 07:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

There may also be confusion because there seems to be some evidence of a Jewish wife of one of the Sassanid kings that may have taken the name Esther or been referred to as Esther. If true, this would have been someone playing off what at that time was a many-centuries-old story. Chuck (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I saw you already removed it. I think that was a little too hasty. If you want to remove sourced information, you have to make sure. After you check the books and find that the books were misunderstood, then it would be the right time to remove the references to Sassinids. Debresser (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The second reference is definitely misunderstood. See [4]. It says that "the story of Ester .. might have occurred sometime in the second century BCE", and then continues to tell that Persia regained independence under the Sassanids in the second century CE. The reader might have confused BCE and BE. Debresser (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm responding pretty late to this, but for the record: I waited two weeks for comments before I removed it. Considering the info was patently untrue (regardless of the existence of a reference), I don't think that was hasty. Even if the referenced book made the claim, it would be such an over-the-top ridiculous claim that it wouldn't belong in wiki, except perhaps as an example of an over-the-top ridiculous claim. (i.e. not every crazy claim made in print belongs in a wikipedia article on the topic.) Chuck (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Real person?

This article makes it unclear whether Esther is a fictitious person or a historical figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.80.135.232 (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I think when you read "According to the Bible" in the opening sentence and nothing in the text talks to an ACTUAL Esther, it is somewhat obvious that no one has made a historical find connecting a real person to the Biblical Esther. However, it might be prudent to say this in the lede. Ckruschke (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

According to the Tanakh, specifically the Book of Esther, she was an actual person. So we have a written source describing (an episode in) her life, dated over 2000 years ago. That seems pretty damn "actual" to me. Historical finds would shed additional light on her, but I see no reason why the absence of such would make her less historical. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Easy now. I'm a very conservative Christian and thus agree that if the Bible says it, it must be true. However, "the rest of world" doesn't see the Bible/Tanakh as anything more than fancy stories. I probably should have been a little clearer by saying historians and researchers have found no evidence of Esther that corroborates the text of the Tanakh/Bible. Ok - still friends? Ckruschke (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Of course we are. :) Still, these stories are based on certain facts, even according to the most skeptical. So if a whole book is all about her, I suppose we may assume she existed. In any case, if there is a source that mentions that no historical findings corroborate her existence, then we could add that to the Origin and meaning section. I think that saying "According to the Bible" in the lede is already clear enough in this regard, as you also mentioned above, and no need to be more explicit in the lede. Debresser (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't follow this at all. You are saying that if someone has a whole religious book about them, they must have existed? There's no logic to that. Dougweller (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I find that a lot more logically sound than saying that a whole book was written (and revered) about a completely fictional person. Debresser (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

If my fellow editors will allow me, I'd like to express my personal opinion about this subject. I have always been utterly wondered by the shortsightedness of those who call themselves scholars, and are willing to accept the most obscure and partial archaeological inscription as basis for elaborate and often contradictory theories, always hoping for another clay-stone or archive of another city-king, while refusing to accept as such the elaborate and precise writing of the Old Testament, which have been faithfully rendered into our times since at least some 2,000 years. Debresser (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing "precise" about the Biblical books. Some like the Book of Genesis are mythological narratives, others like the Books of Kings are in part biased historical accounts and in part ancient propaganda. That obscure archaeological inscription has a greater chance of shedding light to the past of humanity than the elaborate and unreliable Biblical narrative. Dimadick (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not talking about Genesis. And almost any source is likely to be biased. So let's just agree to disagree regarding this. Debresser (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think the lead is fine the way it is, though it's a little on the short side. It has the important words "According to the Bible", it has the traditional historic identification, but it remains agnostic about her existence. StAnselm (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Our article on the book discusses its historicity, putting forward the suggestion that it was meant as a historical novella, a common genre "describing historical events but ...not necessarily historical fact." It also discusses possible historical inaccuracies. Looks like we need to say something about this perspective in this article. Dougweller (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Three editors here seem to think that the words "According to the Bible" that are presently in the lede, are enough of a qualification in this regard. Debresser (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's here from them then, as they probably weren't aware of this. Why keep relevant material about the Book of Esther out of this article? Dougweller (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I think "I" was merely answering a question - didn't really see this much discussion coming - and not really commenting on the article itself. I think the lede is fine as is, but, as I said originally, there may be a gap we need to close and thus would be open to whatever you or any other editor has in mind Doug. Ckruschke (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

I'd just like to point out that the "suggestion" at Book of Esther is that "according to some sources, it is a historical novella". I don't think that article is, or should be, privileging that hypothesis above others. StAnselm (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not a matter of privileging. The lede of this article is very short. To mention this specifically, in addition to the already present words "According to the Bible" would be excessive. Debresser (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to add another voice here: I think it would be appropriate to adjust the lede slightly to reference the lack of other sources for the existence of Esther. Perhaps the second sentence could be changed to something like "Ahasuerus is traditionally identified with Xerxes I during the time of the Achaemenid empire, although non-Biblical sources have not been found that reference Xerxes I, or any other Persian monarch of the time period, having a Jewish queen nor that reference the events of the Book of Esther." I object to the phrase "historical novella" as it seems pretty POV, to me. Let's just leave it that there are no other sources than the Bible, and let readers decide what they think. BTW, not wedded to my exact wording, just thought I'd throw something out there. Chuck (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

In popular culture

There is a novel about Esther: Chosen: The Lost Diaries of Queen Esther by Ginger Garrett. I think this and other novels (I assume others exist) should be included in the article. Kdammers (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Esther. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081222031538/http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Ahasbai to http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Ahasbai

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Code Broken

User:Debresser, what seems to be the code problem your edits speak of? Alephb (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

There was a red error message yesterday, but it is gone now. Thanks for asking. Debresser (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Should this article have an infobox

There is currently a discussion about this question on the related Talk:Vashti#Infobox. Debresser (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Reverted an incorrect revert

An anonymous editor reverted my correction to a somewhat complex English sentence. A simplified version of the sentence is "The Altarpiece depicts Esther, despite the punishment being death." The subordinate clause of despite is a gerund when it is a verb, which is why it is "being". "Is" is incorrect grammar in this grammatical context. Drbobpgh (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. Anon editors routinely do things that are incorrect... Ckruschke (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

Why won't it let me put diacritics in the right order?????

Every time I try to put dagesh before sere, it automatically undoes my changes. Having the diacritics in the wrong order reduces the chances of correct browser display... AnonMoos 19:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Much later, I learned that problems like this are due to errors made in Unicode "combining class" assignments for Biblical Hebrew diacritics back in the early 1990s, and can't be fixed, since those parts of Unicode are inalterable... AnonMoos (talk) 05:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Impossible or unlikely

User:GPinkerton recently called it "impossible" that a Jewess would be the wife of a Persian emperor.[5] I have changed the one word "impossible" in his edit, for the obvious reasons that it is too large a word. It is possible, after all. The source referenced says that "Xerxes could not have wed a Jewess", which is already a tad less categorical than "impossible". It is in any case clear that the intent of the source was not literally impossible, rather highly unlikely, in their opinion. Based on that understanding, and per WP:PARAPHRASE, I then decided to substitute "impossible" by "unlikely". For GPinkerton that change was reason to start an edit war. For which he deserves a WP:TROUT, by the way, as the right path of action per WP:BRD would have been to discuss here. In any case, I have now explained my argument at length (similar to the short version in the edit summary of this edit), and expect not to be reverted again, unless a clear consensus here would hold that my reasoning, which is IMHO based on common sense and Wikipedia policies and guidelines, is not correct. Debresser (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser: Did you miss the other citation, which says: "The story is fictitious". Between "The story is fictitious" and "Xerxes could not have wed a Jewess" where do you interpret that there is some possibility that not only do the sources support your claim that it is "possibly not fictitious" - as "unlikely" implies - but also that the sources support the statement "Xerxes could have wed a Jewess" as your interpolations suggest. Please, find some respectable source that claims there is some likelihood that the story is true; it is not claimed in the sources cited, and your edits are misrepresenting the sources. The phrase "Xerxes could not have wed a Jewess" is identical, identical in meaning to" It is impossible that Xerxes wed a Jewess". You insist on changing the meaning of the words to mean the precise opposite of what is in the sources. GPinkerton (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I missed nothing, and I am not misrepresenting the source. You are apparently under the false impression that this project is where you make your points and prove you are right, and therefore are hellbent on proving that the story was fiction. The real purpose of this site is to be an encyclopedia, where we provide information.

The change I made is not to claim anything regarding the character of the story, whether it is fiction or not. All I am trying to do is provide information, reflecting an argument brought in a a source. That is something that has to be done correctly, and that is why we have WP:PARAPHRASE, to avoid us falling in the pitfall of trying to prove something ourselves by sticking too close to the words of the source.

It is not impossible that a Persian king would marry a Jewess. There are no laws of physics that forbid this, so the word "impossible" is not applicable. The only thing making it unlikely is a social norm, to which the word "impossible" simply is not applicable. The words "unlikely" or "unreasonable to assume" are applicable to social laws. Debresser (talk) 08:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser: It is impossible, and that is what the source says. Marriage is a social norm and as the sources say, it is not possible within this social norm that Esther could have married a Persian king. If you want the article to claim there is some likelihood that the sources cited are wrong and there is some likelihood Esther existed, you had better find a source that says so. At the moment it looks as though you are the one "hellbent" on distorting the source material to misrepresent the facts of the matter. There is no necessity that possibility relate to "physical" possibility; that's false. Possibility is the quality of "could" or "could not", nothing more. In this instance, the source says: "could not"=impossible. Editing Wikipedia is an educational exercise, not a devotional one. GPinkerton (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Now that we have both explained other points of view, let's wait for other members of the community to comment. I'll invite editors from WP:JUDAISM. Debresser (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser: Perhaps you could read the Jewish Encyclopaedia, cited here, that says: "The vast majority of modern expositors have reached the conclusion that the book is a piece of pure fiction, although some writers qualify their criticism by an attempt to treat it as a historical romance. The following are the chief arguments showing the impossibility of the story of Esther". GPinkerton (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

My reply to that would be the same as above. Now will you let other editors comment here as well, please. Debresser (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

IMO, GPinkerton is being needlessly specific about having to use the word "impossible". Whether the story is fictitious or not has no bearing on the sentence about whether or not Xerxes married a Jewess. There are plenty of examples of historical kings marrying plenty of wives from other cultures. GPinkerton is essentially stating that by removing the word "impossible" that Wikipedia is now legitimizing the historicity of the story of Esther. In my opinion this is a quite a mental jump. So what's the problem? All this is much ado about nothing to me... Ckruschke (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

@Ckruschke: Whether the story is fictitious or not has no bearing on the sentence about whether or not Xerxes married a Jewess I would disagree; the whole question of whether Esther existed is the same question as whether Esther married Xerxes (/some other real Achaemenid king) - the whole notability of Esther is the claim she was a Jewish queen and her husband was the king. If Xerxes didn't have (the source says could not have had) a Jewish queen, Esther cannot have existed. If the Book of Esther is fictitious, and the Book of Esther is the only available source for the historicity of Esther, then Esther must be fictitious. If fictitious, it is impossible for her to have existed, quite apart from the impossibility that there was a Jewish Achaemenid queen at all. Readers should not be left with the impression that there is some grounds for claiming the story is either possible or historical; there is not, and the sources say so. The citation from the Jewish Encyclopedia is over 100 years old and says "The vast majority of modern expositors have reached the conclusion that the book is a piece of pure fiction". Where is the evidence in the article's sources that new evidence justifying the possibility ("unlikely") has come to light since then? How many of that minority of scholars in 1906 are still active in the field? GPinkerton (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

It is really very simply: "impossible" means 0% chance. That surely is not true.

GPinkerto keeps making the argument, that the story is not historical and that he therefore insists on using "impossible". That is a case of inverted logic. Please edit conscientiously, and do not try to strengthen your personal opinions by adapting the text. The most galling of it all, is that GPinkerto accuses me of having a POV (and has been warned on his talkpage to stop making personal attacks, rather address the content). Debresser (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser: If it's "surely not true" you would be able to find a source that says so. Otherwise, you can accept that the sources say what they say and that "impossible" = "could not", and if your not able to do that, then you must accept that pious fictions has no place masquerading as fact on a mainstream encyclopaedia. It is deeply hypocritical of you to suggest I am making personal attacks, especially when it is you who has removed well-sourced encyclopaedic content and refuses to countenance the inclusion of facts obviating your peculiar interpretation of the novel as "possible", an exegesis repudiated by the most cursory look at the literature. GPinkerton (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I can see where both sides are coming from. Perhaps it would be better to simply just rephrase the whole sentence? something like; her existence is not acknowledged in modern scholarship or; it has been deemed (notice the quotation marks) "impossible" that the Jewish queen Esther existed. These are just suggestions ofc. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Thanks, and the information, removed in recent edit, about the impossibility of Esther and Amerstris being identical? I think the fact this is pointed out by notable scholars and notable ancient historians' accounts contradict the existence of Esther is worthy of the differences between the two being mentioned. GPinkerton (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Errr, I didn't realize Esther has even just a little bit been thought to be the same figure as Amestris, considering the latter had a well-known Persian father for starters. Looking at the article, the comparison is seemingly never made, so I dunno. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Dedicated exegetes will stop at nothing: "Amestris" and "Esther". This is how I phrased the information, based on the treatment here and elsewhere. GPinkerton (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be slighty rephrashed to sound more encyclopediac? I don't think it will be removed then. Also I don't think we should take Herodotus at face-value, see the sourced Historiography section on the article of Xerxes for example. Or what Pierre Briant (From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire, p. 516) has to say here regarding Herodotus' report of events in Xerxes' life;

"Injected into the story of the Greek victories in Asia Minor, these tales fostered the image of a king subject to the nefarious influences of the women of the palace and more interested in slaking his guilty passions than in defending the territorial inheritance of Darius. In reality, placing such an emphasis on the story of Xerxes and his sister-in-law results from a highly questionable methodology. On the one hand, the story is a romance, characterized by a whole series of repetitive motifs on which it is extremely imprudent to base any historical extrapolation. On the other hand, Herodotus's tale contains many other informative elements that are much more convincing about the policy and strategy followed by Xerxes after his return from Salamis—at least if the historian chooses to free himself from the overwhelming weight of stereotypes." --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I am open for compromise. I would be fine with "her existence is not acknowledged in modern scholarship", e.g.

The main problem I see with recent edits is the categorical term "impossible". I also find it problematic that we should write arguments. Wikipedia is not the place for arguments, scholarly or otherwise. At Wikipedia we only reflect the points of view, without discussing the pros and cons. Debresser (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Impossible is too strong, this was 2500 years ago! Unlikely or "not acknowledged in modern scholarship" better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geshem Bracha (talk • contribs) 13:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Moreover, now that I think of it, it is not for sure that the author meant literary "impossible". Maybe he just wanted to stress his opinion by using such a strong word. Debresser (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

As I understand it, the source does not actually say "impossible"; professional historians understandably avoid the word in this sort of context, as a hostage to fortune. This is especially the case in the area of sexual/marital activity, where all sorts of unexpected things notoriously happen. If we knew as little about the Tudor period as we do about ancient Persia, many historians might be tempted to describe stories of Henry VIII's marital career as "impossible". Johnbod (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed Johnbod. I made the suggestion to GPinkerton that he/she submit a proposed rewrite rather than continue "you are wrong" wall of words. I don't see that. In fact, when I put up the request last week, all I got was another paragraph of argument.

This horse has been dead for weeks and thus the section should just stay as it was w/o consensus to change. Ckruschke (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

Parysatis

In section "Armenian culture":

After research on the history of the royal dynasties of the region and the information of the Esther scroll, Moscow State University graduate, a mathematician of Azerbaijani descent Jabbar Manaf oğlu Mamedov, concluded the story of Ester can be traced to historical reality, where:

• King Ahasuerus is the biblical personification of King Artaxerxes II,
• Queen Astin is Parysatis, his mother, the former Queen of Persia, who opposed the accession of Artaxerxes II and furiously intrigued against him,
• Esther — Stateira, wife of Artaxerxes II, whose whole family was buried alive as a result of Parysatis' intrigues.

Thus, both Artashes I, and Tigran II, and other historical figures who were the origins of the creation of the ancient state of Armenia, are considered by the author the direct descendants of the biblical Mordecai (Orontes I) and Esther.[31] The story of Statira's murder at the hands of her husband's wife has become a part of pop culture in ex-USSR after Poisons or the World History of Poisoning by Karen Shakhnazarov, cult Soviet and Russian director of Armenian descent.

1. The spelling of 'Stateira' and 'Statira' (later in the paragraph) is inconsistent 2. If Astin is Ahasuerus's mother, why does the later text say "Statira's murder at the hands of her husband's wife" and not "... her husband's mother"?

3. Should 'Armenian Culture' not be promoted to a top-level section like 'Persian Culture' ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.100.172.147 (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Honestly I don't know what this whole section is doing or why it is where it is. It seems quite dubious to me, or else perhaps belongs in the Popular Culture part. But ultimately, yes, there's no reason why Armenian culture should be subsection of Persian culture. GPinkerton (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Etymology

According to most scholars, the name Esther is derived from the Mesopotamian goddess Ishtar and/or the Persian word stara, "star".[

This is extremely clumsy, in terms of philology, for it says there is a scholarly consensus that 'Esther' derives from an Akkadian (I.e. Semitic) theonym and, simultaneously, from a Persian (I.e. Indo-european) term.

So the whole section has to be written since most of the important data is below this, data which has not been carefully integrated into a single expositive outline of the possible roots of the name.Nishidani (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Ishtar#Etymology suggest that these two etymologies are one and the same. Debresser (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually that passage in the wiki article does not say anything of the sort at all. It gives no etymology for Ishtar, as opposed to Inanna. The problem thus remains (and what other wiki articles state is never to be considered reliable as an argument). Of course, if I misread your link by all means provide me with the passage there where Old Persian stara and Akkadian Ishtar are said to have the same etymology.

Problems are also in the 'and/or' and 'according to most scholars'. It is clear that whoever added that to Wikipedia did not quite understand the sources, and the nature of the discipline of comparative philology, which does not have any linguistic state of origins analogous to, say, superposition in quantum mechanics. So it has to be fixed.Nishidani (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Then you obviously have a problem understanding English, as the that section starts with mentioning the Semitic origins of the name Ishtar and then suddenly continues: "The morning star may have been conceived as a male deity who presided over the arts of war and the evening star may have been conceived as a female deity who presided over the arts of love.", clearly suggesting that the Semitic etymology and the meaning of "star" are related. Debresser (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Please, this is not an arena for waffling battles. You have not replied to my points. You have evaded the question I raised at the outset and continue to do so. I'll simplify it for you.

• Our text says there is a 'scholarly consensus' but no source used mentions one (ergp WP:OR)
• The asserted consensus consists of the idea that the word Ishtar is 'Semitic and 'Indo-European' at the same time, or either semitic or Indo-European. An 'either this' or 'that' or both, is an extremely peculiar thing to have an unattested 'consensus' about. That is what this clumsy generalization means in English.

Why do you personalize this? To cite a phrase that has absolutely no reference to an Indo-European etymological component of Ishtar as though it contained such a reference is to fail to construe both what I wrote above, and the wiki (unreliable) source. It's a dead giveaway that you are inferring, by having written 'clearly suggesting', something which the text does not state. So this has nothing to do with some ostensible 'problem (of mine) understanding English'. To the contrary.

I don't read wiki articles to get an impression of what might be the case: I read the available scholarly sources in order to understand the topic, and then, if wiki has screwed up - which is the normal and natural state of our articles generally (works in progress that need constant improvement), adjust and improve the wiki sources. And that is what I will do here. Nishidani (talk) 04:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it is you who has not replied to my point. We have an article clearly connecting the two etymologies. Why do think there is something wrong with that?

What I do agree with you, is that this should be rewritten, as you said, "into a single expositive outline of the possible roots of the name". And I can always agree with your claim that a source is needed. So please, go ahead and improve this. I am eagerly awaiting your edit. Debresser (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

We have an article clearly connecting the two etymologies. Why do think there is something wrong with that?

I explained that. We have an unsourced* statement asserting an impossibility, that a word can have simultaneously two etymologies, each from a different linguistic family. I know something is wrong with it because the statement is stupid philologically. Complex etymologies are layered - they are not quarkish superpositions. I'll certainly get round to this in the next week.Nishidani (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• one of the three sources gets it correct, stating the etymology is either semitic or Indo-European, which was what the editor should have written, without writing 'and/or'. Simple.Nishidani (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

What you call an impossibility, is a actually a matter of uncertainty: it could be either the first or the second. But in this case, they seem to be very close, perhaps related? Debresser (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, etymology is not a science that allows for certainty over a lot of terms in a field. We don't even know the linguistic substrate that gave rise to 30% of the vocabulary of classical Greek, for example, but conjectures, some of them very elegant, thrive for each item. Some Greek words might seem to have an impeccable Indo-European root, say bōmos for a 'platform/altar' from bainō (go) yet, esp. after the discovery of the Isaiah scroll in Qumran, the old theory that it is semitic, related to bāmāh, is strengthened. But one doesn't know (I personal think it is a semiticism in Greek, and that anti-Semitic trends in European classical scholarship account for its dismissal as the probable source, but my opinion counts for nothing) All one can do is to describe accurately what a variety of competent scholars conclude. Uncertainty is a good thing: it spurs curiosity. By the way, I still haven't time (writing this in the interval of a movie) to put in the folklore element that links it to a Hebrew word for hiding. I hope to get to that tomorrow, unless of course you have a source re precisely this you'd like to add in the meantime.Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I liked your edits, so please continue. By the way, I too suspect a connection with "bamah". Debresser (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Armenian culture

We have the following content on this.

After research on the history of the royal dynasties of the region and the information of the Esther scroll, Moscow State University graduate, a mathematician of Azerbaijani descent Jabbar Manaf oğlu Mamedov, concluded the story of Ester can be traced to historical reality, where:

* King Ahasuerus is the biblical personification of King Artaxerxes II,

• Queen Astin is Parysatis, his mother, the former Queen of Persia, who opposed the accession of Artaxerxes II and furiously intrigued against him,
• Esther — Stateira, wife of Artaxerxes II, whose whole family was buried alive as a result of Parysatis' intrigues.

Thus, both Artashes I, and Tigran II, and other historical figures who were the origins of the creation of the ancient state of Armenia, are considered by the author the direct descendants of the biblical Mordecai (Orontes I) and Esther. The story of Statira's murder at the hands of her husband's wife has become a part of pop culture in ex-USSR after Poisons or the World History of Poisoning by Karen Shakhnazarov, cult Soviet and Russian director of Armenian descent.

• Mamedov, Jabbar Manaf oğlu (8 August 2017). Библейская Книга Есфири как один из важнейших источников по истории Кунакской битвы (401 г. до н.э.) и Армении [Book of Esther as one of the most important historical sources about the Battle of Kunak (401 BC) and Armenia] (in Russian). Washington, USA: THE EAST: Ancient & Modern. p. 132. ISBN 978-0-692-88072-2.

The book used is a personal thesis with no academic endorsement, by a persona completely untrained in the topic. Can anyone find reason why it should be included? It seems to be a use of wiki for promoting a book.Nishidani (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Islamic figure, Muslim saint categories removed

Per WP:CATV Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. The article does not mention Islam a single time, much less verify that Esther is a "Muslim saint". Per WP:CATDEF A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having". Being a "Muslim female saint" is not a defining characteristic of Esther. Therefore I have removed these categories and they should not be re-added.Smeat75 (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

@Dimadick: I was talking about [6]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

I offered the diff above. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

@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)

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)

: 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)

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)

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)