Talk:Jezebel

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

Popular culture[edit]

Kanye west mentions her in his new album. really popular guy, it should be inside the pop culture section (I'm new sorry if I did this wrong) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.96.54.171 (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only a small fraction of popular references can be given in the space available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4E9F:D101:F9AC:EA23:F272:2977 (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural symbol: "The cosmetics which Jezebel applied before her death also led some Christians to associate makeup with vice." - I've removed the citation to 2 Kings 9:30 because it merely states that Jezebel wore makeup. This sentence needs a citation of the Christian's view of makeup. Whbjr (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of Historicity section in intro[edit]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]