Talk:Nehemiah

Fair use rationale for Image:Nehemiah1.jpg
Image:Nehemiah1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Question
Why does it say "for other uses" at the top? This doesn't make sense. I can't think of a better way but this one isn't good. It should say something like other people called Nehemiah.Bolinda (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)B
 * It is the result of a standard template used on Wikipedia. It is meant as an aid to people who arrive at the page but meant something else by "Nehemiah". -Rrius (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It means "for other uses of the word go to"... · CUSH · 11:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Historical evaluation?
So far this article contains no information that would establish Nehemiah as a real historical figure. Although there is a hint at the beginning that Nehemiah is a biblical character, the text is written in in-universe-style. So either somebody find non-biblical sources to confirm Nehemiah's existence or the article must be rewritten to put more focus on the fictitious nature of the story. · CUSH · 12:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. The two citations do not, in fact, support that this is a historical figure nor establish why it would be a historical figure  Both sources would be biased to the conclusion with or without evidence, neither are authoritative on archeology. 73.170.156.225 (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Citations asserting that scholars generally accept the existence of Nehemiah are provided in article. Including one scholar who disagrees, but nevertheless even he accepts that most scholars accept the historicity of Nehemiah 60.242.92.172 (talk) 03:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Denigrated sexual minority?
Is there any reference for the material regarding Nehemiah's status as a eunuch, or any of the other stuff about him being an oppressed minority. The last paragraph looks like original research. Tim Bird (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd like to suggest that alot of it looks like original research. Even one of the sentences that IS referenced "In the final phase Ezra was combined with Nehemiah, and the role of Ezra was minimized in favor of that of Nehemiah." seems to imply something that is taking place which is not completely understood or explained.  To me it looks like half of the article is direct quotations/retelling of the Biblical story and the rest is either original research or someone's opinion.  Needs alot of work, which is too bad since not only is the Book of Nehemiah pretty exciting as literature, Nehemiah himself is quite a leader (whether non-Christians want to believe he is fictitious or not).
 * Ckruschke (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * It appears that someone is building on this beginning thread - continuing the original research that was already unsupported by claiming that 1st Nehemiah was a eunoch (which is unproven and only one of two possible theories per the page's text) and 2nd that he is therefore gay (again unprovable - and just because you are a eunich doesn't make you gay) and 3rd therefore a disadvantaged gay character from antiquity just because his name is in some list.  I'm all for expanding my horizons and looking beyond what is written, but all of this is a leap based upon conjecture based upon a possible theory and none of it is supported by a reference that's legitimate and therefore the whole thread goes against Wiki guidelines. Hopefully the author of the recent edits will chime in to clarify this. Ckruschke (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * I've included a reference that suggests that Nehemiah was a eunuch. I haven't said he was gay. I think you've read too much into it - perhaps you should clarify. The suggestion of perhaps being a eunuch is not original research. Nehemiah was a cupbearer - some cupbearers were eunuchs. The manuscripts that say Nehemiah was a eunuch are the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. However, I accept that some scholars argue that these were mistranslations - eunouchos ("eunuch") versus oinochoos ("cupbearer"). The close similarity of the two Greek words could mean that "eunuch" is a scribal error for "cupbearer." Hebrew had a word for eunuch which was saris, but that word was never used of Nehemiah. All in all no definite proof for being a eunuch, but certainly sufficient enough to refer to in the article. If needed then I'm happy to add a sentence to cover the issue of possible mistranslation from the codexes. Contaldo80 (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

B. B.?
Under rabbinic literature it cites B.B. but I can't seem to figure out what B.B. is, is it from Talmud, Mishneh, or other work?--Teacherbrock (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Whatever it means, it's referenced throughout Job as well.
 * Ckruschke (talk)Ckruschke —Preceding undated comment added 21:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC).


 * When discussing rabbinic literature, BB usually stands for Tractate Bava Bathra. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

On Historicity of Ezra-Nehemiah
The majority of scholars believe that Nehemiah existed as a historical figure. This is relevant in an article on the biblical character Nehemiah, in the same way that it is relevant that scholars do not believe in the historicity of events like the Battle of Siddim. Given Wikipedia’s policy concerning reliable source (wp:rs), it is important that articles reflect the prevailing scholarly views on their various topics. On biblical topics, the articles should at least note the opinion of the majority of scholars somewhere in the article.

Recently, a sentence was removed by an unregistered IP address from this article, which had read: <> The sentence had ended with two footnoted references supporting this claim. The first footnote lead to a book published as a supplement to the double-blind peer-reviewed Journal for the Study of Judaism: In the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period, published by the well-known academic publisher Brill. The second footnote lead to a series of academic papers presented at a symposium by the Society of Biblical Literature, the largest society of biblical scholars in the United States, and published by the academic publishing house De Gruyter.

The entire sentence was removed by an unregistered IP address, who left the following comment (above) in this talk page. "I agree. The two citations do not, in fact, support that this is a historical figure nor establish why it would be a historical figure Both sources would be biased to the conclusion with or without evidence, neither are authoritative on archeology. 73.170.156.225 (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)"

No support was given by the unregistered IP address as to the how the editor knows that these academic sources are “biased,” and no alternative references where provided. The unnamed editor simply stripped out the only material in the Nehemiah article that addresses the question of historicity. And note that the removed sentence did not directly claim that Nehemiah was or was not a real historical person. It simply relayed the beliefs of scholars, which is what Wikipedia ought to be doing.

For these reasons, I will be restoring the sentence in question to the page.Alephb (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Alephb - in the future please feel free to just go ahead and revert that revision. Much of the work of established Wiki editors is "keeping the wolves at bay" and 99X's out of 100, IP editors do not add substantial/helpful edits to Wikipedia. This is obviously a generalization, but its held true in my experience. Ckruschke (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke