This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. See no general agreement in this debate to remove "language" from this article's title. Not sure myself about PTOPIC issues as I review these stats; however, since this topic is much more controversial than I think anyone expected, I am happy to leave the Hebrew redirect alone for now. But this issue seems far from over, so as is usual with a no‑consensus outcome, editors may continue to attempt to achieve consensus for the highest and best title for this article. ♥Happy ♥Hearts ♥Day! (closed by page mover) Paine Ellsworthput'r there 06:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Hebrew language → Hebrew – The target of this proposed move currently redirects to this article. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Relist comment I was about to close this, but on second I thought I think relist may help make the consensus clearer as this is highly visible page and both arguments for and against have substance. I will invite the relevant WikiProjects to participate. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
And so? This probably should be discussed before moving, since Hebrew can refer to both the language the people speak as well as the people themselves. Sakura CarteletTalk 03:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
And so?So, there's already a consensus that the language is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the word Hebrew. This technical request was merely made to reflect the existing consensus. If there's opposition to the existing consensus, that can be addressed in an RM, but there is no need to discuss whether to maintain the existing consensus if there is not active opposition to that consensus. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Can you point out where the consensus is at so this can be more clear? Sakura CarteletTalk 04:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
@Sakura Cartelet: I think I already pointed it out: Hebrew. Hebrew has redirected here continuously for the past 12 years. While of course consensus can change, as things stand, WP:SILENCE applies here (as it has done for the past decade). That being the case, I must ask: for what reason do you object to this technical request? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose common sense. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Since Hebrew is a redirect to this page (and has been for over a decade), your "common sense" argument makes no sense since anyone typing "Hebrew" in the search box comes right here. --Taivo (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
On what basis, given that your innate "sense" is evidently not shared by the majority of participants in this discussion? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
@In ictu oculi:On the basis that those supporting are going contrary to [other selected language articles] that where 'language' is required to be recognizable we use 'language'. In all of those cases, the word language is required for disambiguation because there is no primary topic. There is, however, no requirement to include the word language where is is unneeded for disambiguation (see, e.g., Serbo-Croatian, Arabic, Urdu). Presenting that list of articles in no way helps us determine what the primary topic is here.
No one so far has claimed that "Hebrew" is recognizable without 'language' as meaning Hebrew language ... Unless you can point me to a support vote who believes that 'language' is redundant here. I can't say [sic] anyone claiming that. That is untrue – I did so explicitly in my original support comment. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Support. The general rule is usually stated that if the term can refer to both language and culture, then "language" is always appended to the article name. However, if use of the term is overwhelmingly of the language and only rarely of the culture, then "language" can be dispensed with and the language be the landing zone for the simple term. That is the case with Latin, where the language is the landing page for the simple term. If Hebrew has redirected here for 12 years without a problem or a peep from users, then this is clearly a similar case. There is no contemporary "Hebrew culture", so there is no need to treat it like an equal to "Hebrew language". Indeed, there is a greater relevance to the term "Latin culture" in the contemporary world than there is for "Hebrew culture", yet the Latin language article rests comfortably at Latin and not at Latin language. --Taivo (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
The word Hebrew refers to a people, not a culture. — MShabazzTalk/Stalk 16:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
That's true, though that in no way detracts from TaivoLinguist's point. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
And this makes a difference to the discussion how? It doesn't matter whether it's a culture, a people, a Formula One car--the language has been shown to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Hebrew" (not "Hebrews", which is the title of the article about the people, but "Hebrew"). --Taivo (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
It makes a difference to the titling in that WP:TITLE is designed to be helpful to readers. The proposal is to make the title less clear, am I wrong? TaivoLinguist (talk·contribs) can you honestly tell me that "Hebrew language" is less clear than "Hebrew" that we are talking about "Hebrew language" here. If you can't tell me that, then how is removing 'language' making the title clearer? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Titling should be clear, of course, that's why we have to carefully determine whether there is any ambiguity, which, in this case, there is not. But titling should also not be lengthier or wordier than necessary when the demands of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC have been met. Why is Latin or Sanskrit clear, but Hebrew is not? "Hebrew", just like "Latin" and "Sanskrit", has been shown to be overwhelmingly considered to be the name of the language--both within the context of Wikipedia and outside that context. That is clarity enough. But the simple fact remains--people search for "Hebrew" in Wikipedia and get here. They're clearly happy here because this is where they want to be. They don't click to find any other "Hebrew" destination. --Taivo (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Mind if I ask why? :) Seriously, why should "titling should also not be lengthier or wordier than necessary when the demands of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC have been met"; where does it say that in WP:CRITERIA? That seems to be based on the idea that there's some kind of inherent virtue in shortness, even to the point of being cryptic. That for some reason a title of one word is better than two; but there isn't.
As for why Sanskrit is clear and Danish is not, the answer is obvious isn't it. There is no Sanskrit nation or Sanskrit people. So by removing 'language' from Danish we'd be being a nuisance to readers. That's clear in the case of Danish yes? Danish nation exist yes? So how is the historical Hebrew nation different, are you saying Danish people exist but Hebrew people never existed? What about Canaanite language, can we removed 'language' because Canaanites never existed? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Your argument is now nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Can you demonstrate that "Canaanite language" is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Canaanite"? Can you demonstrate that "Danish language" is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Danish"? Of course not. And while you make a good point about Sanskrit, you ignore the exactly parallel example of Latin. Why aren't you complaining about the "non-existence of Latin people"? The article for the Hebrew people is at Hebrews (note the "s" on the end), not at Hebrew people. So that simple fact argues against all your whining that "Hebrew people never existed". Of course they did, and Wikipedia calls them Hebrews. I have expressly pointed that out several times in this thread already. --Taivo (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Why do we have United States as an article title? Shouldn't it be "United States of America"? Until 1930 the First Brazilian Republic was called "The United States of Brazil". The official name of Mexico is "United Mexican States". How about United Kingdom? Shouldn't it be "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"? Surely there are other "United Kingdoms" out there in history and geography that could be confused with the UK. Titling should be clear, but it should not be unnecessarily complex once the demands of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC have been met. --Taivo (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Do you really think those examples are relevant and comparable? I don't. Please answer the point above. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
They are absolutely relevant to your point of "articles should be helpful to the reader" as you stated above. They aren't relevant to you because they prove my point and not yours that once the demands of unambiguous WP:PRIMARYTOPIC have been met then an article title should not be any lengthier than necessary. "Language" is as unnecessary in this article's title as it is at Latin and Sanskrit. --Taivo (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Here's another example of brevity being considered a virtue: Wikipedia doesn't like unnecessary disambiguation. If someone creates an article for a new company at Plastiferoni (company), where there are no other Plastoferonis here, it's gonna get renamed Plastiferoni. It's not that it would hurt to have the article remain under the longer title, but we just don't. Largoplazo (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Largoplazo, take a shot at the 32x question at page bottom please. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Support Clear primary topic. Number57 12:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Support per WP:NCLANG as an uncontested primary topic. – Uanfala (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:NCLANG because there is no primary topic, and some evidence on the part of those who assert there is would be helpful. — MShabazzTalk/Stalk 16:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Consensus for the past 12 years (reflected in the target of the redirect Hebrew) is that the language is the primary topic. The burden of proof is on those who wish to challenge that consensus, especially if the reasons behind that consensus are so obvious as here. – Uanfala (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I disagree User:Uanfala. These redirects have very poor exposure, any link to them is fixed by a bot, good editors know to not use ambiguous titles, and so no one looks and reviews. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Hebrews (the ancient ethnic group, not the book of the Bible): 18:698
Hebrew (disambiguation): 545 [this was originally left off as an oversight and was added a few hours later--see below]
I'm not going to include the moth species or other rare instances. There are separate entries for Biblical Hebrew and Modern Hebrew, but these are subpages to this page. Indeed, Hebrew alphabet might also be considered a subset of this page as well. So based on the numbers there is no real question about what the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here is--it is the language. A person searching for the book of Hebrews in the New Testament isn't going to search for "Hebrew", but for "Hebrews". And it's quite probable that the vast majority of people looking at Hebrews (the ethnic group) got there by mistake while looking for the book of the Bible (which is at Epistle to the Hebrews). I don't think there is any real question as to what the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is for "Hebrew". The page views are pretty conclusive, IMHO. --Taivo (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
That's gotta be a first -- trying to demonstrate what the primary topic is based on Wikipedia. Are you serious? — MShabazzTalk/Stalk 16:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
That is always one data point for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC--where users of Wikipedia are going when they enter a term. If they are going somewhere else when they search for "Hebrew", then it will be reflected in page view numbers. There are, of course, other data points which might be consulted, but user experience is always one of them. And I've been involved in enough of these move requests over the years to know that it's not "a first". --Taivo (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
But to follow-up, if you do a Google search for "Hebrew", 80% of the entries on the first three or four pages of results are for the language. That's another data point. --Taivo (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
@Malik Shabazz / MShabazz: WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY explicitly provides that article/redirect traffic statistics are amongst the factors to be considered in determining whether there is a primary topic. So what is it that leads you do believe that this is "a first" and that TaivoLinguist might not be serious? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
You omitted stats for Hebrew (disambiguation). A key consideration ought to be what percentage of those who are redirected from Hebrew to Hebrew language proceed to Hebrew (disambiguation) via the hatnote. The lower that percentage, the greater the percentage for whom the article about the language was the correct guess. Largoplazo (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Good catch. It was my mistake not to include the disambiguation page itself. Hebrew (disambiguation) has had 545 page views in the last 30 days. In other words, almost no one is travelling from this page to there because they were looking for something else. --Taivo (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm very sorry. I thought the primary topic was determined in a manner similar to that used for WP:COMMONNAME, i.e., by its use in reliable sources. I was clearly mistaken. — MShabazzTalk/Stalk 20:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
@Malik Shabazz / MShabazz: So taking into consideration the actual criteria used for these purposes, how would you apply them? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Support Based on the statistics above, users are well served by recognizing that the language is the primary topic. Largoplazo (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Pageview statistics for past 90 days (29 October – 27 January)
Support (edit conflict) – Only most rarely does the lone word Hebrew without qualification refer to anything other than the language, making this an ideal primary topic.
This is reinforced by both the internet search results for the term as well as the pageview statistics. I have provided statistics from the past 90 days for the articles Hebrew language and Hebrews (the ancient ethnic group and the only other intended destination that someone could reasonably conceive of reaching directly by searching for the lone word Hebrew) in the table to the right. TaivoLinguist has addressed the other articles' insignificance to the discussion above.
The recognition of this article being the primary topic is congruent with the previous consensus, standing consistently for 12 years, to have Hebrew redirect straight here. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Firstly that's not true. Hebrew does not "only most rarely" refer to other than the language. But even if you think that, then you're acknowledging that you're making things only a little worse for readers. Exactly, 12 years, so as a new editor why change it? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @In ictu oculi:Firstly that's not true. Hebrew does not "only most rarely" refer to other than the language. Where did I say that Hebrew "'only most rarely' refer[s] to other than the language"? Is it possible that I qualified that statement?
But even if you think that, then you're acknowledging that you're making things only a little worse for readers. How is anything being made worse when Hebrew already redirects to Hebrew language?
Exactly, 12 years, so as a new editor why change it? Why are you assuming me to be a "new editor" and what does that have to do with anything? And if you're asking why this should be changed after 12 years, it's because it is the only way to conform to our policies that is consonant with that 12-year consensus. Said consensus is that the language is the primary topic and, therefore, the word language is unneeded for the purpose of disambiguation. As it is unneeded for disambiguation, WP:CONCISE mandates the term's removal. If you want to argue that the language is not the primary topic, that is your prerogative, but why are you raising the 12-year consensus that suggests otherwise? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
142.161.81.20. I just find it strange that a new IP should take issue so strongly. Anyway, be that as it may "How is anything being made worse when Hebrew already redirects to Hebrew language?" .... Because [Hebrew_______] on the dropdown menu is not as clear as [Hebrew language]. By removing language we would be making the article less recognizable and imprecisely titled. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Yet we have Boston over our article on the capital of Massachusetts even though it's "imprecise" in light of there also being a Boston, Lincolnshire. Largoplazo (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Would you be opposed to the current title of the article on Boston, Massachusetts, too, In ictu oculi? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@In ictu oculi:I just find it strange that a new IP should take issue so strongly. Two thousand edits having been performed from this IP address and a banner on my user talk page posted by TonyBallioni making clear that I was editing under another IP address before this should probably suggest to you that I'm not too terribly new. But, again, of what relevance is that to this discussion?
Because [Hebrew_______] on the dropdown menu is not as clear as [Hebrew language]. By removing language we would be making the article less recognizable and imprecisely titled. Are you suggesting that we risk people clicking on the wrong entry in the dropdown menu? On which entry might they incorrectly click?
And you seem to have ignored most of the comment to which you replied. You asserted that I was incorrect in what I wrote, so I will ask again: "Where did I say that Hebrew '"only most rarely" refer[s] to other than the language'? Is it possible that I qualified that statement?" And lastly:
Exactly, 12 years, so ... why change it? ... if you're asking why this should be changed after 12 years, it's because it is the only way to conform to our policies that is consonant with that 12-year consensus. Said consensus is that the language is the primary topic and, therefore, the word language is unneeded for the purpose of disambiguation. As it is unneeded for disambiguation, WP:CONCISE mandates the term's removal. If you want to argue that the language is not the primary topic, that is your prerogative, but why are you raising the 12-year consensus that suggests otherwise?
I'll extend that invitation to TaivoLinguist, as seems to me your own argument is nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You've admitted that "Hebrew nation" exists in English while "Sanskrit nation" doesn't, you've admitted that the move to "Hebrew" will make the article less recognizable. So take a shot at the same question - of the 34x the word "Hebrew" occurs in the Jewish Bible (or indeed the Christian Old Testament) how many of those 34 refer to the language? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
When do discussions like this become settled by choosing a work in which the usage follows a pattern atypical of that of today's speakers and writers, and then calling for us to treat that atypical usage pattern as though it were typical? Largoplazo (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
[ec] User:In ictu oculi, What a silly argument. You're grasping at straws here. There is also a "Hebrew sausage company". You have failed to convince anyone here that "language" is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the word "Hebrew" or that the title of this article should not be moved. (I think you and the other WP:IDONTLIKEIT advocate wrote "oppose" at about the same time.) I hope that you are expending equal energy at United States, United Kingdom, and Latin to get those article renamed to eliminate even the tiniest amount of potential ambiguity in their titles. You are practicing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT every time that you ignore the simple fact that 78,000 readers arrived here and stayed here because it's where they wanted to be when they typed in "Hebrew" and hit Enter. Only 545 readers didn't want to be here and moved on to Hebrew (disambiguation) (maybe they were looking for sausage). That means that "Hebrew" is satisfying 99% of all Wikipedia readers. If you don't think that's WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, then you need to start working on United States, United Kingdom, and Latin. --Taivo (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
@Uanfala: There is no need for you to censor Taivo.
Largoplazo, when you say "discussions like this" what discussions exactly are you talking about? Discussions about Cornish language? Gaelic language? Latin language? Your comment above indicates that you accept Modern English language Bibles (NIV etc) and modern English language history books also have turns of phrase like "Abram the Hebrew", "a Hebrew". You've obviously guessed that 32 of 32x are all the nation not the language. So what's the problem, why shouldn't "discussions like this" take account of what exists in modern English texts when dealing with Jewish history and religion? This may be a surprise but there are many more sources on Jewish history in GBooks than sources on modern Hebrew language. Hence in GBooks the term "Hebrew" largely does not mean language. Agreed? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
In other words, "Largoplazo, why did you respond to the argument I gave you, given that your response wasn't going to be the one I was trying to elicit, instead of responding to a very different argument that I will now explain while acting indignant that it isn't the argument you responded to in the first place?" Sorry, after that I'm done playing. Largoplazo (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Except to point out that in Kings, Chronicles, Isaiah, and Revelation, "Hebrew" does refer to the language. Largoplazo (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
User:In ictu oculi, in his/her dogged attempts to get us to remember that there were Hebrew people, continues to ignore one very simple fact: Wikipedia has a whole article on Hebrew people at Hebrews. If there were an article entitled "Hebrew people", then she/he has a valid point about ambiguity. But there isn't, the article is at Hebrews, so all his/her sophistry is wasted because she/he appears to be a master practitioner here of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Only 545 of the visitors to this page were unhappy with their destination. Out of 78,000 visitors in the last month, that's not even a blip on the screen. --Taivo (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I've examined the first 40 results of a gbooks search for "Hebrew". In 35 the term clearly referred to the language, in 3 it probably referred to the language (phrases of the type "Hebrew books", where alternative referents are conceivable though unlikely), and in 2 I wasn't able to determine the meaning. – Uanfala (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment "dogged" "continues to ignore" "sophistry" "master practitioner here of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT" ............................................................................... right, that's grown up. ................................................................. back to the question.... when someone can explain how "Hebrew" is a clearer and more recognizable title for this article which has been stable at Hebrew language for 12 years then please ping me. If this article gets moved I will be expecting an answer from the mover/closer explaining how a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, as the previous 12 years, is not the most user-friendly solution and how ambiguating the title fulfills WP:CRITERIA1345. That's all. Hopefully on relist this will get some new eyes before it gets that far. Not impressed. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
And I continue to watch Latin for when you start your effort to disambiguate that article's title. After all, if you want to be consistent then you need to be consistent. I'll buy popcorn for when you begin your efforts at United States and United Kingdom as well. --Taivo (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
You pinged me to say this? I'll wait on relist and other eyes thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
You have yet to reply to my question – which I have posed a second time above – regarding why it is that you believe this proposal to be inconsonant with the consensus regarding the primary topic. And with respect to WP:CRITERIA, which you just raised, you have already received answers as to why the proposed title "is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects" (concise) while also being the most recognizable, natural, and consistent option. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:CONSISTENCY with other language articles, that use language in the title. A primary redirect should be enough. CookieMonster755✉ 00:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@CookieMonster755: If you're concerned with consistency shouldn't you be supporting the nomination? The only articles about individual languages that use the word language in the title are those that use it for the purpose of natural disambiguation. Where disambiguation is unneeded (where, e.g., there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), the word language is not used (see, e.g., Serbo-Croatian, Arabic, Urdu). 142.161.81.20 (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Latin, Sanskrit, Standard Chinese (and all complex names of languages where there is no or little ambiguity such as Sa'idi Arabic), etc. There is not now, and never has been, a one-size-fits-all approach other than to avoid ambiguity. Where there is little or no ambiguity through a clear demonstration of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "language" is not required (and very often not found) in the title of the article about a language. --Taivo (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Careful, Taivo, precision is important. You are now saying "where there is no ambiguity". There is ambiguity, so please don't say that because it just confuses things. The point of finding one of multiple meanings to be primary is that the ambiguity arising from using the term without disambiguation, using hatnotes to cover the cases that require them, is tolerable. It's especially important to be clear about this because the existence of the ambiguity means that your comparison with Urdu and Arabic and Serbo-Croatian isn't directly on point. Those are clear cases because they truly create no ambiguity at all. Largoplazo (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Wait. You do recall that I was the one who provided the evidence that "language" is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of "Hebrew". I have never contradicted that. I simply don't understand how my comments could have been misconstrued, but apparently they have been. I never said "no ambiguity", I said "no or little ambiguity". I have corrected my comments to be more clear and less likely to be misunderstood. "Language" is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of "Hebrew" by a wide margin and there is little ambiguity between it and any other meaning in modern English of "Hebrew". --Taivo (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I have no argument with you, but I wanted to alert you that you had left an opportunity for someone who doesn't agree with you to pick nits. And when you say "I simply don't understand"—of course you understood, because, three minutes later, you fixed up what you'd written earlier. :-) Largoplazo (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Exactly, hence why the proposed move is the only option that meets the consistency criterion – and hence my confusion with respect to the original comment in this thread. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. Ambiguous with Hebrews. "Hebrew" is well used historically with respect to Israelites and Jews, and there is also continuing use to refer to people. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Except that one is singular and the other is plural. That, in and of itself, is a disambiguator. --Taivo (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
A terminal "s" is too small a SMALLDETAIL, not sufficient disambiguation. Someone looking for the Hebrew peoples may quite reasonably expect to find the article at "Hebrews", and then in seeing the title "Hebrew" go to that. WP:PLURAL is for good reason, but one of the reasons is not disambiguation, readers can't be expect to know Wikipedia styling conventions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Is a terminal s a larger or smaller detail than the capitalization of the first letter of one word? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
The terminal s would be a larger SMALLDETAIL than the capitalization of the first letter of one word, because first letter capitalization is technically no difference, because on Wikipedia first letter capitalization is forced. It is also larger because it is an additional character, not a small change in character. Normally, I am very confident to say that terminal punctuation, especial the period and the comma, are too small, and then that homoglyph differences are too small. The terminal "s" I suggest is too small because Wikipedia styling imposes on plural titles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Picking nits because the nit doesn't fit with your argument. If the "s" were not sufficient to differentiate between an article on the Hebrew language (Hebrew redirecting to here) and an article on the Hebrew people (Hebrews), then Hebrews would have to be named "Hebrew people". But that "s" is quite sufficient to disambiguate, hence the current distinction between a redirect to this language article and the name of the ethnicity article. Your argument about "small detail" fails on the simple facts of the matter. --Taivo (talk) 10:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
The Hebrew redirect should be retargeted to Hebrew (disambiguation), it is ambiguous and inherently confusing. There is no downside to this article being titled "Hebrew language". The construction of the introductory statement "Hebrew is ..." assumes pre-existing context of talking about languages. The introductory statement "The Hebrew language is ..." is the appropriate construction for introducing the topic for the first time to a general audience. Similarly, "Hebrews" could be changed to Hebrew people, and I would support that, although there is not am ambiguity/confusion driver for that, and I would leave it alone per WP:TITLECHANGES. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Seeing the word "confusing" here, I am bemused by the mental image of someone searching for "Hebrew", finding an article on the language with the clear message "This article is about the language. For other uses, see Hebrew (disambiguation)." at the top and collapsing in a puddle of tears, at wit's end over what to do next. Largoplazo (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I think you overvalue the white space unused for a second word in the title, and undervalue the negative impact of a hatnote. Wikipedia hatnotes are a de facto admission that the titles are inadequate, or in this case, the PrimaryRedirect was over easily assigned. If Hebrew redirect were to be retargeted to Hebrew (disambiguation), this article would not need the hatnote. Hatnotes mess with the simple top down reading of the article, delay the lede, and confuse screen readers. This is recognised by the "Download as PDF" tool now stripping the hatnotes. I am bemused at your unchallenging acceptance of the hatnote. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
And I think you ignore the simple fact that the hatnote is actually only rarely used here and is only here for a tiny number of people. Out of 78,000 visitors to this page in the last month, only 545 actually clicked on the hatnote to move on. They come here and stay here because this page is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Hebrew" by a wide margin. I find your insistence that visitors to Wikipedia must be forced to a disambiguation page when there is a clear and unarguable WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Hebrew" (the language) to be highly unfriendly to the vast majority of readers. They're not coming to this page looking for anything about Bronze Age shepherds, or about medieval Jews, or about the Holocaust. They're coming here, in great numbers, via the simple search term "Hebrew", to learn about a language. --Taivo (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
“the hatnote is actually only rarely used here and is only here for a tiny number of people” you say? Well that’s more reason to get rid of it, which can be done by breaking the notion of the primary redirect and pointing the ambiguous term to the DAB page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense. What you just wrote amounts to "Inconvenience the majority for the benefit of the minority", which is the opposite of a criterion on which to base this decision. Largoplazo (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
"Wikipedia hatnotes are a de facto admission that the titles are inadequate, ...": that's almost too dramatic for me to deal with. It makes no more sense to me than "Disambiguation pages are a de facto admission that their titles are inadequate". That there are ambiguities in language is a fact of life that didn't first arise with the advent of Wikipedia. Wikipedia has multiple ways to deal with them. Disambiguation pages are one. Hatnotes are another, reserved for cases where there is a likely disambiguated target, to make a quest for information simpler for the majority of users. Admitting inadequacy has nothing to do with it.
"Hatnotes mess with the simple top down reading of the article." From reading the way you describe them, one would get the impression that they take minutes or hours to read. And why is it better for the majority of seekers of the topic to have to make their way down to the link on a disambiguation page and then click it and wait for the information they were waiting for when it could have come up in the first place? (I can't even imagine how hatnotes confuse screen readers. They're ordinary text containing one or more links.) Largoplazo (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Support. Consistent with language names for which there is no corresponding nationality, nor a group name in the collective singular (Sanskrit, Urdu, Latin, Arabic, Yiddish); and for those where separate topics are distinguished by adding an "s" (compare Latin/Latins, Pali/Palis, Hindi/Hindis). bd2412T 16:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. The Hebrews are just as primary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
You confuse "Hebrew" and "Hebrews". They are different words with different WP:PRIMARYTOPICs. The language has been definitively demonstrated above to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the singular. --Taivo (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I strongly suspect that people have been confusing Hebrews (a more or less obscure Biblical word) with the ethnic/national groups that correspond to the speakers of the language (Jews, Israelis). – Uanfala (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
No, I'm not confusing anything. "Hebrews" is not an obscure word. It's a very commonly understood word (both in its historical context and in its subsequent incorrect usage to refer to Jews). Far too commonly understood for the language to be primary over its singular use (which is just as commonly understood). -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. There is a significant debate about whether "Hebrew" is simply a synonym or exonym for "Jew" or "Israelite", or whether it originally referred to a wider group of peoples, perhaps including Edomites and other peoples with a language closely similar to Hebrew. I think the presumption should be "X language" except in cases (such as "Sanskrit" and "Judaeo-Spanish") where the use of the word for anything other than the language is marginal. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Except that "Latin" is a clear exception to your supposed rule. The fact remains that the language has clearly and unequivocally been demonstrated to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the form "Hebrew" as it has been for "Latin" (and other languages listed at various points in this discussion). Just because you can conceive of meanings for "Hebrew" and "Latin" beyond the language does not mean that they are, by any means, a common or primary topic. The language remains, far and away, the most common usage for the words "Hebrew" and "Latin". --Taivo (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment I've come to realize that I don't understand the applicability of the predominant argument that has been made by opponents of this proposal. The argument as to whether "Hebrew language" is the primary topic for "Hebrew" or whether "Hebrew people" is sufficiently competitive to keep "Hebrew language" out of primary topic status is an argument that would apply if Hebrew were currently a disambiguation page with links to both those topics, and someone were proposing to convert Hebrew to an article on the language while relegating the people to a hatnote. The actual situation is that typing just "Hebrew" already takes users to Hebrew language. It's via a redirect, but, from their perspective, as far as getting information is concerned, the result is indistinguishable from the result if the content now under Hebrew language (including the hatnote) were under Hebrew instead. We are already treating the language as the primary topic; we've been doing so for over a decade; and moving the content at Hebrew language to Hebrew would leave that situation unchanged. Largoplazo (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment The funny thing is that while there is one article titled Hebrews, the disambiguation page at Hebrew (disambiguation) illuminates for us that fact that there are several articles, any one of which might be what a user is actually in need of if the people is what they're looking for. Are they looking for information on the people discussed under Hebrews? Or is the information they seek under Children of Eber? Or Israelites? Or Jews? "Hebrew people" isn't even one thing, so it can hardly compete for positioning as a topic of equal weight. (Incidentally, why doesn't Hebrews have a hatnote pointing to Hebrew (disambiguation) so that users can find those links?) Largoplazo (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I just received a ping by the IP. It seems the badgering tone of the supports above continues. This clearly isn't "consensus" for a move. As regards the actual discussion @BD2412:, I think the reason the article has been employing a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT from Hebrew to Hebrew language for 12 years has to do with it being perfectly good modern English usage to say "Abraham was a Hebrew" but not "Caesar was a Latin". Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
It may be grammatically correct, but it has an old-timey feel to it, and is far less prominent as a modern usage than the language. By way of example, "was a Hebrew" gets about a quarter as many Google Books hits as "in Hebrew". bd2412T 12:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
That's not a "fair n-gram search" at all. It doesn't compare books that are about a Hebrew person versus books that are about the Hebrew language. It compares books that are about a Hebrew person with books that are written in Hebrew. Try again. --Taivo (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
"Fair" as in not comparing a two-word search to a three-word search. Modify your search to this to back it fair on that most basic mathematical issue. My searches including "was" I guess biases the results to the past tense. Without "was", both are still strong. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
That is much better. Thank you, User:SmokeyJoe. Notice, in addition to the greater percentage for language versus person, that the trend is for the language meaning to increase and the person meaning to stay the same or slightly decline. This demonstrates another editor's point that using "Hebrew" to refer to a person is a bit archaic. The use of "Hebrew" to refer to the language, however, is increasing. At the extreme right edge of the graph, the language usage is four times greater than the person usage (math, though, isn't my strong suit). --Taivo (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Those ngram searches are meaningless. Taking one arbitrary phrase associated with one use of the word and one arbitrary phrase associated with the other use of the word, and comparing the relative frequency of those phrases? You are failing to take into account the percentage of all uses of the word "Hebrew" to mean the Hebrew language that involve the phrase "in Hebrew" and the percentage of all uses of the word "Hebrew" to mean a person or the people that involve the phrase "was a Hebrew". If "in Hebrew" represents 10% of all uses of "Hebrew" to refer to the language and "was a Hebrew" represents 1% of all uses of "Hebrew" to refer to a person, or if those percentages are reversed, then comparing the respective incidence of the two phrases without taking those percentages into consideration is meaningless.
Nor are these phrases neat subsets within the respective categories of language and people. "Jeremiah was a Hebrew speaker" = language. Check out [1]. Largoplazo (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
"meaningless"? Wasn't it you earlier complaining about hyperbole? It is true that they need to be used with care. Comparing "the hebrew people" vs "the Hebrew language" says pretty much the same thing as every other search: There is more written about the language, but still a significant amount about the people. More, but not predominantly. A two-word title is not too long. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Hyperbole is hyperbole. Dead-on accurate is not hyperbole. The comparisons you two were running were completely, utterly, thoroughly meaningless in the context of this discussion. They have no relation to the question of whether the respective likelihoods that "Hebrew", when not used attributively with a following noun, refers to the language or the people are or aren't appreciably similar. As in, no meaning. No value. This is a mathematical and logical fact. The two of you were indulging in an unmistakably, provably fallacious exercise. I already gave you some idea of what sort of analysis would make this crystal clear. Another way to put it is that it's like comparing the length of a cat's leg to a human's toe and concluding that cats are bigger than people.
Now, if you ever want to have a debate over whether "in Hebrew" or "was a Hebrew" is the more common phrase among Google's corpus of books, that will be a different story. But that is the only context in which your Google ngram experiments would possibly have any relevance. Largoplazo (talk) 03:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
There is a broader problem in that "in Hebrew" can have many preceding terms - "was in Hebrew", "is in Hebrew", "will be in Hebrew", "written in Hebrew", "said in Hebrew", "spoken in Hebrew", "sang/sung/will sing in Hebrew", "inscribed in Hebrew", etc. With respect to persons, there really is only one - "was a Hebrew" - because it is vanishingly rare to say that someone now living "is a Hebrew". bd2412T 04:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
There is also the problem with "Hebrew" as a non-linguistic reference that it only exists in the context of the Bronze Age biblical texts about the Bronze Age population of Canaan. "Hebrew" as a linguistic reference has a vastly broader context to a living language beyond its limited Bronze Age reference. You simply cannot seriously equate 34 references in an ancient sacred text to the broad modern usage of "Hebrew" as a modern as well as historical language. --Taivo (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@In ictu oculi:I just received a ping by the IP. It seems the badgering tone of the supports above continues. This clearly isn't "consensus" for a move. Please assume good faith. Consensus building is based on discussion, so you were pinged in case you forgot about the questions left unanswered. In particular, you wrote, Anyway, be that as it may "How is anything being made worse when Hebrew already redirects to Hebrew language?" .... Because [Hebrew_______] on the dropdown menu is not as clear as [Hebrew language]. By removing language we would be making the article less recognizable and imprecisely titled. Naturally, in reply, I (like Largoplazo) asked, "Would you be opposed to the current title of the article on Boston, Massachusetts, too, In ictu oculi?" Additionally, I asked the following:
I just find it strange that a new IP should take issue so strongly. Two thousand edits having been performed from this IP address and a banner on my user talk page posted by TonyBallioni making clear that I was editing under another IP address before this should probably suggest to you that I'm not too terribly new. But, again, of what relevance is that to this discussion?
Because [Hebrew_______] on the dropdown menu is not as clear as [Hebrew language]. By removing language we would be making the article less recognizable and imprecisely titled. Are you suggesting that we risk people clicking on the wrong entry in the dropdown menu? On which entry might they incorrectly click?
And you seem to have ignored most of the comment to which you replied. You asserted that I was incorrect in what I wrote, so I will ask again: "Where did I say that Hebrew '"only most rarely" refer[s] to other than the language'? Is it possible that I qualified that statement?" And lastly:
Exactly, 12 years, so ... why change it? ... if you're asking why this should be changed after 12 years, it's because it is the only way to conform to our policies that is consonant with that 12-year consensus. Said consensus is that the language is the primary topic and, therefore, the word language is unneeded for the purpose of disambiguation. As it is unneeded for disambiguation, WP:CONCISE mandates the term's removal. If you want to argue that the language is not the primary topic, that is your prerogative, but why are you raising the 12-year consensus that suggests otherwise?
I eagerly await your answer so that we can continue working toward a consensus. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I can confirm that this IP has been known to me under at least two IP addresses, and while they can be a bit harsh in their tone, they are a good faith user and I've never had any reason to suspect them of socking, nor has any other administrator or CU raised suspicions about them to me (which I suspect they would do as I've been asked about the banner a few times). They edit heavily in contentious MOS areas, but so do many registered users. I hope this puts to rest any concerns that there might be about this IP address. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. Hebrew language is precise, and, at a whopping total of two words, not too wordy. There is nothing to be gained, and a bit of clarity to be lost, by lopping off the "language" bit. Alephb (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Hebrew singular can refer to a Jewish person. In modern English this has somewhat fallen out of use, but this common in older texts. Consistency with other languages is also an issue. A lone Hebrew with the context being implicitly or explicitly language is ambigious.Icewhiz (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
What other languages do is immaterial. English has "Arabic" and "Arab", respectively, for the language and the people. Spanish has "árabe" for both. Neither English nor Spanish Wikipedia is expected even to be aware of, let alone take into consideration, the relationship within the other Wikipedia's language between the two terms. Largoplazo (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Support. As evident by the existing redirect the long-standing consensus is that the language is the primary meaning of the word. The proposal does not actually change anything, it only removes an unnecessary redirect - a small technical improvement. “WarKosign” 21:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
@In ictu oculi: There is no need for you to respond to every single comment that you disagree with. Your single reason for opposing is common sense, and many other people feel that sense is that in current use, when someone says "Hebrew" they are far more likely to mean the language than a single representative of the Hebrews or Israelites. Current redirect already does exactly the same as this move, wasting a few seconds for the person accessing the page in the process. “WarKosign” 12:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Support. The case shows clear parallels to Serbo-Croatian and Urdu. And the redirect practice shows that in the past the page has been treated as just Hebrew. Landroving Linguist (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@Landroving Linguist: is it possible to say "Mila was a Serbo-Croatian, Ahmed was an Urdu"? I thought those are only languages. Re. "redirect practice shows that in the past the page has been treated as just Hebrew", no, redirect practice shows that in the past a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, this is not the same thing. If it was WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT wouldn't exist. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for restating your argument. I still Support the move. Landroving Linguist (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
But what you're saying is completely wrong isn't it, so why should your !vote be taken into consideration? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
So, User:In ictu oculi, if votes can be ignored because what the voter says is "completely wrong", then YOUR vote can be easily ignored. No need to respond because you're just going to rant about how what you have said is God's Truth and everything said by anyone who disagrees with you is "completely wrong". User:Landroving Linguist has a very long history editing language articles and I trust him/her far more on the topic. --Taivo (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Then how do you explain that quote "The case shows clear parallels to Serbo-Croatian and Urdu" unquote. That is completely wrong. Objectively, dispassionately, it is a completely incorrect statement as "Abraham was an Urdu" illustrates. And as for a grown up editor using the verb "rant" in a discussion about linguistics, what do your students think of that? How does "rant" demonstrate the cool, calm collected value of your argument. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Yep. Just like I said, your response was "I'm right and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong." And just for clarification, I may disagree with the opponents of the move request. I may disagree with their arguments. But not once have I ever advocated that their "vote" should not count because I think their arguments are invalid. That's where you crossed the line into "holier-than-thou" territory. You're just another editor here. You don't speak God's Truth. You speak your mind, but when you try to play the dictator and negate valid "votes", you are no longer editing in the spirit of Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Support. I've been biding my time, however the Serbo-Croatian/Urdu argument has clinched it for me as a matter of lateral thinking. I've not encountered the use of 'Hebrew' as an ethnicity other than in an historical (i.e., anachronistic) context. The fact that it has been used as a synonym for Jew/Jewish, or that the equivalent of 'Hebrew' is used in a number of other languages to signify 'Jewish' is irrelevant. What contemporary bio would state, "Mordochai [insert surname] is a Hebrew [insert what he's notable for]."? I weighed up the arguments for the necessity of 'language' as a disambiguator but, per WP:COMMONNAME, I fail to how the qualifier is anything less than redundant. This is not simple English Wikipedia, so 'Hebrew' and 'Hebrews' is not confusing and meets with the fundamental principle behind WP:PRECISION. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy, Hebrew language is not redundant due to Hebrew people.Compare Hebrews which is not confusing because "Hebrews language" is impossible. Yes Serbo croatian and Urdu only refer to languages, no Urdu people exist. Yes Hebrew is an ancient languages and therefore appears in books relating to history, both historical linguistics and the ancient near East, so in 2018 much of the references to "Hebrew" are historical and can mean Hebrew language or Hebrew people. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. My head is spinning and I really don't care about all the WP technical arguments, they can go back and forth ad infinitum, and apparently they already are anyhow... But I am in this case, just intuitively, with Users In ictu oculi, Malik Shabazz, Alephb, and the latest one that just clinched it for me here - Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da). I've also seen the work of Users Largoplazo and Icewhiz around and I respect both, but in my guts I am with Icewhiz in this case. All others are certainly very serious editors here, and one way or the other WP will be fine. warshy(¥¥) 19:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Support. With all due respect to the various experienced editors here, Hebrew is already a redirect to this page, so this proposed change neither clarifies anything nor confuses anything. Since "Hebrew language" is not the common name of something less commonly known as "Hebrew", WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT does not apply. I support this move as a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC among the items listed at Hebrew (disambiguation). Bradv 22:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Support: First off, Wikipedia in most other languages, including the Hebrew (language!) one, refer to it simply as Hebrew in one word. Secondly, Hebrew is the primary topic and that fact has now been established. Lastly, searching for "Hebrew" at scholarly sources indicates they use this word and only it to refer to the language nearly 90% of the time, and dictionaries (such as this one) define Hebrew first as a language, and then as the people. Shalom11111 (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. One, WP:CONSISTENCY. Two: we have many incoming links from the new languages sections of Incubator and Meta that automatically link to "xxx language". Now, in a way, it doesn't matter technically whether "xxx" is the article and "xxx language" the redirect, or vice versa, as long as both exist. But normally the language articles are named "xxx language". And this isn't broken. So what's the point? StevenJ81 (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
"This isn't broken. So what's the point?" I have a neighbor to the left of my house (as I face the street). I can get in my car and turn right four times, driving around the block, and arrive at my neighbor's drive. "That's not broken. So what's the point?" Why should I turn right four times to arrive at my neighbor's door when I can turn left once and get there much quicker? "Hebrew" gets a person here, but why should our reader have to pass through the redirect at Hebrew at all in order to read about the language? Place this article at Hebrew and our reader doesn't have to drive around the block in order to arrive at his neighbor's door. --Taivo (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
APPROPRIATION
Calling Phoenician, and Aramaic, Hebrew cannot deflect from the fact that "Hebrew" is simply Phoenician, and Aramaic, and calling it another name is simply the promotion of ethno centrism and supremacy. LebaneseBebe (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Do you actually know any of those languages? I'm skeptical, because one would think that if they're the same language, scholars learning them today would learn one, and would then start learning another, and would say. "Wait, this is exactly the same language. Why am I paying this university to teach me a language I already know?" And no one would ever have gotten the idea that they aren't the same language.
Hint: Half of the Book of Daniel is written in Hebrew and half in Aramaic. It would be tough to tell the difference if they were the same language.
Another hint: the Mourners' Kaddish is in Aramaic, which, to anyone who knows Hebrew, is obviously not Hebrew, but similar. So that's millions of people who are familiar with Hebrew and have directly encountered the evidence that Aramaic isn't the same language.
Next you'll be claiming that Spanish, Catalan, and Portuguese are all the same language.
A word of advice: It's generally a good idea to subject conspiracy theories to a sanity check like this before buying into them. Largoplazo (talk) 04:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
As for Phoenician, it's very similar to Hebrew. The two may be seen as separate dialects, or as different parts of a language continuum. But, the analogy with Spanish, Catalan, and Portuguese still holds; as does an analogy with standard French, Walloon, and Picard. I mean, for heaven's sake, Hebrew and Phoenician don't even use the same roots for "to be" and "to do". Largoplazo (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
The ambiguity of the word hebraisti in Hellenistic and New Testament Greek
Many native Greek-language speakers were kind of aggressively apathetic towards non-Greek languages. When reading Greek texts, they would have had a very limited degree of interest in knowing anything about what would have been a Syrian barbarian patois from their point of view -- and trying to explain to them that there were actually two different Syrian barbarous jargons used by Jews (Aramaic and Hebrew) might have been more information than they really had any interest in processing about the subject. That may be a partial explanation for the ambiguity of the word Greeek hebraisti. For discussion of such attitudes among the ancient Greeks, see the book Empires of the Word: A Language History of the World by Nicholas Ostler... AnonMoos (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
the "The Hebrew-speaking world" map is wrong.
I'll start off by saying that I've already edited the map to say 'Hebrew-speaking areas in Israel', because it's a map of Israel, not the world, but that appeared to just be the start of it -
I believe the map should be just removed as it is either wholly inaccurate or just plain wrong, and will bring my reasoning here - if anyone disagrees, please revert the changes and respond to this subject:
I couldn't find anyplace where the data came from, which is a problem, as the map just seems amateurish to me - it is sometimes extremely specific, painting with small white dots some particular Palestinian villages in judea and samaria as places where 'Hebrew is not used at all', all while painting other Palestinian villages as somehow places where 'Hebrew is the majority'. In Judea and Samaria it looks like the creator of the map just painted the areas that appear in the similar Palestinian National Authority map as places where Hebrew isn't used at all, completely disregarding every other reasoning, as if languages care for what exact jurisdiction Palestinian villages falls under.
...Not to mention that mixed cities in the rest of Israel just don't appear here, like Haifa, Acre, and Jaffa, or other towns where clearly hebrew can't be the majority language, like Jisr az-Zarqa, Rahat, all of the Bedouin settlements in the Negev, etc., which is even more ridiculous considering villages with only 1000~ people from judea and samaria do appear.
I have removed the map for now. Godislonely (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the phrase "Hebrew-speaking world" is incorrect, as it is refers to the areas where a significant amount of people speak the language as a native tongue and/or where it is an official language. But I suppose that is more or less a matter of opinion really. The map is pretty precise in assessing the amount of native speakers of Hebrew in the different areas, it reflect statistics on ethnic demographics in the different administrative divisions of Israel, the Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights (Found here: http://cbs.gov.il/shnaton68/st02_19x.pdf). While there are many Palestinian Arabs with Hebrew as a second language, the amount of native Hebrew speakers living in the Palestinian Authority areas (Areas A&B) is (at least officially) close to zero. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
the data you refereed to is for very large parts of land (like 'judea and samaria'), while the map itself attempts to paint small specific villages as either Hebrew speaking or not. I understand if you believe that's the only info we have to go on, but producing a wholly inaccurate map because of that is misleading and confusing. again, the map just doesn't answer to why some Palestinian villages in judea and samaria are marked as to be wholly filled with native hebrew speakers while some aren't (the answer is, of course, that it is marked as such because the map is just a painted version of the Palestinian authority territories map, not of actual arab villages in the west bank), and why other parts of Israel that are clearly arab (like mentioned above) aren't mentioned. It can't be because we have better information for the west bank, because we don't. The map should at the very least attempt to also paint the villages that appear in the the arab localities in israel wiki page, but until it does even that it just paints an inaccurate, confusing and misleading situation. Godislonely (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Please don't remove significant content without consensus. If you argue that treating all of Area C in the same manner is problematic I could understand because of there being areas that are sparsely populated, but I don't think it's that misleading. Even if the map was even more general and only showed statistics for the North, Central, Judea and Samaria areas and so on it would give an illustration as to where Hebrew-speakers are the majority and the minority in Israel. Of course the map can be improved and be made more neutral and factual and you are free to do so, but I would argue that the content is significant enough and correct enough to warrant it staying on the page as it is. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies, and sorry - I will stop removing the map without consensus. Again, it is my view that the map is undoubtedly misleading, as it tries to be extremely accurate in the west bank (and completely fails) while being extremely vague in Israel proper, and does so without any data for backing it up - simply looking at a map of arab villages in the west bank is good enough to show that the map wasn't made with accuracy in mind.
the issue is even more apparent when pages like the arab localities in israel wiki page have a map for arab speakers that is far more accurate, created with references to data, and actually makes sense (for the parts it does show), and this page that is much more mainstream has this sorry excuse (no offense meant) for an accurate representation.
I suppose my point is more of a general one - should Wikipedia really present information that is undoubtedly inaccurate and misleading because, well, 'that's what we have right now and unless you have the time/want to make a more accurate map, you should deal with it'? How can one bring this issue to a vote? Godislonely (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Strictly from a procedural point of view, what is theoretically permissible is the following:
You have a strong sense that the information in the article (the map, in this case) is inaccurate. So you remove it. (Probably OK so far, especially as the map does not have an explicit supporting reference. If it did have such a reference, that would have been more problematic. [And you do need to check on Commons, where the map is actually stored, to see if such a reference exists.] Anyway, stay with me here.)
Next, someone restores it, and asks you not to remove it without consensus. At this point, you definitely cannot remove it again until you have gained consensus on the talk page—or unless some other compelling justification appears. (See below.)
Now, that's theoretically what you can do. In practice, because Israel-Palestine questions are always so fraught, it's almost always a good idea to ask first anyway. And if the map had been supported by a reference, then surely you would need to ask first, as removing sourced material from an article—especially if the sourced material has been present for a while—is not really kosher.
At the same time, you ask a good question: [S]hould Wikipedia really present information that is undoubtedly inaccurate and misleading because, well, 'that's what we have right now and unless you have the time/want to make a more accurate map, you should deal with it'? And the answer to that is that every single fact in Wikipedia must be verifiable in reliable sources. Since I'm not anal about such things, I'm perfectly happy to concede that we don't necessarily need to demand the sources in absolutely every single case, even when the fact is less obvious than "the sky is blue". But in this case, where you are expressing some serious reservations about the accuracy of the map, you absolutely have a right to ask User:AntonSamuel for his reliable sources. Now, you need to give him a reasonable amount of time to respond—I am not a big fan of people immediately removing controversial information just because the source has not yet been presented. But if a week or so has passed and he cannot back up his map with sources, then you can, in fact, remove the map, even if there is not consensus.
Facts that cannot be supported by reliable sources are always subject to removal. (See WP:UNSOURCED.) While some people become aggressive about removing unsourced facts, I don't think one needs to be, as long as we're not talking biography of living persons issues or copyright violations. But under normal circumstances, if someone cannot respond in a week, then you are surely within your rights to act.
Thank you for clarifying StevenJ81! My assessment is that the map is not wrong or inaccurate in its present form, but can be made more precise and neutral. I've clarified the description on the page somewhat now. As I stated earlier, if you check this source: http://cbs.gov.il/shnaton68/st02_19x.pdf, you'll find data corresponding to the map. The demographic map the map is based on can also be found here: http://www.cbs.gov.il/statistical/arabju.pdf. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, AntonSamuel. So here's where I still have some problems.
I don't see any actual information about language fluency in either of these sources. If these are your sources, you effectively infer that the Jewish percentage of the population (in the data source) is the same thing as the Hebrew-language share (on the map). Is the assumption that Hebrew is the language of "all" Jews and "no" Arabs? And while I doubt that most of the map is extremely inaccurate on that basis, that's still an inference, and qualifies as original research. You'd really need to find information on language fluency to support the map.
I guess for the areas on the map inside Judea and Samaria, you are overlaying knowledge of the location of the "Israeli localities" cited in the population tables. But otherwise, same objections apply.
What constitutes "Hebrew is the language of [x%] of the population", anyway? Consider:
My son emigrated to Israel 5+ years ago. There is no question that he is fluent in Hebrew. There is also no question that from a linguistics perspective, his L1 is English, while Hebrew is only his L2, albeit that he is fluent. So in Haifa (where he lives), is he part of the >50% or not?
My daughter-in-law emigrated from France. Her L1 is French, while her strongest L2 is English. Hebrew is only her third language, albeit again that she is fluent. What about her?
If you are going to figure my son and daughter-in-law into the Hebrew-speaking portion of the population, then don't you have to start figuring in the degree of fluency of Arab residents? Where do you draw the line?
Look, I understand the purpose of the map. But what you're really trying to illustrate here is one of the following (which are similar, but not exactly the same):
"Hebrew is either the L1 or the lingua franca of [x%] of the population"
"Hebrew is a preferred language over Arabic of [x%] of the population"
So you have to change the captions, at minimum. And I don't think you can support the map at all unless you can find explicit data on language fluency and use. The sources you have now just don't really do the trick. I'm not going to suggest you need to remove the map today. But if you can't find some data on language fluency and use, then it will eventually need to go, I think. (Note: the data does not need to be available in English.)StevenJ81 (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Follow up: Removing map, as underlying language fluency data were never provided. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Update 23 October 2018
I just reverted an effort to restore the map to this page. As I noted just above, there are no data to support language fluency as described in that map. What the map actually shows is areas that are x% Jewish, and the reference data support that. But they do not support anything around language fluency, which makes the map inappropriate for this page. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
You're correct. Modern Hebrew was largely constructed but it isn't reconstructed in the sense attached to that term in linguistics. Largoplazo (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Agree. (It's somewhat arguable whether it even should be in the revival category, since it was always alive as a written language. But certainly a case can be made for that, and I won't object.) StevenJ81 (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Name of the language in IPA
I propose to change the IPA renderings of "Ivrit" to (1) [ɪvˈɾit̚] and (2) [ɪivˈɾit]. This matches the sounds the speakers make. The first speaker has a tap, not a voiced uvular fricative, for the r-sound, and his t-sound is not released and barely audible; the second speaker has no initial voiced pharyngeal fricative ("ayin"), and his first vowel-sound is noticeably diphthongised. These IPA transcriptions do not of course represent the correct phonemic form of the name of the language (at whatever period), but our square brackets say that the transcription is not phonemic anyway. If we show the correct phonemic form of the language-name, and the speakers don't produce that, then we have to either add an explanation or junk the recordings (or get better recordings).Farnwell (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Why in the opening section
It says "Palestine's Jews", the name Israel was before "Palestine". Even according to historians the area was called "Israel" before it was called "Palestina". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:a040:19b:214d:c099:8f6c:cd71:29e4 (talk • contribs)
That's the title of that article, IP: Palestinian Jews. El_C 04:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: No consensus. Strong support but not enough to overcome the opposition. (non-admin closure) В²C☎ 03:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I can live with either, but it seems to me that the current form of title is the most common for language articles. They are predominantly called "X language" or "X dialect", though there are many exceptions. Another problem is that it would look like the singular of Hebrews. Zerotalk 04:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Strong support: the title as it currently stands is just unnecessary disambiguation. If this move fails, however, the disambiguation page should be at the base name, as there no reason to keep it disambiguated if this isn't the primary topic. I can certainly see other people having an issue with this proposal, but I am beyond certain (upon doing various searches) that this is indeed the primary topic for that name. Sean Stephens (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
FYI, your wikilink goes to an unrelated guideline. You might have intended to link to Born2cycle's Unnecessary disambiguation essay? Colin M (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose: That something failed at RM before is no reason for it not to happen now, but having the adjective as a disambiguation page and the language page as "X Language" is the general form for languages. Hentheden (talk) 10:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. Hebrew can have different meanings. Britannica's Hebrew article refers to the people, not the language (see [2]). So there is no primary topic for Hebrew. I agree with Sean Stephens that if this RM fails, we should move the dab page to be the primary topic. Vpab15 (talk) 11:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Support. An article about a language can occupy the base title if it's a clear primary topic (that's explicitly allowed by the naming conventions for languages, and it's common practice: cf. Aramaic, Amharic, Latin, Sanskrit, etc.). The language is the unambiguous primary topic (and has been for 15 years), and I don't remember seeing any cogent argument being made to the contrary. Much was made in the 2018 RM of the Biblical use of the word to refer to the people, but that usage is rare in modern English. As for Britannica, it doesn't have primary topics in the same sense that we do. If you search anywhere, the vast majority of uses of the word are for the language. If you look at pageviews, there's only one relevant article that receives non-negligible traffic – Hebrews – and even that gets less than a fifth of the views of the language article. – Uanfala (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Of the 44 languages listed at List of languages by total number of speakers, 30 have the word "language" in their article name. That's over 2/3. A similar situation can be seen at List of ISO 639-1 codes (I'm too lazy to count but it is well over half). So your claim of common practice is incorrect. Actually the clear majority practice is the other way around. Zerotalk 14:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
It's common practice for a language article to occupy the base title if it is the primary topic for the term. If it's not the primary topic, then it obviously can't occupy the base title. The majority of language names in English are not primary topics, because they're also commonly used to refer to an ethnicity or a nationality (like French or Fula); in those cases, the base title is taken by a dab page. – Uanfala (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
That, and then there's also the possible conflation with Hebrews. Added: Ah, I overlooked that Uanfala has already noted this, though while arguing for the opposite, so credit. Added 2:Sean Stephens, this being the English Wikipedia, I can't help but notice how English →English language is set up. El_C 15:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)sh
Oppose no added clarity by cutting the title. Shortness is not a virtue. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Support Primary topic and proposed target already redirects here. I don't think there would be significant confusion with Hebrews. Number57 16:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Worth a {{Distinguish|Hebrews}}, do you think? El_C 16:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Possibly, but not entirely convinced it's necessary. Number57 17:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Clear-cut and direct, no possible doubts about the actual subject of the page. Why should doubt be left as an open possibility in this case? warshy(¥¥) 17:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. As has been said above there are other possible uses and "X language" is incredibly common on Wikipedia. No need to change it. Dan Carkner (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Oppose The language is not the primary topic. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 07:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Weak support per WP:NCL and the language seems to be primary for the singular given it gets 50,469 v 10,806 for the people in the plural form[[3]]. Otherwise move DAB to base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. The meaning of Hebrew is so highly dependent on the context that there can be no primary topic, as a quick scan of Hebrew (disambiguation) will show, even though several possible meanings are left out at present. The term has many meanings, and while one of this group of several related languages is the most common that isn't enough. It isn't even clear which of the languages known as Hebrew is claimed to be the primary topic. It cannot be all of them. Andrewa (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment: The page history of the move target is one of the more convoluted. Hopefully this RM will lead to some stability. Andrewa (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hebrew (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Can someone please translate the inscriptions in an image in Commons?
????
Please enhance the descriptions in the Commons image pages with texts in the images. - Altenmann>talk 01:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Bible characters names
how they sare pronounced tho thosand year ago 103.224.216.207 (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Natalie Portman § "Neta-Lee Hershlag". Discussion related to her Hebrew birth name. Sundayclose (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Sundayclose (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
