Talk:Jezebel/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Biblical references

The text here mentions two women in the Hebrew Bible, but then goes on to cite Jezebel (princess of Tyre and queen of Israel) from 1 Kings, and the seer Jezebel of Thyateira, who is named in the Apocalypse of John (Book of Revelation). Should the text read "...is the name of two women in the Bible."? The rest of the article makes it clear where each person is discussed. Epimetreus 23:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Unless I'm reading the page incorrectly, there is an inaccuracy here. Jezebel's story is told in 1 Kings, but 1 Kings is not part of the Torah. The word "Torah" is not a synonym for "old testament;" "Torah" refers only to Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. It would be more accurate to say "In the Tanakh" or "In the Hebrew Bible." ~ikeeverett —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikeeverett (talk • contribs) 23:16, March 24, 2007

The comment in the opening section about makeup being associated with "painted women" and prostitutes thanks to the Jezebel story is false and should be removed. Making oneself pretty is not seen as an attribute of "fallen" women in the Old Testament. For example, Genesis (Egyptians saw Sarah was a very beautiful woman), Esther, before she appeals to the King; Exodus (in the oral history that accompanies Exodus, women go into the fields and inspire their husbands, wearing makeup, after the Pharoah commands them to throw their newborns into the Nile). Go ahead and add any interpretations about beauty from the New Testament you want, but they do not belong in the Old Testament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumpygrouch (talk • contribs) 08:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Another song reference

Jezebel was referenced in the song Juke Joint Jezebel by KMFDM off the Money album as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by Runswithspoon (talk • contribs) 17:40, April 26, 2006

And in Bad Girls by Danity Kane —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.7.176 (talk • contribs) 19:35, September 17, 2008

I have another, Poe (the singer) sings "This is Jezebel in hell" in her song Angry Johnny. It is ultimately one of my favorites, and lead me to look up exactly who Jezebel was (leading me to here).--160.81.78.102 01:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Real name

It seems likely that the name recorded in the Bible is changed to be a slur. Are there any scholarly guesses as to what her real name was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.164.243 (talk • contribs) 09:45, October 3, 2006

which person are you referring to? the one from 1 kings? or the one from revelation? the one from first kings I'm pretty sure is her real name (the old testament is recording history and i do not think they changed her name though I could be wrong.) though don't quote me on that and if you find some evidence please quote it. jittters —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jittters (talk • contribs) 19:39, October 5, 2006
I think the derivation (hebrew: not exalted) is questionable and biased toward biblical literalism. Most people put the meaning as "chaste". Remember that the name is not a Hebrew word - Jezebel is Phoenecian, and you tend to see the -bel suffix in words imported from Babylon etc. Also note that literal derivations like "not exalted" or "not acclaimed" tend to be misleading because as a name the word was probably always intended in a more idiomatic sense (chaste, not owned by a man). People tend to forget that the nuances of a word's usage in any period is not immediately obvious. People also tend to have a sense that a literal derivation is like a magic rule book, rather than a guide of variable usefulness. Regarding bias, some historical context is important. Jezebel was queen in Israel in the north, and most of the old testament (certainly Kings) was written in Judah to the south. Israel (which ceased to exist around 700BC) is generally disparaged throughout the old testament: although both were religiously diverse (yes, even according to the bible) the Judahite Kings were more morally upright in enforcing the hebrew religion and exterminating infidels. Additionally, Israel was much wealthier (which is why Assyria wiped it out while paying relatively little attention to Judah). So much of the old testament, including 1Kings, is written after Israel ceased to exist by people with chips on their shoulders. You'd be amazed how many avid bible readers are unaware of this context. The take home point here is that disparaging discussion of Jezebel in the old testament should not be taken as representative of how Jezebel would have been viewed by the people around her. -- snaxalotl 26 july 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.172.99.15 (talk • contribs) 03:41, July 26, 2007
Jezebel was the daughter of Ittobaal = "Man of Ba'al" or "With Him is Ba'al".... the name Itsa-bel (Jezebel) is very similar to her father's name Itto-baal. ALSO, as is widely known, the historical redactors always HID the presence of "Ba'al theophoric elements", as with the names of Saul's son, Ishbaal -> Ishbosheth. Esh-baal means "Man of Baal'. THUS, Jezebel probably meant something like "Woman of Ba'al", and the theophoric element "Ba'al" was subsequently CENSORED — much like, in the opposite direction, Jews today substitute Adonai or HaShem for the name of YHWH-God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.68.244 (talk • contribs) 21:30, August 1, 2007

This is all well and good but encyclopedic entries require verifiability. None of the above could be consider such common knowledge that your average reader turning to wikipedia would know the sources of such information and the single mention in the article that The Naked Archeologists says so isn't a reliable since he is not a linguist and he tends to make amazing leaps of judgement to reach conclusions that few historians would defend. The best way to include this information is to simply name the linguist or historian asserting these interpretations as fact and then include the citation to where they make the statement. I'll try and find what I can using Google Books but those editors who really care about this as above, might already have their reliable sources at the ready. I realize I'm several years late in this discussion but the article's content on this continues to evolve and not for the better. Please help me source these assertions. Thanks! LiPollis (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Popular Culture

I'm not sure the Popular Culture section is all that relevent to an article called "Jezebel (Bible)". The title would imply the depiction in the bible is more important. I propose that the list get a seperate article. If anybody agrees I'll go ahead and do it. Robinoke 23:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"jezebel" is also the name of a song by acid bath off the "when the kite string pops" album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.24.94 (talk • contribs) 07:47, November 22, 2006
Why is popular culture popular??—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.68.244 (talk • contribs) 21:30, August 1, 2007
Outkast song Jazzy Belle off ATLiens worth an add? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.2.21 (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that moving the popular culture list to another article would be a good idea. It doesn't seem entirely relevant to the biblical article, as many references aren't even to the biblical Jezebel specifically but have to do with the word being used to mean "hussy". I do think, however, that the list is worth having somewhere just to show the cultural prevalence of the name/word. Also, I think the list should be edited a bit as a lot of the references contain opinions, such as the one that says such-and-such song is "the most beautiful song by this title." That is not relevant to the list! I don't have time to do it right now, but I might come back in a few hours and trim the list down for facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.4.140.40 (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The subsection Jezeble as a "slut" should be renamed, as the word "slut" referes to a prostitute or sexually promiscuous woman, whereas the section also refers to images of a Jezebel being a wicked and controlling woman. I suggest replacing "slut" with "evil woman". Wkharrisjr (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Move due to primary meaning and usage. -Stevertigo 07:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Low Quality

Most of this article is just fluff pop culture references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.153.4.250 (talk) 07:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, also with the "Popular Culture" comment above by Robinoke. Can't this list of pop culture references, in this article, be shortened to 3 or 4? Maybe the most prominent ones, like Bette Davis' movie character? Z Wylld (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Aren't "trivia" or "pop culture" sections discouraged in Wikipedia? Seems like we should integrate anything relevant into the article itself and get rid of all the "I went to high school with a girl named Jezebel" items. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.161.142 (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, I was pretty dissapointed with this article. Can someone do some sort of biography about her? Her death is mentioned several times in this article and nobody has specified how she died! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.1.0.2 (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Elonka 18:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Acting on the above advice (and the various comments elsewhere on this talk page), I've been bold and removed the 'popular culture' section entirely. Robofish (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Name

Using the vowels traditionally employed for this name by Hebrew readers, the Hebrew form of this name means "not exalted". But it is highly unlikely her parents would have given her such a name. Read with different vowels it can be understood as meaning "Where is the Prince?" ('ay zebul in Hebrew). In fact, early Syrian inscriptions from Ugarit demonstrate that "the Prince" (equivalent of Hebrew "Zebul") was a popular title for the storm god of the Phoenicians. The sentence "Where is the Prince?" is even found in Ugaritic literature. It is a form of invocation, calling on the god named to appear and act. In other words, this Tyrian princess was given a name in praise of the chief god of her people (whom the Hebrew Bible refers to mainly by the title "Baal", meaning "lord, master"). "Jezebel" is, then, a reinterpretation, intended to mock this Queen and her god, whom she encouraged Israel to worship. The transliteration is 'Iyzebel meaning "Baal is exalted".

The Hebrew Bible contains two other examples of this name formula. First, in the larger context of the Jezebel story, after Elijah is taken up, Elisha strikes the Jordan with Elijah's cloak and cries, "Where is YHWH, the god of Elijah?" as an invocation for Yahweh to part the waters, as he had done from Elijah (2 Kings 2). Second, the name "Ichabod", traditionally read as "no glory" (son of the priest Phinehas, in 1 Samuel) may be read as, "Where is the Glory?" In context, the question becomes sadly ironic, because "the Glory" is associated with the Ark of the Covenant, which has just been captured by the Philistines.

A related type of Hebrew name is "Who is like El?" (Michael), or "Who is like Yahweh?" (Micaiah).

I have just removed all of the above from the article. There are no references, and it reads like speculative musings. If this is a theory that has appeared in print, then it needs to be reinstated, but preceeded with appropriate qualifiers. E.g., "Professor Bloggs speculated in June 2009 issue of The Journal of Biblical Studies that..." -- Oliver P. (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Move to Jezebel

I have created a Requested Move to relocate this article to Jezebel and move the disambiguation page to Jezebel (disambiguation). Discussion should take place at Talk:Jezebel#Requested move. Propaniac (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Jezebel which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 17:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Bias

Considering the "Christian" label on this, I am surprised by the leaning toward defense of Jezebel. A more middle of the road position might recognize instead that Jezebel did "start" the animosity not actually through what she was accused of, but through actually KILLING the people on her husband's side. When she did that, she made herself an enemy to his people.

Human reaction is still the same today when a new spouse of either sex appears to want to divide the other spouse from his or her biological family. The family of birth "feels" as though the new spouse is misusing the power of sex and whatever else as a wedge between them. The killings of her husband's "people" seems to prove that as her intention. Her husband's people might then believe that the only way to stop her was to react in kind and they also might then go on to believe that the "wiles" of a beautiful woman are particularly dangerous -- which, unfortunately, hurts other women in general. Just because she is a strong woman doesn't make her innocent of all charges. She apparently did have an agenda that did involve harm to those who were NOT her people.

So, I believe when we look at the stories of these people in the past, we need to beware of drifting too far toward one end or the other. Instead, we need to recognize the REALITIES of the situation and accept them for what they are. Yes, Jezebel was a strong-willed woman, but No, she was not an innocent who was badly maligned and overpowered by "bad" religious zealots for no reason because she killed some of those zealots before that time showing them that her intentions toward them was not good and that she intended to use her power in a dangerous way.

Religion has been a divider for a very long time, but when we take sides in the retelling of the events, we falsely extend the hatred. A fight can NOT exist without at least TWO differing parties. There is NEVER just one side to any story. Jezebel was not maligned falsely by the overly-zealous people of Ahab, but many women after her were held back because of her out of fear of the power that women might have against men... women were stereotyped according to Jezebel because of the men's fear of their own weaknesses in love. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.28.217 (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you are complaining about clearly has been removed from the page at this point. I see NO defense of Jezebel given here and her acts and death are not given a feminist spin. I don't see any bias except for that against Jezebel-like characters. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Dubious source

I can't find V. Barzowski or his supposed book online. Editors need to provide complete source info, including accurate title, place,, publisher and date of publication, page references - otherwise it does not count as a valid citation. Parkwells (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources

This article is in dire need of sources. I suggest an entire overhaul of the whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.153.37 (talk) 10:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Current Association With Promiscuity

My reason for visiting the article was to find out *why* the name Jezebel is associated with promiscuous women? Is there more to the story? I did not see a sexual element, she is not accused of adultery or excessive sexual appetite. Or is it as simple as calling a woman you hate a slut/whore, etc.? Article identifies this association with the early 20th century (inclusion in 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica) but does not mention that the encyclopedia refers to 2 Kings 9:22: "And it came to pass, when Joram saw Jehu, that he said, Is it peace, Jehu? And he answered, What peace, so long as the whoredoms of thy mother Jezebel and her witchcrafts are so many?" I looked this up on my own, but it is not referenced in the article, it should be.173.217.202.38 (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

There is this section:
"...her dressing in finery and putting on makeup before her death (2 Kings 9:30) led to the association of use of cosmetics with "painted women" or prostitutes."
Also, she convinced king Ahab to abandon worship of God and turn to Ba'al who was considered a false God and she was the enemy of the Hebrew prophet. In the Hebrew scriptures, typically disobedience to God BY WOMEN is translated to sexual infidelity (hence female characters being called "whore" or "harlot"). So, in the text, there is often an association made between unfaithfulness to God and sexual unfaithfulness. You can also see it in Proverbs and Song of Songs were a "virtuous" woman is not only chaste but faithful to God (as if the two things were inextricably intertwined). 69.125.134.86 (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
In some interpretations,[citation needed] her dressing in finery and putting on makeup before her death [3] led to the association of the use of cosmetics with "painted women" or prostitutes.
The argument isn't very logical here. Why would Jezebel dressing up lead to an association of cosmetics with prostitutes? What did Jezebel have to do with prostitutes?
Associating cosmetics with "painted" women seems to be a tautology. Cosmetics are paint.
Prostitutes putting on makeup probably originated everywhere and anywhere. It didn't start with one person or story.
Finally, where's the citation?

2003:45:2D29:7301:3470:5C95:E53:5912 (talk) 07:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Tone of the Introduction

This article starts off on a very strange tone to me because it is written as if this was a real, historical person and not a fictional character of myth and legend. I don't want to add a layer of qualification over all the text, but the Bible is not a historical record, it's a religious text. It can't be taken verbatim as "true" or factual. Jezebel is a character in a story, not a person. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, the Jezebel article is about a character from the Bible! But the entire article sounds like we're discussing biographical details from history books. Weird. I'm gonna go look up Santa Claus, see if we're consistent here. Richard8081 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes I am going to work on that over the next few days.Smeat75 (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Santa Claus is a demonstrable myth. Jezebel is not, and I believe the article even references a coin that is believed by certain archaeologists to carry her royal seal. Until you can prove it unreasonable to believe that a queen named Jezebel lived at that time in that part of the world, can the biased attitudes, 'kay? 209.62.203.19 (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Changes I have made to article

The article was very poor in my opinion. I have removed a lot of the discussion of the origin of the name "Jezebel", which had a "citation needed" tag sitting on it for years. I could not find any reliable sources which said what the article originally did so it has been replaced with a simpler explanation from The Oxford Guide to People and Places of the Bible. I cannot find a single reference to "V. Barzowski" online or anywhere else, so I am deleting the passages that use him as a source and replacing that commentary with WP:RS.Smeat75 (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I also removed a section about a tract by Roger Williams, which seemed to me of minimal importance in relation to the subject.Smeat75 (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"In popular culture" section is a list of unsourced trivia

The "In popular culture" section goes longer and longer with unreferenced additions such as every pop song ever called "Jezebel", somebody called a hurricane "Jezebel" in some movie, a character in a video game has "Jezebel" as a first name. Almost none of it is cited to any source, my inclination is delete it all except for the most notable instances which can be sourced, for instance the Davis and Goddard films and the Asimov novel, or move all the unsourced trivia to another article "Jezebel in popular culture", but I will wait a while and see if there are any other opinions as to what should be done about it.Smeat75 (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

There are several alternatives on what to do with those "undue weight" entries (which are OK to remove from here, but most of which should be preserved as they're not incorrect or speculative). As we don't know which of those references may have references in the future, the best is to move them first here at the talk page, and later find them a home either as a list article (Jezebel in popular culture is a good candidate), or as a disambiguation or set index page. Wikipedia was not built in an hour, and every step that helps future editors is welcome. I would keep the items that are major elements in notable films and works, and see what to do with the rest on a case by case basis here in the talk page, now without a hurry. Diego (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Alterations to the "In popular culture" section

So I am going to act on the advice given by Diego above and on the advice I was given when I raised this question at WP:RSN, the reliable sources noticeboard. For an item to be included in the "In popular culture" section of this article, we need first of all a Secondary source cited to show that there really was or is a pop song called "Jezebel", for instance, or that a character in a movie or TV show really did call another character, or a hurricane, "Jezebel".As Diego says here [1],"it's recommended to include an inline reference for each item, preferably from third parties whenever possible, or else a reference to the work containing the mention." It is not enough to link to another WP article - see WP:WPNOTRS: Wikipedia articles ... are not reliable sources for any purpose. However, just to establish from a reference to a reliable secondary source that there really is a video game with a character who has "Jezebel" as a first name, for instance, is not enough either - it must also be established by a reliable secondary source not only that the video game,movie or TV show had an impact on popular culture but that the use of the figure of Jezebel in the video game, movie or TV show had a notable cultural impact. As editor kww put it at RSN [2]" It's not enough to have a citation that verifies that Hello Kitty appeared in an episode of a random sitcom, you need a citation that analyses the relevance of that appearance of Hello Kitty". So I am going to remove all but the few items that are sourced and have some degree of notability, not only as a movie or song, but for the use of the "character" of Jezebel in the song or movie, and as Diego says, move them to a section on this talk page where they can be discussed and those interested can try to find sources for them so that they can be put into the article.Smeat75 (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Moved from article to talk page

As discussed in the above section, the following entries have been removed from the article. If sources can be found to establish both the existence of these mentions of Jezebel in various media and that the portrayal of Jezebel in these works had a significant cultural impact, they can be put back in.

  • Literature:
  • The novel Jezebel's Daughter (1880) by Wilkie Collins.
  • In her novel, The Handmaid's Tale, first published in 1985, which is full of biblical allusions, Margaret Atwood names an underground brothel "Jezebel's." (There is a reference for this, "Study Guide to Margaret Atwood: The Handmaid's Tale (1986)". Public.wsu.edu. Retrieved 2012-05-24., but it needs to be established also that calling a brothel "Jezebel's" in that novel had a significant cultural impact).
  • In the novel Skinny Legs and All (1990) by Tom Robbins, Jezebel makes a cameo appearance.
  • Lesley Hazleton wrote a revisionist historical non-fiction account, Jezebel, The Untold Story of the Bible's Harlot Queen (2004), that presents Jezebel as a sophisticated queen engaged in mortal combat with the fundamentalist prophet Elijah. Hazleton is also the author of several other non-fiction books about the Middle East.
  • Film and Television:
  • Victoria Wicks starred as the voice of the Biblical Queen Jezebel in Season 1, Episode, "Elijah," of the TV Series "Testament: The Bible in Animation," which originally aired November 6, 1996.
  • Sônia Lima starred as the Biblical Queen Jezebel in the TV mini-series "O Desafio de Elias" (1997).
  • Libertad Green starred as the Biblical Queen Jezebel in the film Blast and Whisper: Elijah's Story (2010).
  • Allusions to Jezebel in Film and Television:
  • In Season 4, Episode 15 of "Little House on the Prairie", entitled "Whisper Country," which originally aired on January 16, 1978, Miss Rachel Peel, played by Anita Dangler, calls Mary Ingalls, played by Melissa Sue Anderson, a "Jezebel" for teaching the students how to read.
  • In the film Jacob's Ladder (1990), Elizabeth Peña starred as "Jezzie", stating ambiguous connections with the Biblical original character.
  • In the film Snake Eyes (1998), Brian De Palma called the tropical storm turned hurricane that hits Atlantic City, New Jersey "Jezebel," an allusion to the conspiracy, turmoil and evil deeds taking place behind the scenes in the film.
  • In Season 2, Episode 14 of "Criminal Minds", entitled "The Big Game," which originally aired February 4, 2007, the serial killer Tobias Hankel, played by James Van Der Beek, kidnaps a girl for committing adultery and lets dogs kill her by tearing her apart, a reference to Jezebel's death.
  • Music:
  • The Australian rock band Red Jezebel.
  • The Australian rock band The Jezabels.
  • The song "Jezebel" (1941) (Trad./O. Wilson) recorded by the Golden Gate Quartet (This one also has a reference, "The Golden Gate Quartet: The Complete Recorded Works in Chronological Order, Volume 4: 1939-1943". Oldies.com. 1996-09-01. Retrieved 2012-05-24., but notability and cultural impact needs to be established)
  • (The Frankie Laine song "Jezebel", which I have kept in, had this unsourced statement:) Herman's Hermits recorded the song for their 1967 LP There's a Kind of Hush All Over the World, and it became a regular feature of their live performances afterward.
  • The song "Carry Go Bring Come" by Justin Hinds, recorded in 1963, repeatedly addresses "You old Jezebel"; it went to no. 1 in Jamaica and was covered by The Selecter on their 1980 album Too Much Pressure.
  • The song "Jungle Jezebel" (1982), by Divine, on Divine's album My First Album (1982), but also on "Jungle Jezebel" (1982) and The Story So Far (1984).
  • The song "Jezebel" (1985), by Sade and Gordon Matthewman, on Sade's album Promise.
  • The song "Jezebel's Tribulation" (1986), by deathrock band Christian Death from their album The Scriptures (album).
  • The song "Jezebel" (1992), by 10,000 Maniacs on the album Our Time in Eden, about the guilt felt by a woman who has fallen out of love, or was never in love, with her husband.
  • The song "Jezebel" (1994), by sludge metal band Acid Bath from their first album The Kite String Pops.
  • The song "Jezzebel" (1994), by Boyz II Men from their album II.
  • The song "Jazzy Belle" (1994) by the Atlanta hip-hop duo OutKast.
  • The song "Jezebel" (1994) by Reverend Horton Heat on the album Liquor in the Front
  • The song "Juke Joint Jezebel" (1995), by KMFDM on the album Nihil.
  • The song "Jezebel Spirit" by David Byrne and Brian Eno which features a recording of an exorcism.
  • The song "Jezebel" (2000) by Recoil on the album Liquid, using the recording by the Golden Gate Quartet.
  • The song "Jezebel" (2002) by Chely Wright on the album "Never Love You Enough".
  • The song "Jezebel" (2003) by Dizzee Rascal on the album Boy in da Corner.
  • The song "Jezebel" (2005) by Iron & Wine on the album Woman King.
  • The song "Jezebel" (2009) by Depeche Mode on the album Sounds of the Universe.
  • The song "Jezebel or A Song About My Friend And That Whore He Dated" (2010) by Quiet Company on the album Songs for Staying In.
  • The song "Jezebel" (2012) by Memphis May Fire on the album Challenger (Memphis May Fire album)
  • The song "Jezebel" (2012) by South African melodic rock band aKING.
  • The song "Jezebel" (2013) by Columbus OH indie rock band OceanSpeak
  • The song "Angry Johnny" by Poe (singer).
  • The song "Lies" by the Rolling Stones (from 1978 album Some Girls)
  • The song "Jezebel" (2010) by Professor on the album University of Kalawa Jazmee.
  • Other mentions:
  • In the video game, Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines (2004) the player encounters an non-player character named Jezebel Locke who turns out to be a seductress for a fictional doomsday cult in one of the side storylines.
  • In the song "Doo Wop (That thing)", a song about sexually promiscuous women, Lauryn Hill makes a reference to Jezebel saying that was "the sin that did Jezebel in".
  • Mentioned in Shakespeare's 'Twelfth Night'.
  • in 'Hannibal' by Thomas Harris, Mason Verger's dog eaten face is compaired to Jezebel in a letter to him from Hannibal Lecter.Smeat75 (talk) 05:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • "Jezebel" is a title track off of Memphis May Fire's 3rd studio album Challenger [1]. The lyrics reference a worn out, diseased, non-self respecting female who is only looking for her next "hook-up" (especially at rock concerts) It is rumored that "Jezebel" was a real life concert-goer that attended MMF concerts only looking to score with the band-mates (even though their lead vocalist is married)

References

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_(Memphis_May_Fire_album)

--Smeat75 (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Baal & Sex needs explaining

The isp on reader feedback is I think correct in general terms: "This article is absent of a largely important piece of historical data regarding the worship of Baal; therefore connecting the reasoning behind why people use the word/name Jezebel in relation to sexual promiscuity. The worship of Baal was largely intertwined with the practice of prostitution within the temple walls of Baal itself. Intercourse with a prophetess of Baal supposedly cleansed away sin toward the god Baal. Wikipedia doesn't mention this at all, and therefore presents a skewed reasoning toward the understanding of the usage of the name "Jezebel"." More on the growth of Jezebel as a sexualized figure or metaphor would be nice. I've rerated as C anyway. Johnbod (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

More unreferenced pop songs moved to talk page

  • Jezebel is a song by the band Iron and Wine.
  • Jezebel is portrayed in the song "Jazzy Belle" in the 1996 album "ATLiens" by hip-hop duo OutKast. The song comments on the growing promiscuousness of the women they have known in their careers which will only be passed down to their children, starting a dangerous process, comparing them to the cold prostitute Queen

Please see above on this page, such tidbits need references not only to show that there is such a song but that the use of the figure of Jezebel in them had a significant cultural impact, if such references are cited the songs can be put back into the article.Smeat75 (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Another one - "Sade has a song called "Jezebel" on her album entitled "The Best of Sade" 1994 Sony Music Entertainment."Smeat75 (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

And another - " Memphis May Fire, a metalcore band, have a song titled "Jezebel" on their 2012 album, Challenger. The song portrays a contemporary Jezebel and starts: She's on the prowl. She wants it all & she'll stop at nothing! Everyone knows she's well aware of the fact that her self respect was long lost on her search for somethingSmeat75 (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Sludge metal band Acid Bath recorded a song entitled "Jezebel" for their 1994 album When the Kite String Pops Smeat75 (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Death by dog attack or defenestration?

This article is a part of two death-type catagories, but it should only be in one, unless somehow she died BOTH by dog attack AND defenestration. Something's gotta give, here, you can't have it both ways. Chrisrus (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

jezebel

Jezebel is the 'anglicised transliteration' of the name found in Hebrew sources. What else would it be ? A common method used in cases like this is simply to write the English form with the form from which it is derived in brackets (Pamour (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)).

Unsourced items in the "In popular culture" section

Items should not be in that list unless they are sourced so that they can be verified. Ideally the source will also show that the song or whatever actually had an impact on popular culture. When an editor supplies a source they can be moved back on to the article page.

  • Chely Wright features a country song "Jezebel" on her 2001 album Never Love You Enough. The song is about another woman trying to woo her man away from her and she tells Jezebel to save her charms because he's not hers yet. There are themes about witchcraft or sorcery and voodoo and cheating.
  • In the popular children's novel Abomination, written by Robert Swindells, the elder sister is referred to as Jezebel for being promiscuous, and having boyfriends.
  • Jezebel's story figures prominently in the novel Skinny Legs and All by Tom Robbins.Smeat75 (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jezebel. 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:

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) 06:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Removal of refs

@Jytdog: has removed a couple refs w/o getting consensus or really saying why. Thoughts? BedrockPerson (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I removed two sources that should never have been added as they fail -- unambiguiously -- WP:RS. This "ref" is from ScienceDaily which is churnalism; this is a letter to the editor which is WP:USERGENERATED. I did say why, when I removed these, in this diff and this diff. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Understood. BedrockPerson (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • about this - the artifact is what it is, and good historical writing first says what it is, and then talks about what people make of it. Please don't start with the reconstruction and then say what is lacking in the thing we actually possess. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
It is relevant if not obligatory to include the hypotheses associated with the artifact. There is no reason not to include these things as if they were wholly inconclusive or false. BedrockPerson (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
They are included. We just start with what is, and then describe what people make of it. We always describe and then characterize. Reconstructions are always inconclusive - they cannot be conclusive. Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
My feeling is that there is now too much detail in the article about that seal. I don't think the additions are really an improvement over what it said before - "An ancient seal, discovered in 1964, may be inscribed with Jezebel's name" with references so anyone interested can look it up. However I am not going to change it right now as things are getting a little bad tempered. BedrockPerson please don't make uncivil comments in edit summaries.Smeat75 (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in. In my view this version is appropriate in WEIGHT and good historical writing. I added an additional sentence to try to please Bedrockperson here but that is probably UNDUE. Jytdog (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I've already explained in an edit summary, but since there's a talk page discussion going on I may as well toss in my two cents' worth. It makes sense to describe the evidence neutrally, and then to discuss interpretations. The idea of starting with the hypothesis, as Bedrock's version does, places undue weight on a minority hypothesis. <<A seal from the 9th century BCE, discovered in 1964, has a partially damaged inscription hypothesized to read "L'YZBL" which would translate to "belonging to Jezebel". Both the size and symbols of the seal are characteristic of royal females in the ancient Near East. However, only the writings "YZBL" actual survive on the bulla, Jezebel's name starts with an aleph, which is lacking on the seal. It is hypothesized perhaps the letters Lamedh and Aleph resided in the portion of the seal which has been destroyed, as often the first two letters of an inscription were inscribed on the top of Near Eastern seals. Still, scholars do not agree on whether the seal is evidence for historicity of the biblical character.>> What we have here is a series of arguments in favor of the Jezebel identification, and an opening which effectively assumes that the identification is correct, which is working against the grain of the majority of scholars as can be found at the website cited. I'm not sure why Bedrock is insisting on causing the Wikipedia page to promote the viewpoint of a single scholar who is arguing uphill against scholars who argued against the identification before and after her argument in favor. Alephb (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

If the are enough sources about the archaeological finding, perhaps it should have a spin-off article of its own. Dimadick (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, so far in my reading I'm aware of the original publication for the finding in the 1960's, where the original writer dismissed the Jezebel connection. More recently Korbel is arguing for it, and then a bunch of scholars pushed back online. The editor of the magazine which Korbel published in defended her, sort of, but said he had no expertise in the relevant subject, and focused more on what he considered the improper attitude of Rollston that anything else. I've seen one published response to Korbel in a peer-reviewed publication (I think it was Rollston -- I can look it up if it matters). So unless I'm missing something, the situation is roughly this: among qualified scholars one supports the Jezebel identification, and no one else does. I don't have a real strong opinion about where the notability line lies, but I won't start the article myself. If anyone wants to, I'd be happy to provide citations for what I've read about it so far in reliable sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alephb (talk • contribs) 22:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced info "in popular culture"

"* Isaac Asimov's protagonist of the Robot Series Elijah Baley is married to a woman "Jessie" which is short for Jezebel" was added to the "In popular culture" section with no reference. It needs a reference to be added to the article.Smeat75 (talk) 05:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Single source for historicity section

The historicity section seems to be a summary of a single, not necessarily representative source. I reviewed the source, which, in the pages referenced, is itself largely unfootnoted, so it is not clear whether the author is expressing an opinion or a widely established fact. Could someone with knowledge of this subject add other references, please? Otherwise, the historicity section should probably be reduced to 'Jezebel is unknown as a historical figure outside the Hebrew Bible', since the arguments proposed by Finkelstein are discussed elsewhere.Martin Turner (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

defenestration

if jezebel died in 842 bc was 'defenestration' a possible cause of death? were there windows [?] in 842 [?] from which one could be thrown to deliberately occasion death? wikipedia elsewhere "Defenestration is the act of throwing someone or something out of a window. The term was coined around the time of an incident in Prague Castle in the year 1618 which became the spark that started the Thirty Years' War." 220.240.42.129 (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

See 2 Kings 9 30-32.Smeat75 (talk) 11:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Undue.

Not really WP:UNDUE. It's two sentences, linking to an article on the subject, and well sourced.

All three of which can be true, and yet be undue. It emphasizes a POV that is not particularly common, nor widely shown in this article. Qwirkle (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
The whole passage is set in Wikipedia's voice as fact. To do this, we would need to establish that this is not mere POV and that this is supported by a consensus of scholars. Elizium23 (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
The Jezebel stereotype is a recognised stereotype covered in academic publications and other WP:RS, some of which are used in the article. It is not some fringe theory or radical POV. We could change the tone but I think it should be referred to in the article. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
That’s equivocation. The fact that a subset of something is recognized doesn’t establish that it is a major part of it. Qwirkle (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
No one is saying it's a major part. It is saying that it is something that is related to the word Jezebel by academics and others. As such, it is perfectly fine to mention this stereotype briefly in the Jezebel article, referring readers to the section of the other article that covers it in more detail. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
The second sentence is a WP:COPYVIO of the first ref. Elizium23 (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

850

850 B.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.184.139 (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Dogs in human culture

I would not add Category:Dog nutrition, but Category:Dogs in human culture fit the story very well. The dogs are not mythical, so Category:Mythological dogs does not fit here.--Geysirhead (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

it's over-categorisation, the article isn't about dogs and they are not that significant within it. The mythological dogs argument is a distraction, though as with all biblical stories they probably are.Unbh (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Unbh: No, it is not an over-categorisation. None of the previous categories mentions dogs.--Geysirhead (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't need to have a dog category at all.Unbh (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Out of what reason? This is not an argument. It describes a female corpse being devoured by dogs, even if you just don't like it. There are many paintings of Jezebel illustrating that fact.--Geysirhead (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Not least because, rightly, dogs are not mentioned in the lede. it doesn't meet WP:NOTDEF. the rest of your argument is WP:SYNTH but the vast majority of the images of her death are the defenestration.Unbh (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
"Not least because, rightly, dogs are not mentioned in the lede. it doesn't meet WP:NOTDEF." Please, read WP:NOTDEF. the vast majority of the images of her death are the defenestration, this is Wikipedia:No original research--Geysirhead (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
As is There are many paintings of Jezebel illustrating that fact. Unbh (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Wrong, this is WP:CALC.--Geysirhead (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
So when I say many images it's OR but when you say it it is CALC. Right....Unbh (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
What is your defition of "many" depicting dogs eating the corpse of Jezebel? Ok, I change the wording to There are more than 2 significantly important paintings of Jezebel illustrating that fact. It still justifies addition of this category to the article. I am adding both "Windows" and "Dogs in human culture".--Geysirhead (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
All of this is textbook OR from you. You can't just add things in this basis. Adding Windows will just show how absurd your argument isUnbh (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Show me this "textbook"!--Geysirhead (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
The dogs are too minor a detail in the story to merit such categorization. It'd be even less relevant that putting the Obamas in this category based on their ownership of dogs and the latter's popularity with the public.Mikalra (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
In the story itself, the dogs are a minor detail (not "too minor"). But, in the art depicting the story, dogs are strongly present. Even, if you search on Google for pictures of people devoured by dogs, you first get art about Jezebel and then deceased retirees eaten by their own pets.--Geysirhead (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
. Firstly that's egregious WP:OR, but you point on google results is both anecdotal and irrelevant. It ignores how google image search works for starters - if I put in your suggested 'people devoured by dogs' I have to go for 50 images before something evenly vaguely like the Jezebel art comes up, and then it's a woodcut of Ahijah the Shilonite (spoiler alert, he's not in the 'dogs in human culture' category). There are plenty of images of Ramsay Bolton, and of hot dogs but there are none of Jezebel before I get to the end of the results.Unbh (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Did I write that I used exactly the search term 'people devoured by dogs'? Categories like disambiguation pages are always WP:OR, since there are no sources proposing them. They help to navigate. If dogs are predominant in the art on Jezebel, then add it! It helps productive editors to find new topics to search about. Productive users don't only delete, WP:EWing and talk in order to win without WP:LISTENing. For instance, they know, how search for people devoured by dogs, how to speed-read scientific sources and so on.--Geysirhead (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
That's what you suggested.
Dogs are not predominant in the art and your approach is a fast track to over categorisation. The is not a defining feature, especially for the category you're trying to add. And cut it out with the personal attacks.Unbh (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Who is talking about personal attacks? After I made an edit on this page, you keep following me and opposing whatever I do on wikipedia, even opposing editors, who support me. Should I do it like some editors suggested, and threaten you with a case at ANI? Back to topic. WP:CIA Try to replace "people" with "men" or "women" and "devoured" with synonyms.--Geysirhead (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Exactly. Your repeated use of WP:CIR and WP:CIA is a personal attack, and a deliberate insult - stop it. On topic, I'm aware of how to use google - it's got no bearing on this discussion.Unbh (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@Unbh:Sorry, this is not a personal attack, unless you are a nobel prize winner, professor, or at least somebody with a degree in the topic of this article. Alas, I am not competent in some many things. I learn. You learn. Everybody learns, as long they know that they are dump. If I would think that I am already intelligent, I would not learn any more.--Geysirhead (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Song Jezebel by The Rasmus

My edit to add the song Jezebel by The Rasmus to the "In popular culture" section was reverted by @Unbh: with reason "This is not about the biblical jezebel". I believe that this song fits in the "In popular culture" section. While it might not be about the biblical Jezebel, the Jezebel in the song is a reference to and inspired by the biblical Jezebel. Other entries in this section are also not about the biblical Jezebel but are just references to her.

The Rasmus frontman Lauri Ylönen mentions the connection to the biblical Jezebel here (at 9:15 in the video interview): https://www.rocksound.tv/videos/watch/the-rasmus-jezebel-eurovision-song-contest-2022-interview. I could add this as an additional reference and reformulate my sentence to make it clearer what the connection between the biblical Jezebel and the song is.

--FreundTech (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

so confused...

am i only one who is so confused about the situation because from what i read i see no evidence stating jezel worshipped or sold herself to the 'bad man' so how is she a daemon??????? 192.182.87.40 (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

jezzABEL

JIGOJGUNRGHEIRGJIJ 2803:1500:1203:5CCE:39A7:1207:F639:E28B (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Jezabel's "brutal methods"?

In the article it says: "Jezebel had significant power and influence, which she used to both support Baal's cultus and eliminate its rivals, using methods that the Bible describes in brutal terms." "1 Kings 16:32" is given as source; I can not find any "methods of eliminating rivals described in brutal terms" at 1 Kings 16:32 and around... Could you please explain or give a more precise citation? Thank you! HilmarHansWerner (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Summary of Historicity section in intro

@Sinclairian: Greetings! Regarding this revert, Wikipedia:Summary style says that the lede should summarize the major points of the article. Removing this text means the intro doesn't summarize the Historicity section at all. The question of the accuracy for the biblical account related in the remainder of the intro and the "Biblical account" section seems extremely relevant to readers, so I don't see why it would be omitted on the grounds that it's a minor detail. -- Beland (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Beland I agree with removal of content. That's a WP:NPOV issue that needs to be further elaborated in the body of the page rather than the page lead. More academic/scholarly sources should be provided also. It's bad enough this page relies on primary sources (see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE). Jerium (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jerium: I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're objecting to as non-neutral, the "Biblical account" section, or the text that was removed from the intro? Doesn't the intro now have an NPOV problem because it only presents a biblical perspective? -- Beland (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Beland No editor here knows the biblical consensus concerning the historicity of the Book of Kings and Jezebel's biblical account, unless there's a reliable source that saids otherwise according to academic consensus, then the content removed in the lead was the appropriate choice as it presents a NPOV issue. Only Israel Finkelstein's views are presented concerning the historicity of Jezebel biblical account, and J. Bimson only is stating that the Books of Kings is not "a straightforward history but a history which contains its own theological commentary". Jerium (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification; I'll reword the summary accordingly. BTW, do you know of any academic sources that disagree with these opinions? -- Beland (talk) 09:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
No, I don't, but re-adding doesn't resolve the issue. Unless this tag be added. Jerium (talk) 13:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
OK, I have added the suggested tag, because the lede currently only presents a biblical point of view. I didn't just re-add the same text; I edited it to clarify the number of people whose viewpoint we know it represents. I thought that would address your concerns, but since it apparently didn't, with what words would you like to summarize the Historicity section in the lede? -- Beland (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jerium: BTW, I have added three more sources to the Historicity section, which I found on Books of Kings, which also say the books are biased and not entirely historical. Two of them appear to be approaching it from a Christian perspective. There are certainly fundamentalist Jews and Christians who believe in some form of Biblical inerrancy, but it appears evidence-based scholars agree that these texts are not without inaccuracy and bias. Both perspectives should be reflected in the article. I await your suggested wording. -- Beland (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Beland Hey sorry I didn't give you a response. I couldn't find a source stating Jezebel's biblical narrative is entirely historically accurate and true. Her biblical account, so far as I have seen in academic sources, is treated as story or novel. Jerium (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jezebel/Archive_1&oldid=1223989182"