Talk:Shibboleth

Lead appears to be copyvio
first line of the lead is taken verbatim from the OED. Hairhorn (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Musicians use the word 'timbre' to distinguish those who 'know' from those who don't
I have removed this as it simply untrue and a somewhat bizarre claim. I am a musician and when an individual talks about the 'timbre' of an instrument or voice, it would not mean I thought of them as knowledgeable; I might think they were pretentious or mistaken. An individual would have to demonstrate depth of knowledge to be thought of as knowledgeable, but this goes for any field, not just music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanda3984 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

shibbólet
The article tells about the Hebrew word shibbólet but the rest of the article uses Shibboleth. What is the real Hebrew word? --Error (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It's the same, just a matter of pronunciation. The difference is how the last Hebrew letter ת is pronounced, the same letter written with and without a dot varies in pronunciation depending on region.  Modern Hebrew pronounces it Sheebbolet not distinguishing between a ת and a .  Biblical Hebrew has variations in pronunciation depending on the tradition in the country they live.  European Jews would have the tradition that it's Sheeboles or Sheeboiles, in Morroco it would be Sheebolet, in Yemen, Sheeboleth.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobGryn (talk • contribs) 21:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In modern hebrew it still means the part of the plant (not even all the plant) that containing grains,and in most of the cases - wheat. Avibliz (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Catchword
An IP and I are in disagreement about the inclusion of a link to Catchword in the "See also" section. The IP has posted the following comments to my personal Talk page: I am moving them here, which is where they belong.

Read this before you undo the See Also again.

"Hebrew in the sense of "criterion catchword""

"What is more, it appears that this erroneous premise has been chiefly responsible for our failure to recontruct the primary details of the shibboleth incident, even though the catchword itself has long since become proverbial. We have yet to learn how suspects were caught by the catchword." 

Also used here: "It is worthwhile, I think, to begin a discussion of mother tongue as shibboleth - as a test word or catchword distinguishing one group of people from another"

By WL Ballard "''The sound complex may not serve as a password, as in Israel (shibboleth 'ear of corn'), but it does appear to have been a "slogan, catchword or saying... distinctive of one group"''"

RE Holt: " A shibboleth is defined as “a word or phrase identified with one particular group; a catchword”."

Lawyer A Carnera uses this: " Shibbolethh takes place in the Trial and Verdict 12,6 as a catchword''" 97.85.173.38 (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * First of all, please read WP:BRD: "If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version". Discuss (here).


 * As I said in my edit summary, it may be that "catchword" is occasionally used in this sense. Congratulations: what you have done, with a bit of Googling, is to substantiate that. The Oxford English Dictionary includes five variant meanings for "catchword", plus one for "catchword entry", not one of which has anything to do with shibboleths, so it's clearly not a particularly common usage. However, that's not really the point. The purpose of the "See also" section is to refer the reader to pages containing additional information that is relevant (even if only tangentially relevant) to the subject matter of the present article. As Catchword deals solely with the very different printing usage of the term, it can be of no interest to anyone wanting to know about shibboleths, and we are wasting the reader's time by directing him/her to it. If you really think you have sufficient evidence for your usage, you might want to consider adding a short section to that article; in which case, a cross-link from here might become relevant. Until then, it can have no purpose whatsoever and should be removed. GrindtXX (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Congratulations: what you have done, with a bit of Googling, is to substantiate that. - untrue and its obvious you didn't take the time to look at about 12 thesauruses for synonym's of shibboleth and I only added 3 of over 10 pages of sources available on scholar.google.com that discuss the origins of shibboleth and show usage from 1897 till 2015. I added 13 more and the Catchword article certainly needs more work.  Fred Riggs explained how the catchword came to this modern usage by saying Approximate synonyms are "catchword" and "shibboleth." Technically, the words given in bold face at the top of each page in a dictionary are "catchwords," and by extension, any word that is frequently repeated is a "catchword."
 * 2) Oxford dictionaries first definition for catchword is "a briefly popular or fashionable word or phrase used to encapsulate a particular concept: "“motivation” is a great catchword" as proven in this screengrab so you didn't actually go look up the word or the Oxford dictionary used by Bing is updated compared to your old copy.
 * Definitions of shibboleth that include catchword/catchphrase (Which goes against your suggestion that it's very uncommon usage)
 * a) Chambers Dictionary, one of the sources already in the article, uses the definition of shibboleth as - 2 a slogan, catchphrase(extended catchword), custom or belief, especially if considered outdated.
 * b) American Heritage Dictionary - a. A word or phrase identified with a particular group or cause; a catchword.
 * c) Princeton Wordnet 3.1 "S: (n) motto, slogan, catchword, shibboleth (a favorite saying of a sect or political group)"
 * d) Dictionary.com - "2. a slogan; catchword."
 * e) Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary (found referenced by The Free Dictionary) gives the definition "2. a slogan; catchword." as seen in this screen grab
 * f) Our sister site, Wiktionary, has had this uncontested definition in their article since 2009: A common or longstanding belief, custom, or catchphrase associated with a particular group, especially one with little current meaning or truth.
 * g) (Tertiary) Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Ed (1989) - Shibboleth "3. fig. A catchword or formula adopted by a party or sect, by which their adherents or followers may be discerned, or those not their followers may be excluded.” (page 5)
 * h) (Tertiary) Oxford English Dictionary - "defines shibboleth as a catchword or formula"
 * 3) Catchword is not identical to shibboleth nor has the edit to the article suggested as much. The definitions in the sources I used have catchword as an integral part of determining the overall meaning of shibboleth. Catchword refers to a specific word which can discern the difference between two cultures.  Shibboleth can refer to other customs such as religious prayers or music, articles of clothing, lack of knowledge of scripture as well as being unable to pronounce 'sh'.  However, multiple thesauruses on the internet list catchword as synonymous with shibboleth.
 * 4) "As Catchword deals solely with the very different printing usage of the term, it can be of no interest to anyone wanting to know about shibboleths" - As I stated before, the failure of that article to cover the wider usage of the term just means that article needs improvement.  An article's lack of development is not an excuse here.
 * 5) The definition's I included came from a linguist, A Jewish historian of that period and a professor of English. That should be more than  sufficient for the edit and your opposition is baffling.  97.85.173.38 (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * This revert with the tag ""shibboleth" represented "a word placed at the foot of a handwritten or printed page"." is baffling because we both know that is not the sub-definition of Catchword that is being used in this situation.
 * The meaning is the second sub-meaning catchphrase(singular)- " a word or phrase that is easy to remember and is commonly used to represent or describe a person, group, idea, etc."
 * Or catchword- "1. a memorable or effective word or phrase that is repeated so often that it becomes a slogan, as in a political campaign or in advertising a product."
 * And Oxford dictionary's FIRST definition is "a briefly popular or fashionable word or phrase used to encapsulate a particular concept: "“motivation” is a great catchword"
 * It's not an edit war when I answered your concerns and showed my changes to be valid on the talk page. 97.85.173.38 (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * What makes the hoops I've had to jump through all that more ridiculous is that this isn't a new usage and Oxford English Dictionary also has catchword used in at least two editions.  RL Lippman used it in 1897 when he wrote about Freud. (Lippman, Robert L., and Ernest Jones. "Sigmund Freud Avoids His double, Theodor Herzl." (1897). ... due to a victorious Jewish military campaign that the Hebrew word shibboleth became a catchword used to tell friends from foes, ) 97.85.173.38 (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * (A) The reason I didn't provide a link to the Oxford English Dictionary (which is the parent dictionary for all other Oxford dictionaries, and generally regarded as definitive) is that it's a subscription resource to which you may not have access (and "the hoops you've had to jump through" would seem to confirm that). However, the definitions it provides for "catchword" are (with examples of usage omitted, and slightly abridged):
 * "1. Printing. The first word of the following page inserted at the right-hand lower corner of each page of a book, below the last line.
 * 2. A word so placed as to catch the eye or attention; spec.
 * a. The word standing at the head of each article in a dictionary or the like. the word standing at the head of each article in a dictionary or the like.
 * b. The rhyme word in verse.
 * c. The last word in an actor's speech, serving as a guide to the next speaker; a cue.
 * 3. A word caught up and repeated, esp. in connection with a political or other party. (Cf. catch phrase).
 * 4. catchword entry: an entry of the name of a book in a catalogue under its most important word."
 * So yes, definition (3) covers "catchword" as an approximate synonym for "catchphrase" or "slogan", which reappears in most of the dictionary definitions you have quoted above. But nowhere is there any suggestion of "catchword" as an approximate synonym for "password", or "test word", or something intended to "catch" somebody out – a "shibboleth". Having said that, I agree that at least the first 3 of your quotations above do use it in that sense; and also (which I had not appreciated) that although the OED entry for "catchword" doesn't mention "shibboleth", the entry for "shibboleth" does mention "catchword" ("3a. fig. A catchword or formula adopted by a party or sect ..."). So I would continue to argue that it is used, but it's a minority usage. The evidence would suggest that it's more of an American than a British usage, although the OED does try to cover all varieties of English.


 * (B) You have failed to understand my objections to your wikilinking to the Catchword article, either in the body of this article or in the "See also" section. If you link to another article, you're saying to the reader, "Here is a slightly obscure term, or name, or specialist reference, and it's only incidental to what I'm talking about at the moment, but if you don't understand it or want to know more, this is where you go". So you only link to it if it expands on the term in the sense you have used it: otherwise it's irrelevant, and you're wasting everyone's time. (You don't link to Perth, Australia, when what you're actually talking about is Perth in Scotland.) In the present instance, the catchword article defines "catchword" specifically as "a word placed at the foot of a handwritten or printed page", so if you link to it, that is the definition you are accepting. So you now have two options: either you do some work on Catchword to explain that the term has other usages, and then link to it; or you don't link to it at all (and just put "catchword" here in quotation marks). I did consider suggesting that you might link to Catchword in Wiktionary, but, again, there is nothing there to support your preferred interpretation of the word.


 * (C) Having got all that out of the way, I honestly don't understand what you're trying to do with your edit. Are you using "catchword" in the sense of "catchphrase" or "slogan", or are you using it in the sense of "password" or "test word"? They're really quite different. The lede now says "A shibboleth originally represented a catchword", which (either way) is just nonsense: either it was a catchword or it wasn't: it didn't represent a catchword. The sentence then refers to a "custom whose whose pronouncing variations were used ...": how can a custom – a habitual way of behaving – possibly have "pronouncing variations"? If you could learn to write correct and clear English, we might get somewhere.


 * The lede is now a complete mess, but I'm going to leave it to others to sort out or revert completely. GrindtXX (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The anon IP confuses the purpose of dictionary and wikipedia. In wikipedia, an article is about a particular meaning of the word In our case the article is about "word to test if he is one of us", and "obsolete slogan" meaning is only tangential to the scope of this article. A word may have different meanings, but they go into different articles. Just the same, the word "catchword" have several meanings, one of them happens to overlap with "shibboleth", and it is bad idea to define one multifaceted word with another ambiguous one. - üser:Altenmann >t 00:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

"Sh" / "S" in Judges 12:6
In the section on the origin of the term Shibboleth, the article as it stands currently claims that the Ephraimite dialect of Hebrew lacked a "sh" phoneme. Two sources for this claim are cited:

and.

Neither of these are by biblical scholars. The first is by someone writing about postmodern philosophy, and the other is by someone writing about how to speak good English. I've got a biblical scholarly source, on the other hand, which understands the issue differently:. It says: "The Gileadites plan to identify the Ephraimites involves a dialectical shin/samek contrast. The origin of the variation is not clear, though the issue seems to be phonetic rather than phonemic. This is probably not a case of divergent development of sibilants in Gileadite and Ephraimite dialects of Hebrew, but simply a case of the differentiation of the same sibilant in these regions. To the Gileadites, the Ephraimite pronunciation of shin sounded exactly like a samek." For this reason, I'm going to edit out the claim that the shin phoneme was missing in Ephraimite to reflect the scholarly source, and I'm going to remove the other two, non-expert sources. For all we know, those sources simply worked their opinion of the matter out by reading the Bible in English, where many translations do give the impression that Ephraimites simply lacked a "sh" phoneme. Alephb (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Concur; this is the most likely situation in most scholarly opinions. Samek once was likely pronounced /ts/, while Šin once was /s/, and Śin (written the same as Šin) once was both /ɬ/ (similar to hissing from the sides of ones tongue) and /ṯ/ (IPA /θ/; the unvoiced "th" sound). During the two millennia BCE, these sounds shifted and now Samek is /s/, and Šin/Śin are /š/ (IPA /ʃ/; the "sh" sound) and /s/. During this transition, different groups at different points in the transition would be pronouncing some phonemes differently. A person writing about philosophy and a person giving instruction on English diction (and similar sources) probably should not be chosen over sources writing from more related fields (not only because of background knowledge, but the intended audiences are different and thus explanations [even with an author who is well informed] will be likely written quite differently with different intentions). — al-Shimoni  (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Pick a topic
Found this article and found the lead to be confusing and not consistent with any of the cited references. I have re-written the lead as follows:
 * A shibboleth is any custom or tradition, particularly a speech pattern, that distinguishes one group of people (an ingroup) from others (outgroups). For example, non-rhotic (r-less) pronunication in English has long been seen by many in England (and even parts of North America) as a shibboleth indicating sophistication and education.
 * Shibboleths have been used throughout history in many societies as simple ways to maintain traditional segregations or to keep out perceived threats. In times of war it has been common for soldiers to use shibboleths to identify enemy spies or others attempting to infiltrate their ranks. Such shibboleths may include testing their speech patterns or testing their knowledge of the culture that they claim to be part of.

Granted the word shibboleth can be used in other ways but this is the way it is mostly used. The article needs to be clear on what its topic. If we start providing every definition of the word then we are violating WP:NAD.

I would toss out one additional thought. This article is currently listed under WP Judaism. Although obviously the word originates from Hebrew, the common English usage of this word does not ostensibly have anything to do with Judaism. So the question is "Is this article supposed to be about the biblical story or is it supposed to be about the concept represented by the English word shibboleth?" I would argue that if the intention is to have an article about the biblical story, then it should be named something like "Biblical shibboleth annecdote" or "Gilead/Ephraim Battle" or some such thing. But an article entitled "Shibboleth" should be about the concept of a "shibboleth" with the biblical story just a detail regarding the origins of the term.

--MC


 * Go for it. Alephb (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The trouble is, you have thrown out two babies with the bathwater. The article now omits the two commonest acceptations of the word — leaving a minoritarian one.


 * In everyday modern English a shibboleth is not particularly a speech pattern; it is a "custom, principle or belief" [Oxford Dictionary of English] ""especially a long-standing one regarded as outmoded or no longer important" [ibid]. All other short dictionaries I have consulted agree with this definition.Ttocserp 04:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)



External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shibboleth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203001432/http://www.lalupa.com.do/2012/10/la-matanza-de-1937/ to http://www.lalupa.com.do/2012/10/la-matanza-de-1937/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shibboleth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320191328/http://www.occupationalenglishtest.org/Documents/ViewDocument.aspx?club=oet&DocumentID=0bbf678f-9672-48c0-bb76-79bd9912b45c to https://www.occupationalenglishtest.org/Documents/ViewDocument.aspx?club=oet&DocumentID=0bbf678f-9672-48c0-bb76-79bd9912b45c

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant Paragraph Removed
Took out the following from section Modern Use:


 * By analogy with the biblical account, in information technology a shibboleth is a community-wide password that enables a member of that community to access an online resource without revealing her individual identity. The individual does not know the password that is actually employed – it is generated internally – hence cannot betray it to outsiders.

The link in the paragraph appears to refer to some sort of unified-login scheme, whose connection to Shibboleths as discussed here is tenuous and doesn't contribute anything to the clarity of this article. Also, saying that the 'individual does not know the password', even if it made sense from the technical standpoint (it doesn't), disagrees with the fact that the existence of a particular shibboleth is well-known to individuals within the group, and outsiders can certainly be made aware of its existence (whether they can take advantage of that knowledge is a different matter). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.78.24 (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Reverted. Improve not destroy.Ttocserp 10:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Though you may have clarified somewhat the mechanism of that unified login scheme, it only served to further highlight its inexistant relation to actual shibboleths. It is not descriptive enough to make the mechanism understandable (and this wouldn't be the place even if it did), and it contributes nothing but confusion to the understanding of shibboleths proper. The mention of that mechanism might be suitable, at most, for a disambiguation page or heading. So, re-reverting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.78.24 (talk) 10:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Difference between Shibboleth and Sociolect
I'm afraid I'm about to ask a stupid question, but this concept seems to have so much in common with Sociolect yet there is no discussion of that, nor vice versa. Shouldn't there be some sort of cross-mention? Moebeus (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There's certainly a degree of overlap, but also significant differences: a sociolect comprises to a swathe of linguistic features that distinguish a particular community, whereas a shibboleth is a single tell-tale identifier. For the moment I have added add both articles to the "See also" section of the other. Slightly fuller discussion would certainly be in order, so be bold! GrindtXX (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

"Corn"
The English word "corn" does not mean just maize (Indian corn), except in certain contexts in North America. In other contexts it's a generic term for any kind of edible grain. (For example in the King James Bible the word occurs 235 times; never once does it mean maize, of course.) Please refer to the current editions of the Merriam-Webster and Oxford English Dictionary. We keep getting editors who just show up at this article and regale us with their (limited) knowledge of the word. It's misleading and it's unnecessary in an article on shibboleths. Ttocserp (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that corn comes from North America, I don't understand your objection. I am reverting your edit based on the prior talk page discussion, see here. Secondly, I don't take kindly to your characterization of my contributions to Wikipedia as "we keep getting editors who just show up at this article and regale us with their (limited) knowledge of the word". There is no reason why I shouldn't "just show up" at this article or any other. I can assure you that I do have some knowledge of the word, shibboleth. I am a Jewish woman, attended elementary school in Israel and spoke Hebrew. I have since studied the tanakh in Hebrew school, and am fluent in English, with a more than adequate education in English literature from Swarthmore College. (I forgot all my Hebrew from elementary school alas, but this is English Wikipedia). I read the talk page carefully before making any edits.--FeralOink (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It distresses me to have given you offence. I was unduly ironic and didn't explain my objection very well.  I apologise.   I don't doubt you know about the word shibboleth and have studied Hebrew in Israel and English in America very thoroughly.  That's not my objection.


 * My objection concerns the use of the word English "corn" in the article in an unduly restrictive North American sense. To users of American English your use of the word is perfectly correct.  In the US "corn" usually means maize, and no other sort of grain.


 * But as you know English is an official language in 94 countries, not all of which use the US variety. In many places "corn" is not thus restricted.  Says the Oxford English Dictionary As a general term the word includes all the cereals, wheat, rye, barley, oats, maize, rice, etc.  The word "corn" existed in England many centuries before the New World was discovered, together with its maize.  That's why, when they wanted to translate the Hebrew tanahk into English, the best scholars of the day correctly used the word "corn".  They didn't mean maize — which they knew about, and would have called "Indian corn".   They meant the staple grains of the Middle East, the very ones referred to in the Hebrew.  Ok, I'm labouring the point, but to sum up:  for many users of English Wikipedia, perhaps even the majority, your sentence "corn was found only in the New World" is not correct.  I appreciate you didn't mean it that way, but surely you can find another way of expressing it.   Can we do this consensually?  What would you propose?Ttocserp (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Earlier, a link to Ear (botany) was cast as "ear of corn". With the removal of that link, the parenthetical bit about modern usage of maize/corn now stands without context, amounting to a confusing non sequitur. This could be easily fixed by restoring the link, this time piped to "ear of grain" or "head of grain". Even so, I do not see any need for the parenthetical bit about the different usages of "corn".

Also, this edit removed the sense of "river or torrent". Why? Just plain Bill (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree entirely with Just plain Bill. If we are not quoting or citing a source that uses the word "corn" (as we currently are not), there is no point whatsoever in including this parenthetical aside: it is irrelevant to the topic of this article. And even if we do revert to quoting such a source, there is still very little point in including this comment unless there is a serious risk of ambiguity: surely we can expect the reader to be bright enough to appreciate that languages evolve and that, whatever the modified meaning of the word in Modern Hebrew, the writers of Biblical Hebrew are unlikely to have been referring to a crop that was unknown in the Old World at that time. GrindtXX (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with Just plain Bill, that it would be best to restore the wikilink to Ear (botany), but piped to "ear of grain" or "head of grain", and remove the other content about maize I added. What I added was confusing. I had been motivated by the earlier talk page commentary, but didn't go about making such changes properly. As for the meaning of "river or torrent", I think I removed it because it was unsourced and I could find nothing supporting such usage at the time. Is there?--FeralOink (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with Just plain Bill and GrindtXX that we should go back to the earlier version, which anyway contained valid historical information, now suppressed for no apparent reason.Ttocserp (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * As for "river or torrent", this is extremely confusing and seems to refer to Biblical Hebrew about which current and even past scholars of the Bible and Hebrew were uncertain about. William Safire wrote about it, as did many others. Start here, which references Safire: "'The meaning of the word is of minor importance. Elsewhere in the Old Testament it has the sense of 'ear of corn' (Gen 41:5 ff.; Ruth 2:2; Zach 4:12) or, less commonly, 'flood, torrent' (Psalms 69:3,16; Isa. 27:12). In out passage it is taken in the former sense by such versions as the Greek Codex Vaticanus and Aquila, as well as some modern scholars (Cf. Liebmann ZAW 25 (1905) 161). On the other hand, reference to flowing water is assumed by the medieval Hebrew commentators and a majority of the moderns, evidently because such an allusion would be more appropriate to the occasion.'"
 * The Forward doesn't help much: "'Stachys means “an ear of wheat” in Greek, which is also the primary meaning (and in the modern language, the only one) of shibboleth in Hebrew, and the Greek translators, unable to reproduce the first letter of the Hebrew word in Greek, chose to convey the general sense of the episode without specifying the exact nature of the Ephraimites’ mispronunciation. In doing so, however, they made an amusing mistake. This is because shibboleth in ancient Hebrew can also mean “a strong current of water” or “whirlpool” — and in view of the fact that our story takes place at “the fords of the Jordan,” this is clearly the meaning that the Gileadites, who could have chosen any word beginning with shin, had in mind.'"
 * I am really confused now. The word שבלת (shibboleth) is a feminine noun meaning either an ear of grain or a flowing stream but that was supposedly because the men of Gilead connected the growing of grain to the flowing of a river, see this section on the etymology of shibboleth. I don't have anything further to add and will bow out now. Thank you for your patience with me here, all three of you.--FeralOink (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Tumblr example of furitive shibboleth
From tumblr, I forget how long ago: "I like your shoelaces!", with the proper response "Thanks! I stole them from the president." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.170.206.214 (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Title image
The illustration shows villagers producing icons to avoid being murdered. This is not really an illustration of a shibboleth; however. It is more like a passport. The icon is supposed to work because the persecutors think Jews are unlikely to possess one.

A shibboleth is an innate behavioural characteristic an outsider cannot convincingly imitate. A passport or the like is a physical possession that qualifies you for preferred treatment. A passport, a credit card, a driving license, your fingerprint, even your facial appearance — all these things may indeed distinguish you from outsiders or guarantee you advantageous treatment, but they are not true shibboleths,Ttocserp 02:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * That's a fair argument. Personally, I feel there's enough overlap to justify including this image in the body of the article (given the difficulty of finding images that illustrate a behavioural characteristic graphically), but probably not to justify having it as the lede image. I would therefore propose restoring the "Tchoupitoulas Street" photo to the lede (where it used to be), and moving the icons image down (at a reduced size) to the Examples section. Other comments? GrindtXX (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Tchoupitoulas Street" is a valid example. Shibboleths were originally tests of vocal performance, unless I am mistaken. Diction, or choice of words, and verbal pass phrases seem to have come under this category. Haircuts, wardrobe choices, or displayed icons may serve similar aims, but are strictly speaking not shibboleths. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, at the moment there seems to be a consensus for swapping the two images.Ttocserp 01:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I've switched them GrindtXX (talk) 14:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Offensive example
The image used as an example under Modern Usage is offensive. The image description perpetuates the "out of town" or "Paid protestor" conspiracy theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.80.150.106 (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you find offensive. There's nothing here to suggest any "'Paid protestor' conspiracy theory". The person pictured is making the argument that local decisions should be made by local people: whether you agree with that or not, it's a point of view, and certainly doesn't make the image "offensive". And WP:NOTCENSORED. GrindtXX (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Xenophobia is offensive, it's not something you promote, such as by uncritically platforming it. The use of the image is xenophobic. A corresponding image that favoured causes or persons the left doesn't like would be quickly identified as such and removed/replaced.
 * Personofcanada (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

"Flood or torrent"?!
The article says that another meaning of the word shibboleth in Hebrew, part of the head of a stalk of wheat or rye, is "flood or torrent". It admits that this is "less commonly (but arguably more appositely)", but as a Hebrew speaker with a deep Biblical knowledge, I'm sorry to say that this is simply a mistake. Yes, I read the sources that claim that this is a possible translation but I'm not convinced and I recommend to delete this addition. Tamar Hayardeni תמר הירדני (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, since Ephraim Avigdor Speiser — who was a full professor of Semitics at the University of Pennsylvania — published a paper opining otherwise, maybe you'd better publish a work saying he was wrong. When and if this commands universal support among biblical scholars, then we can revisit the topic.Ttocserp 02:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Tchoupitoulas again
diff Image removed, edit comment asserting it was "irrelevant." Pronunciation as a means of identifying out-of-towners (without standing to contest a local matter) seems like a quintessential shibboleth. Kindly discuss... Just plain Bill (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have restored this image, which is plainly and unarguably a relevant example.Ttocserp 19:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Shibboleth
Torontonians also distinguish people from Toronto from others by the pronunciation of the city's name. Those from Toronto will usually pronounce it as "Trawna" or "Torawna". To enunciate the name is to mark oneself as an outsider, or suburb dweller. 142.118.70.217 (talk) 12:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Definitely a better example than the xenophobic example image at the top of the page.
 * Personofcanada (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Nevada example
The Nevada example states the pronunciation with an /ɑ/ vowel is closer to that of the original Spanish than the /æ/ vowel with no citation. Without evidence of a formant chart or similar this claim cannot be so assuredly made Pienasula (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

A South African example
In South Africa, during one of our waves of xenophobic attacks, people would often be asked what an elbow was in Zulu (“indololwane”) to identify if they were locals or foreigners. Is this an example of a shibboleth? If so, I think it could be added.

link:

https://mg.co.za/article/2019-09-13-00-the-torment-of-being-a-questionable-south-african/?amp 169.0.54.66 (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The "r" in Thunder is also a shibboleth
"Another sign/countersign used by the Allied forces: the challenge/sign was 'flash', the password 'thunder', and the countersign 'Welcome'. This was used during D-Day during World War II due to the rarity of the voiceless dental fricative (th-sound) and voiced labial–velar approximant (w-sound) in German."

I don't know the phonetic terminology but I've noticed that Germans struggle with the hard "arrrr" sound. A german would probably say "Sund-air" instead of the American "Thundurrr". So this shibboleth has two phonetic challenges, the "th" and "-er".

Keith (Hypergeek14)Talk 21:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Pike Place in Seattle?
Tourists in Seattle often add a mistaken "s" and pronounce it "Pike's Place" or possibly "Pikes Place". This is used to identify both tourists around the large market, as well as newcomers to the city generally. I noticed there wasn't any "tourist tests" on this page yet, but I assume that is a very common branch of this phenomenon. Would an example like this be helpful? Jdftba (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A better example is already in the title image.Ttocserp 20:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

5 yen and 50 sen
This is in danger of perpetuating "5 yen and 50 sen" into yet another urban myth. It is very poorly supported by the cited sources.

The first source (Lee 2013) is a serious scholarly article. It describes the 1923 earthquake massacre and says that various devices were used to identify Koreans, including racial appearance and inability to pronounce various Japanese phrases. It nowhere mentions yen and sen.

The second source (Hankyoreh 2007) is an English-language newspaper article about a play in a small theatre in Kyoto. In this play there is a scene where Koreans are told to say a Japanese phrase (not specified), which the newspaper article translates as "5 yen and 50 sen". According to the playwright the information comes from his father's diary.

I have looked in vain for serious scholarly sources that support this particular shibboleth.

In the first place, this is a synthesis of two disparate sources contrary to WP:SYNTH.

In the second place, it is clear that "5 yen and 50 sen" was, at most, one of many devices used in an attempt to identify Koreans. Anyway it is not what they actually said, only an English translation.

My understanding is that the Japanese phrase would not have been very hard for Koreans to pronounce anyway; therefore, why should we suppose this particular shibboleth was widely used? It might have been used once, for all we know. No cited source claims otherwise.

Therefore, absent a much better source, it should not be in this article. Ttocserp 22:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)