Talk:Vashti

Public-domain source

Note: Some text here is from the public domain Easton's Bible Dictionary, originally published in 1897. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Anome (talk • contribs) 23:19, 6 September 2004 (UTC)

Name meaning

I've corrected the name meaning per Behind the Name's entry. In my experience, BtN is one of the most accurate—if not the most accurate—name site I've ever come across.

BtN's entry notes that Vashti is "most likely" to be Persian in origin, rather than Hebrew. Oxygen.com's Babynamer and Hebrew Letters, other fairly reliable sources imo, gives this Persian meaning as "beautiful". Randee15 05:26, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What happened to Vashti in the Book of Esther?

In the BoE (Book of Esther), what happened to Vashti? --Wack'd About Wiki 13:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Ester replaced her as Queen. In the U.S., Jewish children are taught that Vashti was executed, but Christian websites say that the King divorced her. The Book of Ester does not say which happened, only that a replacement Queen was needed. Either way, she stopped being Queen.66.10.94.35 (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Merged with Queen Vashti

I merged the Queen Vashti page with this one. Cheers, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources?

I would be interested to learn where a lot of this information has come from. I have been interested in Vashti for years. Could the contributors please put in sources?--Jesewe (talk) 07:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"Drunken" king in the As a feminist icon section

I am curious as to the source for the claim that Vashti's husband was drunken. It does say that there had been a feast for 180 days and then another, ensuing time period of 7 days. During that time the bible book does say that wine was served yet none were compelled to drink. It seems a bit of a leap to then claim that the King was drunk. 71.211.249.63 (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC) CLay

Infobox

Considering that all the information about the subject comes from biblical texts, I don't think we should be using infobox that authoritatively presents her as royalty of Persia, especially as Ahasuerus = Xerxes identification is not really fully settled.--Staberinde (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, you mean to say that the Bible isn't authoritative. If some identification is not according to all sources, then that can be indicated in the article proper (as it is), but that doesn't preclude using the infobox. Debresser (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

You may put me down as opposed to having an infobox here. Infoboxes, really, are for rapidly letting people see simple, uncontested facts. Alephb (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I support having the infobox here, just as royals from ancient Rome and Greece do in their articles. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Existence and position of royals from ancient Rome and Greece are backed by ancient Roman and Greek texts. Even Pontus Pilate's existence is backed by non-bilbical ancient source. Here nothing of the sort exists. Infobox by its nature doesn't really allow much nuance, so it is effectively giving impression that her status as queen of Persia is settled matter.--Staberinde (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, regardless of whether people want an infobox or not, everything in the infobox needs to be sourced. That's just basic Wikipedia 101. So, I've removed all the unsourced claims in the infobox, which means removing just about everything. This is part of why infoboxes aren't suitable for semi-historical figures about whom not much is definitively known. Alephb (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

And I have undone your edit as being pointy and disruptive. In addition, you removed sourced information in your zealousness. Debresser (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose the infobox here. It misleadingly presents as historical in the normal way a figure who should have confirmation from the reasonably detailed conventional historical sources from the period, but doesn't. That's a very different case from many other figures in the Hebrew Bible, who one would not expect any record of, other than in the HB itself. As Alephb (and WP:INFOBOX) says, infoboxes are for rapidly letting people see simple, uncontested facts, and they can't cope with the degree of uncertainty and complexity involved here, and become misleading. Of course exactly the same is true of Esther. Willthacheerleader18, can you really not see the difference? There is no record of Vashti in Persian or Greek histories or traditions. To stretch the analogy rather, it is though Aztec traditions included a queen of Spain who Spanish/European history has failed to record. We would not then set up a "Queen of Spain" infobox for her. Johnbod (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod I see what you're saying, and I agree. Especially since, as you've pointed out, her historical existence is questionable and she seems more of a symbolic or mythological figure for Abrahamic religions, the infobox does not seem to benefit the article in any way. I had not looked into it, assuming there was historical documentation. Thank you for clarifying. I hereby change my position to Oppose (also for Esther). -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose For all the reasons already explained by all the editors opposing an Infobox here, I want to add my opposing vote also (also for Esther). Let me add that there is no scholarly consensus that texts of the Bible, especially those of the Hebrew Bible, can be considered even as approximating any historical accuracy whatsoever. As for myself, I can say I do not believe they were even written with any 'history' in the Greek/Western culture sense in mind. warshy ^(¥¥) 17:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The historicity of the newer portions Hebrew bible from the late kingdom (-700 upwards) and second temple period (as opposed to earlier events) is actually "not bad" - on par with the (very poor) accuracy of contemporary historical and semi-historical writing (e.g. Herodotus) - truly scientific historical writing (without fake speeches - all the Greek and Roman historians would plant their own constructed speeches in the mouths of generals speaking to their troops to advance the narrative) - is a much later phenomena. That being said - this isn't an endorsement of this being historical in any modern sense (though connecting Herodotus' writings to what is written in Esther is plausible though clearly debatable [1]). Icewhiz (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Include infobox, clarify biblical source. An infobox aids readability and we have infoboxes for many mythical, religious, and/or fictional figures. The infobox should make clear that this is of a biblical origin and that historicity is doubted or not certain.Icewhiz (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • How do you suggest the infobox might do that? It is precisely not what infoboxes are good at. The infobox before did nothing in this direction & the problem here is different from that for earlier biblical figures, as explained above. Johnbod (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
    • The infobox should state biblical figure instead of "Queen of Persia" (which possibly could remain in parenthesis). An "Infobox character" perhaps should be used (as in Abraham or Joffrey Baratheon) and not "Infobox royalty". One could concisely specify in the infobox what this biblical figure was in the biblical narrative. Icewhiz (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose any infobox that looks to a casual reader to be a summary of historical facts. That would be actively deceptive, which trumps all other considerations. If there is a way to indicate in the infobox that everything there comes only from a biblical story, that could be considered. Zero^talk 02:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand the point of view of those who oppose the use of the infobox. Perhaps this should be more broadly discussed and guidelines appropriately adapted. At WP:CENTRAL, for example? Done Debresser (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Include infobox, clarify biblical source per Icewhiz. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Include infobox We have infoboxes for Pokemon and Simpsons characters. I'm pretty sure their historical existence is not genuine. We also have {{Infobox biblical character}} (as a redirect to {{Infobox character}}), likewise. And {{Infobox Saint}}, as used on, for example, Adam. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I am not really sure what this is arguing for, are you suggesting that we should replace {{Infobox royalty}} with {{Infobox character}} in this article?--Staberinde (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • You're completely missing the point, Andy. The infobox for eg Bart Simpson does not present him as a US senator, which is the equivalent of the situation here. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
    • No John; I'm not missing the point partially, let alone completely. Lack of comprehension on your part is not down to me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Note - could people who want to include infobox specify what kind of infobox they want too see? There seem to be quite a lot of vague remarks how things should be "clarified", but it is very unclear how that should look like in practice. Original point of contention here is the infobox which completely unambiguously presents subject as Queen of Persia, wife of Xerxes I until c. 479 BC, successor of Amestris, daughter of Belshazzar, and of Zoroastrian faith, even though the subject is not mentioned in any non-biblical ancient sources. How all that should be clarified? Should {{Infobox royalty}} be replaced with some other more suitable infobox? Other relevant articles for which same question applies would be Esther and probably also Haman.--Staberinde (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Keep infobox with parentheticals along the lines of "(disputed)" or "(unconfirmed)". This gives the quick overview available from an infobox, while letting the reader know that it might be a good idea to look at the article for more information. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 20:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

(Also could additionally have the Italicized bit at the top of the infobox say something like: "Queen of Persia (as Biblical figure)" or something maybe? —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 20:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC))

We don't normally do that - if there is a serious question-mark over information it is just omitted from the box, rightly. Why should an exception be made here? In this case there would be nothing left. Johnbod (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, hm, well, it should be consistent with the encyclopedia. Struck my "keep". That said, I still think that would probably be more useful to readers, and think it's at least worth considering changing that policy for the rest of the encyclopedia too. That's not really a discussion for here though. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 23:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually it would be the opposite of "useful". Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose given the lack of scholarly consensus on basic historical facts; readability or not. Agree with Zero's view that usage would be "actively deceptive". Ceoil (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose infobox because there's no consensus that she exists. Even if explained in the body, it would be misleading at best. buidhe 04:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• Needs wider discussion: the article is no more misleading than the infobox for Adam, which reads "Created on 6th day" under the "birth" parameter. Well if that's an uncontroversial summary of historical facts then I clearly don't know much about history. Before someone responds, "the page Adam uses {{Infobox Saint}}", that's all very well for the editors but for the readers there is literally no mention in the infobox that this information comes from the Quran/Bible. To pre-empt another argument, yes that information is clearly displayed alongside it in the lead, but that's the same situation as in this article, and more importantly we need to remember that on mobile and in some other viewing configurations, the infobox is presented in isolation, before the lead. I think the optimal solution is an infobox or series of infoboxes which begin with "According to the [holy book]" and then report all relevant information without any further clarification. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Or since most of the normal sort of infobox information is simply not available in such cases, just drop the box. Johnbod (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this. warshy ^(¥¥) 18:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Bilorv, your comment here describes my position more eloquently than my comment did. Thanks for writing it :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 06:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

An infobox does exist for fictional characters - Template:Infobox character. Icewhiz (talk) 07:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I reckon about two and a half billion people would object to us calling Adam a "fictional character". This simply isn't how things are categorised though—for instance, religious books are treated as non-fiction in the Dewey Decimal Classification. In addition, we need to preserve some of the infoboxes which have more specific religious parameters such as "Feast day". — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 09:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Well - we use the character infobox on well known figures - e.g. Abraham. We could rename / add a redirect / create a specific religious-type infobox (e.g. "Religious figure"). We have a saint infobox (for those that are saints) - we could have a non-saint figure infobox as well. Icewhiz (talk) 09:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. What I'm proposing is to alter these infoboxes to read "According to the [holy book]" at the beginning. I don't care exactly how this is achieved, but yes, altering the existing saint infobox and adding another for "Religious figure" seems like a good solution. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 12:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

That's only part of the problem. If you look at the infobox as it used to be, which doesn't mention the bible, every single field is at best highly speculative, and does not even contain facts (except for "Queen of Persia") included in the bible account: dates, father, religion, place of death etc etc. So it is a disaster both in giving key biblical data, and in terms of conventional history. That's what always happens when an infobox is set up with almost no information - people come along and pad it out with speculative or dubious stuff that has no place in an infobox. Much better not to have one at all. The Arbcom ruling is very clear that they are not a neccessity. Johnbod (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

And I agree with this. warshy ^(¥¥) 18:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

That's not really an argument for removing the infobox—it could equally be used as justification for adding more information to the infobox. Unless I'm misunderstanding, it's not speculative that the Bible says these things and so my solution works as well. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding - take that infobox version & compare it to the (fairly short) account in the Book of Esther. You'll find almost none of it is there. Johnbod (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Having a "religious figure" infobox seems like the clearest solution.

Wikipedia rules and guidelines are very clear that having User:Johnbod as an editor is not a necessity. Nevertheless you are here. Likewise we can have an infobox. Debresser (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Johnbod (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

G-d forbid. That was just an example. Not an attack at all. Debresser (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Currently I make it 9 for no box, 5? for "infobox, clarify biblical source", & Debresser for the current box style. Johnbod (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Count me with the "infobox, clarify biblical source" votes, please. Debresser (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, of course, if you say so, though you have made many edits to both the article & talk without the slightest suggestion of this (just saying), and reverted several times to a different version. Maybe you shouldn't devote so much energy to reverting and attacking other editors? Currently 9 for no box, 6? for "infobox, clarify biblical source" then. Johnbod (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I change my position to Infobox, clarify Biblical source. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Which makes it 8:7 (if the original count was correct). Debresser (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

If we're counting votes, then consider mine un-striked, with my position being Infobox, clarify Biblical source. That seems kind of unusual way of assessing consensus for Wikipedia, though... —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 23:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Not really, especially when there are nearly 20 comments, and some people don't bold their concise view, and others change theirs. Well, I propose we keep the infobox, with "biblical character" top, and only containing such "facts" as are actually given in the Hebrew Bible account. Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Impossible or unlikely

For discussion of recent edits, see Talk:Esther#Impossible_or_unlikely. Debresser (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)