Talk:Modern Hebrew/Archive 1

Small minority does not override scholarship per wikipedia rules

The vast majority of scholars support the obvious conclusion that Hebrew is a Semetic language. The standard policy of wikipedia is only to report disputes between large ammounts of scholars. 99.48.42.65 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

i think it's should be mentioned that most of the mizrahi people in israel from the third gereration have changed their accent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.168.84 (talk • contribs)

Shlomo Izre'el focuses on the "emergency" of "Spoken Israeli Hebrew" in terms of a "creation of a new language" Shouldn't that be "emergence"? --88.73.158.127 (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"direct continuation"

Tagged this wording in the lead as dubious , but didn't want to just delete it . The remarkable thing about Ivrit is that , apart perhaps from Sanskrit , it is AFAIK the only successful language-revival project in history . If it's not exactly a constructed language , it's not a direct continuation either , as the chain of transmission as a native language was broken . Cultural , maybe , but not linguistic in any direct sense . Thus Shlomo Izre'el's comment quoted above . Certainly something so remarkable should be displayed prominently in the lead . Instead we say that Modern Hebrew was "developed" in the late 19th century , wording that could be used for any standardized language . We also attribute it to one man , which is practically impossible : Hebrew didn't become a living language again until it acquired a community of native speakers , who took it in their own direction . — kwami (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

NPOV Issue With Classification

Problems:

• Several claims are missing citations
• The linked article from forward.com (http://www.forward.com/articles/4052/) is an editorial from a biased source
• The section implies that many, if not all linguists who argue against the continuity between Ancient and Modern Hebrew are anti-semites.
• Much of the section discusses the political implications of the language's classification instead of the language's actual, current grammar.

Any suggestions, besides just scrapping the section altogether?

Hi, first of all, make sure you sign at the end of your comment next time. Secondly, I just read through the article, removed information that has been unsourced for years, and put that "forward" article in the proper place. If there's anything else you think we should improve in the article, please be specific and give examples. Thanks, Shalom11111 (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Why isn't Modern Hebrew classified as Canaanite language?

Modern Hebrew descends from the original Hebrew and is therefore a Canaanite language, the last one to survive as others such as Phoenician went extinct, why isn't this mentioned in this article as it is mentioned in the Hebrew language article? Guy355 (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Classification

First, the sentence about a "debate" is unsourced and inaccurate. "relexified Yiddish" is a claim of a specific scholar, even other scholars that question the classification of Modern Hebrew disagree with that claim. Anyway, it is already mentioned the classification section so it is redundant. Second, Modern Hebrew is widely recognized(by majority of scholars) as a continuation of classical Hebrew (see also my sources), why ignoring this consensus and giving an unproportional expression for a specific POV? --Infantom (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Infantom, a total deletion of the lead's summary of the classification section is not the answer. The lead should summarize the whole article, so we need to summarize the classification section. Could you suggest a rewrite instead of a deletion? Oncenawhile (talk) 08:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Something like "several scholars have questioned the classification of Modern Hebrew, whether it is relexified Yiddish or Semito-European. However, Modern Hebrew is widely recognized by most scholars as a continuation of classical Hebrew" would be more accurate. As for classification in infobox, as i said, a continuation of biblical Hebrew is the consensus among most scholars, so that's should be the classification here(please check also the sources i provided). Thanks.--Infantom (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

This one scholar (Paul Wexler) was pushing this theory as part of a broader agenda pushing revisionist claims about the origin of modern Jews. Frankly, it does not even stand the laugh test. Not even the controversial Ghilad Zuckermann makes this exaggerated claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.77.64.151 (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

From what I see, the alphabet of modern Hebrew is identical to Classical Canaanite Semitic Hebrew, many people who don't speak Hebrew and hear it mistake it for Arabic, I don't understand why it's not classified as an Afro-Asiatic Semitic Canaanite language which it's without a doubt such a language according to most experts, I asked this question in the thread above but received no reply. Guy355 (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The alphabet has nothing to do with it. The general consensus is that Modern Hebrew is not a direct descendant of Classical Hebrew, not in the normal sense of the word. The question has been what to call it, and how to deal with it. It's certainly not a creole, but it's been pointed out many times that if the first Modern Hebrew speakers had been Mizrahi, it would have been a very different language (much more Semitic). If the nature of the language was dependent on the language background of those first speakers, then it isn't a simple descendent of Classical Hebrew. — kwami (talk) 09:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

"The general consensus is that Modern Hebrew is not a direct descendant of Classical Hebrew"- Could you prove that? Because that is completely wrong. This opinion is shared by only several specific scholars, but the consensus is that Modern Hebrew is based on and derived from Classical Hebrew. It is also stated in the Classification section but is ignored in the opening section and the infobox. Please read here and here --Infantom (talk) 12:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I am confused about parts of this article (and a corresponding part in the Esperanto, which I corrected) that equate Yiddish with Slavic. Yiddish is a Germanic language, as the wikipedia page on it makes clear. It doesn't mention the theory that it's a Slavic language relexified to have Germanic vocabulary. Only on this page does it mention it, and here it's assumed to be true ("it is relexified Yiddish, ergo it's relexified Sorbian") It should be made clear that the mainstream view is that Yiddish is Germanic and that Hebrew is Semitic. The Judeo-Sorbian theory flies in the face of both. If it's only half-right (i.e., Hebrew is relexified Yiddish), then that would make Hebrew a Germanic language. Pinkboi (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to wikipedia.

It is very confusing, and should be more clear, I agree. There does not appear to be a firm scholarly view on the question, as summarised here.

For the purposes for our article, the "mainstream view" does not have anywhere near as much weight as the "scholarly consensus", particularly given that the "mainstream view" on this subject is a political hotspot. Oncenawhile (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Modern Hebrew verb conjugation is utterly Semitic, with the triliteral root template even used in word formation. This point alone refutes all those silly relexification, creolisation, or language mixing speculations. Modern Israelis of European origin have taken great pains to acquire all that complex and unfamiliar Hebrew morphology. It is not just offensive but plain idiotic to suggest that they speak some kind of debased creole. The influence of European languages, especially Yiddish and Ladino, on Modern Hebrew phonology and lexicon is strong, no doubt about that. But it's also a no-brainer. It's what is to be expected when you start to speak a language that hasn't had any first-language speakers for the better part of 1500 years. Duh! I haven't ever encountered anybody who spoke (or even just pronounced) flawless reconstructed Classical Latin, either. Everyone retains a strong L1 accent when there are no native models available. New and Contemporary Latin is no less influenced in phonology and lexicon (and even syntax) by modern European languages than Modern Hebrew is. Same story with Modern Sanskrit, whose morphology is even radically simplified compared to Classical Sanskrit. I'm anything but a Zionism supporter (I have no sympathy for any kind of nationalist fervour where outsiders or good science are thrown under the bus), but credit is due where it is due.

Ephraim Kishon, who busted his behind learning Hebrew, famously quipped: "Hebrew is relatively easy to learn, almost as easy as Chinese. After three or four years, the new immigrant is already able to address a passerby in fluent Hebrew: 'Please tell me the time, but if possible, in English.'" A graphic illustration of his struggle with the complex grammar. And to think that his native language was Hungarian! He was able to write excellent, polished literary Hebrew but always retained a strong Hungarian accent when speaking. I have a similar relationship with English, which is far more similar to my native language and morphologically simple – I can't nearly speak it as well as I can write it, so I have huge respect for his achievement. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The bestest. Like, ever.

Kwami, I've reluctantly tagged the opening sentence of the lead because 1) it should tell you what the subject of the article is about, not how amazing/successful it is, 2) there isn't a single passage or source in the article's body supporting or even discussing the claim (even the article on language revitalization uses a tenuous cite of dubious reliability), 3) this clearly isn't the language that was spoken before the diaspora, claiming it as a success seems a bit presumptuous. If you can provide citations that disagree with these three points then feel free to enrich the article, otherwise the sentence has to go. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Swirski and Hobsbawm's explanation of its uptake

Jeshurun, can you explain your continued objection to the explanation for the uptake of the language provided by Swirski and Hobsbawm?

Separately, as I mentioned on your talk page you have violated 1RR today.

Oncenawhile (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"Hebrew of the new variety"??

The intro paragraph apparently feels the need to translate the Hebrew term for "modern Hebrew" in the clumsiest way imaginable. Apparently word order is more important to preserve than actual meaning. In Hebrew, the adjective follows the verb. Also, the same term is used for "new" and "modern" in Hebrew. Finally, the word "the" is clearly not needed, as the Hebrew word for "Hebrew" is an indefinite noun. Therefore, the DIRECT English translation of עברית חדשה is "MODERN HEBREW." The current "The Hebrew [of] the new [variety])" is confusing, awkward, and introduces unnecessary and incorrect grammatical elements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.148.45 (talk) 01:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

What about Maltese?

If Modern Hebrew is classified as a some-sort of a Semito-European Creole, why isn't Maltese defined as a Semito-European Creole? Around 40% of Maltese uses non-Semitic, mostly Italian and English loan-words. If it's about basic morphology and grammar, Maltese lost the Semitic grammatical conjugation system, while the Semitic grammatical conjugation system is still used in Hebrew. I do not see, as a native Hebrew speaker, Modern Hebrew is defined as Creole, while Maltese is still Semitic. Moto53|Talk to me! 13:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The debate is sparked by the history of Modern Hebrew as a language spoken and written every day. When Hebrew was just beginning to take hold in Israel as a spoken language, it was mainly spoken by people who invariably learned it as a second language. There is no debate that most, if not all, people who learn a second language in the middle of their life, like the immigrants who began using Hebrew in daily life, will learn that language imperfectly, i.e. with an accent, grammatical mishaps, and general grammatical influence from their first language. Since people learn languages at different rates, all of their Hebrews would have been different. Now when their children learn the language as their only language growing up, they take the modified form of the language and perfect it into an actual, consistent system that can be formalized. This is what we know as Modern Hebrew today and it does not mean it's not a real language or whatever disparaging claims people put forward about it being a creole. Creoles are real languages too, by the way, but as I will talk about below, I don't think that Modern Hebrew is a creole.

There is a similarity between what happened between Classical Hebrew and Modern Hebrew and what happens to create creoles as we know them. Creoles form when there's a contact between two languages and a common ground needs to be found. The first generation learns a sort of "mix" of the two or more languages, and their children perfect the mix and make it a functional system that is as expressive as any language because children's brains are really good at that, as it turns out. This is why some people think Modern Hebrew is a creole and, I assure you, without any anti-semitic prejudice from their part. I personally don't agree with the idea. Modern Hebrew is not the most direct continuation of Classical Hebrew because it had to pass through that stage where people had to learn it as a second language, but it doesn't fit the criteria of a creole in that Classical Hebrew was already a language that existed and people just learned it differently, thereby exerting less or more of their native influence on it. It has similarities to creole situations, but overall it's a phenomenal case, which means that just sticking the label of "creole" on it is rather inaccurate. It also makes it all the more interesting to research.

Maltese is completely excluded from the creole debate because it is a direct continuation of the dialect of Arabic spoken in the region. It, unlike Hebrew, has always had native speakers for as long as it's existed. It hasn't lost the Semitic conjugation system by any means either.

By the way, grammatical complexity is often retained in creoles, so it's sort of irrelevant to talk about the Semitic conjugation system being preserved in Modern Hebrew to determine whether or not it is a creole. In fact, most creoles in the world take their lexicon (i.e. vocabulary) from one language and their grammar and most, if not all, of its morphological complexity from another.BasicDeer (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Argumenta, non homines

In the classification section, how about instead of having a list of creole scholars we have a list of actual, sourced arguments as to what Modern Hebrew should be classified as? In other words, if Modern Hebrew is, say, non-Semitic, then what makes it such: aspects of phonology, morphology, syntax, lexis, what? 213.109.230.96 (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Rectifying the current article's unbalanced content

The "Classification" section is notoriously biased, in fact this is so obvious that Paul Wexler's unsound theory even made it into the infobox, where MH is described either as "Revitalised Mishnaic Hebrew" or "Relixified Yiddish"!

Since I am not interested in edit wars, I am going to discuss this here. IMHO, this is what the "Classification" section should look like:~

Modern Hebrew is commonly seen as a direct continuation of Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew, while the difference between them is great enough to make it impossible for the person who knows one to understand the other without effort, calling them separate languages or several versions of the same tongue would be an arbitrary, purely terminological decision. From a typological standpoint, very few truly striking synchronic typological properties of Modern Hebrew seem European, in fact Modern Hebrew is, at least from a European typological perspective, a very poor example of a European language, sharing even less of the generally accepted Standard Average European features than Arabic. It was through the influence of Standard Average European that the syntax and especially phraseology in both Modern Standard Arabic and Modern Hebrew underwent far-reaching changes. These features, as well as the use of periods (although they are well attested in earlier stages of Arabic as well), make Hebrew and Arabic similar to European languages. Both Hebrew and Arabic exhibit the tendency of becoming a part of the European language bundle. In spelling and morphology both Modern Hebrew and Modern Standard Arabic have preserved their ancient character; in other linguistic fields, however they exhibit new layers in the development of their respective languages. The changes can be attributed to either internal natural processes or external foreign influences. Despite these many changes, Hebrew has kept the same linguistic structure, and thus remains a Semitic language. Although it continues to be influenced by non-Semitic languages, Modern Hebrew strongly retains its Semitic character in many of its features as can be seen in the grammar, morphology and syntax of the language, as described by Ullendorff (1958), and as shown by Bolozky (1994, 1996), and Goldenberg (1996) among others. Throughout its existence, Hebrew has been exposed to foreign languages and has been influenced by them. Despite this influence, Hebrew has maintained its uniformity and Semitic nature because of its grammatical structure.

Nevertheless, some scholars propose that Modern Hebrew has an underlying structural Slavic component. Some scholarly opinions held by the proponents of this fringe view are as follows:

• Paul Wexler claims that modern Hebrew is not a Semitic language at all, but a dialect of "Judaeo-Sorbian". He argues that the underlying structure of the language is Slavic, but "re-lexified" to absorb much of the vocabulary and inflectional system of Hebrew in much the same way as a creole. Wexler believes that this interpretation has met with hostility "in part because of the pressure of Zionist ideological needs".
• Shlomo Izre'el focuses on the "emergence" of "Spoken Israeli Hebrew" in terms of a "creation of a new language" and attempts to fit the nativisation of this "new linguistic entity" into the "larger continuum of Creole and Creole-like languages" but does not seem to believe at all in any relexification hypotheses, whether from a Slavic or any other linguistic substratum (with references to his own earlier work on the creolisation hypothesis (1986) and the works of Goldenberg (1996) and Kuzar (2001)).
• Ghil'ad Zuckermann compromises between Wexler and the majority view: according to him, "Israeli" (his term for Israeli Hebrew) is a Semito-European hybrid language, which is the continuation not only of literary Hebrew but also of Yiddish, as well as Polish, Russian, German, English, Ladino, Arabic and other languages spoken by Hebrew revivalists. Thus, "Yiddish is a primary contributor to Israeli Hebrew because it was the mother tongue of the vast majority of revivalists and first pioneers in Eretz Yisrael at the crucial period of the beginning of Israeli Hebrew". According to Zuckermann, although the revivalists wished to speak Hebrew, with Semitic grammar and pronunciation, they could not avoid the Ashkenazi mindset arising from their diaspora years. He argues that their attempt to negate diasporism and avoid hybridity (as reflected in Yiddish) failed. "Had the revivalists been Arabic-speaking or Berber-speaking Jews (e.g. from Morocco), Israeli Hebrew would have been a totally different language – both genetically and typologically, much more Semitic. The impact of the founder population on Israeli Hebrew is incomparable with that of later immigrants."

While the linguistic history of Modern Hebrew is an open field for further research, none of the controversial theories cited above were well accepted in academic circles.

109.208.198.110 (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Extended content

I think you have it reversed. No-one disputes that Israeli morphology and lexicon are Semitic. And no-one claims that Israeli is Standard Average European – that's a straw-man argument. But it is commonly accepted that Israeli would have been a very different language (much more Semitic) if the first generation of speakers had been native speakers of a Semitic language. As for being a "direct continuation", that's only true for the more superficial elements. Once a language is extinct, you can't resurrect it. You can recreate it, but what you create will not be the original language. None of those points are controversial among linguists, yet you present them as a "fringe view".

Now, the details proposed by some of the sources are controversial. E.g., Israeli has been claimed to be a creole. That is a fringe view. Among more rigorous accounts, there is debate over how best to characterize it, whether as relexified, as a mixed language, etc. But that's largely because the situation is nearly unique among the world's languages, and there is not a well-developed terminology or theoretical background to describe it. The claim that Israeli is merely Ancient Hebrew with a bit of contact-induced change is an irresponsible and unscholarly misstatement of the situation.

The comparison with MSA is interesting. I have no idea about that, but note that MSA is an artificial language. Unlike Israeli, it is no-one's mother tongue. The situation cannot therefore be very close. — kwami (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, so much for your claim that you don't want an edit war. I respond to your points, and you immediately (5 minutes later) restart your edit war. You claim you're being ignored, though I responded within 24 hours. Your use of the first-person plural in the edit summary is also interesting. It suggests that you are either the head of a sovereign state, pregnant, or schizophrenic, since you are the only one to have objected all year. — kwami (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see your answer, hence the edit.

Anyway, much of what is being said here, such as Hebrew allegedly being "much more Semitic" had the first generation of speakers been Semitic speakers, is quite shadowy and sounds more akin to psychological mumbo-jumbo rather than actual linguistics. In the same way, I could argue that no one is claiming that Modern Hebrew is a "direct continuation" of BH, even though this is the general perception among non-specialists. I agree that the opening lines can lead to confusion and should be clarified, MH is an amalgamation of different Hebrew strata after all. Either way, that's above the point really, Hebrew's classification as a Semitic language isn't up for debate and I've cited several sources which explicitely state that none of these hybrisation/relexification theories are well-accepted in academic circles, in this sense we are indeed dealing with fringe views... Yet the "Classification" section relies almost entirely on these fringe views and Paul Wexler's "relexified Yiddish" theory even managed to make it into the infobox, where Modern Hebrew is depicted as a mixed language instead of an Afroasiatic one: If this isn't the definition of "unbalanced", then I'd sure like to know what is! Care to explain?

And also, if we are going to classify MH as a mixed/hybrid language, then we should logically classify MSA as a mixed language as well. The fact of the matter is, most of the syntactical features Zuckermann et al. use to promote their "hybridisation" scenario are linked to the inherent need to modernise the language. All in all, typological features are wholly irrelevant to language classification in the first place, morphology ("grammemes" in particular) is the most reliable tool to classify a given language. In this case, MH morphology shows pretty conclusively that we're dealing with a Canaanite language (and, in turn, a Semitic one). 109.208.198.110 (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

"[...] you are the only one to have objected all year [...]"

Is that so? How do you explain the above section, "Argumenta, non homines", then? And the "What about Maltese?" section? This isn't the first time this issue has been raised, and IMO it's pretty clear that someone wants us to pretend that these fringe views reflect the current scholarly consensus in academia (which obviously isn't the case, and if you have an issue with that all you have to do is check the sources I provided which clearly highlight that fact). 109.208.198.110 (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Those two sections are from last year :) The Maltese section at least shows that the author does not understand the subject, and in any case is refuting the creole hypothesis, which AFAIK no responsible linguist holds. The two languages are not comparable: Maltese has an unbroken chain of transmission as a mother tongue, Hebrew does not. There are indeed some who have posited that Maltese should be considered a mixed language (that is addressed in the Maltese article), but not a creole. The point with Hebrew is not a classification based on typological features, but the fact that the first generation of speakers were native speakers of Yiddish. In that sense Hebrew has a history similar to that of creoles, but the result is not at all creole-like. If we didn't know the history of Hebrew, it would be classified as Semitic, because the criteria we use for classification are not sophisticated enough to reliably pick up on substrata. (Think of the difficulty in establishing an African substratum in Southern (U.S.) American English. I haven't looked into sources, but wouldn't object to reclassifying that if we could support it.)

Personally, I think that in sweeping all this under the carpet, whether motivated by religious sensitivity or whatever, we lose what makes Modern Hebrew so very remarkable. It isn't just another, run-of-the-mill Semitic language, but the most successful case of a language being revived. Yes, what was revived isn't exactly what went extinct, but the the success is nonetheless remarkable. And the fact that Modern Hebrew isn't exactly Classical Hebrew is a cautionary tale that, once a language goes extinct, we'll never really get it back. (Like revived Native American languages that are as much English as they are the original language, even if the lexicon and morphology are not English.) — kwami (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

No, we won't, and we'll never get Old English back either. No language is "the same" after 3000 years, though Hebrew is one of the closer ones. The morphology of Modern English words are very different from those of Old English words, but Hebrew's morphology is practically unchanged. Also Hebrew is in many ways more Semitic than the other modern Semitic language Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, which was very heavily influenced by Old Persian. I just wish you would stop pimping the theories of one man—Wexler—on this and related articles. You obviously believe his theories, but most people don't. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't have Hetzron (1987), but I do have Hetzron (1997) The Semitic Languages. There they cite Wexler (1990), not as a fringe alternative view, but as a factual claim that forms the basis of their characterization of the language. They don't go into any detail, though. — kwami (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

"Those two sections are from last year :)" The first one was created 7 months ago while the second one was created just 4 months ago (January 2015)... Moreover, this issue has been raised again in my absence, which just goes on to prove my point really.

I've been reading most of Wexler's work recently, and I'm currently planning to write a paper addressing his claims thoroughly. His work is notoriously biased, especially as far as Yiddish is of concern, and he obviously is more preoccupied with politics than linguistics. But that's above the point really, the fact that this article relies so heavily on his work highlights how biased your contention really is. I find it hilarious that you'd try to make it sound as if Hetzron actually endorsed Wexler's "relexification" theories, the sole fact that you'd refer to his survey of Semitic Languages where Modern Hebrew is treated as a Modern Semitic language alongside Tigrinya and Maltese bears testimony to how insane this claim is... All this despite all the sources I've cited (including Hetzron), some of which explicitely state that these are fringe theories which aren't well accepted in academic circles. Your approach towards language classification is quite odd as well, you don't even seem to understand that it is based first and foremost on morphological comparison, grammatical morphemes have priority over typological features, the fact that the first generation of speakers were native speakers of another language (Yiddish, Urdu, Ithkuil, doesn't matter) isn't even part of the picture... Yet again, this is a general theme throughout this discussion: The arguments used to back up all of the "relexification" and "mixed language" theories have very little to do with linguistics, and more to do with psychological mumbo-jumbo or politics (as in Wexler's case).

I have very little doubt that, in time, this article will be fixed. The theories credited here aren't merely politically-motivated fringe views, they're just wrong. --109.208.196.67 (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

What do you think of my changes? --Monochrome_Monitor 15:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Not bad, it's better than the current version no doubt about it, but the sources I initially cited should be used in the classification section as well. --109.208.196.67 (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

So what exactly do you want me to say about the sources? --Monochrome_Monitor 16:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean to revive a close argument, but yes, this is definitely biased. A near consensus of scholars regard Hebrew as a Semitic language, albeit not a totally direct offshoot from Biblical Hebrew due to its features of other Jewish languages and Arabic. Notably, there are more Arabic loanwords in Hebrew (a semitic language) than any slavic language or Yiddish. The only language which greater loans in colloquial Hebrew is English (a Germanic language), but basically every language has those. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean "features of Arabic"? The point is precisely the opposite, that it doesn't have such features. You don't seem to understand the sources that you're using, and are completely missing the point about loanwords. — kwami (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Loanwords are irrelevant at this point, we're discussing MH's classification as a Semitic language. As you said, this article is definitely biased (if you have any doubt about that I suggest you read Paul Wexler's work), the classification section along with the infobox are almost entirely based on extreme fringe views and all of the sources I've found which stated just that have been ignored so far... How peculiar! --109.208.196.67 (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

infobox

The article currently says "Modern Hebrew is commonly seen as a direct continuation of Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew". Why doesn't it get a language tree, like, say, Moroccan Arabic, which it is compared to in the classification section? I suggest changing the infobox to include the whole language tree (Afro-Asiatic, Semitic, Central Semitic, Northwest Semitic, Canaanite, Mishnaic Hebrew, Modern Hebrew) with a note including the rest of the information we have in the article (structural Slavic component, European and Arabic vocabulary and syntactical features, etc). Per NPOV, the article should reflect the prominence of each view. Right now it's giving the majority view and minority view equal weight. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Because that would mean it's a direct descendent of Classical Hebrew. See thread above.

The unref'd Moroccan Arabic comment is probably by a clueless editor who's been pushing Moroccan Arabic all over WP. I deleted it. The comment about MSA is essentially saying that MSA is an artificial language, which would mean that it's not genealogically Semitic. If that's true, we should change the info box for MSA, but I'm not aware of RS's to that effect. But there's also a difference between language standardizations such as MSA, which are not anyone's native language and which arguable should not even have info boxes, and Israeli Hebrew, which is the native language of millions. — kwami (talk) 06:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

If we make a note that explains why it's not a direct descendant of Classical Hebrew, then it won't say that. Anyway, do you agree that currently the minority view is getting the same weight as the majority view in the infobox, which is a violation of NPOV? If yes, how should we fix that? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Practically no-one disputes that there was a break in transmission. The latest Hetzron even cites Wexler for the nature of Modern Hebrew. — kwami (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There are two issues. First, The infobox currently says it's "revitalised Mishnaic Hebrew or relexified Yiddish", giving the two the same weight. That's not an NPOV. Most scholars think it's revitalized Mishnaic Hebrew with some other stuff included. A small minority thinks it's relexified Yiddish. Yet the two are getting equal weight. Do you disagree? The second issue is the language tree, but let's put that aside for the moment and concentrate on the first issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree. That's not what "equal weight" means. Those are just two common POVs, both mentioned just as alt hypotheses are mentioned in many other language articles. — kwami (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Did that. The view that Modern Hebrew descends from classical Hebrew is the view of the vast majority of linguists. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Statements regarding what is the "view of the vast majority of [scholars]" are important throughout wikipedia, but they need to be sourced. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You mean you don't accept Collins dictionary as an adequate source? — kwami (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

My proposal

That edit was my proposal. It offered a lot of good info on the language which isn't in the article. I wish you asked about specific parts of the edit rather than reverting the whole thing. For instance, the stuff on its family is valuable. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it was a good edit, but you should also add a note that some scholars think the origins are different or hybridized. I think it did show the majority view of the family of languages Modern Hebrew comes from. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought the classification section covered that. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Your "valuable" source is Collins English Dictionary? Really? And then you contradict yourself. If the rest of your changes are that bad, maybe they should all be reverted.

And you jumbled all the sections up, as if you were turning the article into confetti. — kwami (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You just want to revert them because of your own personal views about the subject. I used a different source. Also, I didn't say "valuable source", I said "valuable information". You don't have to be a jerk about it. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

And where did I contradict myself exactly? --Monochrome_Monitor 03:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Italic text== Bulling on the Page ==

Literally every user today except you thinks we shouldn't have this article endorse the bizarre fringe notion that Modern Hebrew is a Slavic Language, but you bully everyone who tries to make good edits to the article. That's the reason it hasn't seen progress in years. Please stop and let a concensus be reached. The last version was a valuable insight into modern Hebrew syntax, roots, and patterns. That's what the article is supposed to be about—not about what system it belongs to. 50.187.216.93 (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the exception of "bulling". --Monochrome_Monitor 04:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring is not the way to change consensus. You do not have consensus for these edits, and they will be removed unless consensus is reached here. Please bring sources which support your view that the view you dislike is "fringe". For the avoidance of doubt, this means bringing scholarly sources which explicitly state that the view represents a very small minority. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's a stsrt: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3333948,00.html - "By harking back to the Bible, the language offers for many Israelis a sense of both continuity and renewal, as well as a vibrant, vocal counterweight to divisive contemporary debates. But one maverick linguist wants that changed, and his campaign has drawn the wrath of established scholars who see him as a politicized threat to a pillar of the Jewish state." When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, that's not a WP:Reliable source. Please read that so you know how to edit an article!

Even Hetzron, who we use as the primary source for the Semitic classification, cites Wexler. And the comments above indicate that recent editors do not understand the sources that they're using. — kwami (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Oncenawhile (talk) 03:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

"Hetzron [...] cites Wexler" Technically-speaking, Hetzron did not cite Wexler, Ruth A. Berman did. On the other hand, here's what Hetzron had to say about how BH relates to MH:

"It is futile to ask whether Modern Hebrew is the same language as the idiom of the Hebrew Bible. Clearly, the difference between them is great enough to make it impossible for the person who knows one to understand the other without effort. Biblical scholars have to study the modern language if they want to benefit from studies written in Hebrew today and Israelis cannot properly follow Biblical passages without having studied them at school. Yet a partial understanding is indeed possible and the similarities are so obvious that calling them separate languages or two versions of the same tongue would be an arbitrary, purely terminological decision."

Source: Robert Hetzron. (1987). Hebrew. In The World's Major Languages, ed. Bernard Comrie, 686–704. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-520521-9

Regarding the fringe status of the "relexification" and "mixed language" theories", here's another scholarly view which has been totally ignored so far:

"Several theories were suggested in recent years as an alternative to the former notion of revival (e.g. Wexler 1990; Izreel 2002; Zuckermann 2006). Though differing in scholarly value and soundness of argumentation, none were well accepted in academic circles (see e.g. Blau 2003, Goldenberg 1996, 173-184; Izreel 2002, 228-229, n. 14)."

Source: Yael Reshef, (2011). The Re-Emergence of Hebrew as a National Language. In The Semitic Languages; An International Handbook, ed. Stefan Weninger, 546–554. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-025158-6.

As I said, these sources have been totally (and conveniently) ignored so far, unsurprisingly so. --109.208.196.67 (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

These seem like good sources for the family tree thing. I suggest putting the full tree in the article, with a note that some scholars think that the direct link can't be made but this is not widely accepted in academic circles. I'm pretty sure I read Wexler himself saying his is the minority view. I'll see if I can find that, but with these sources it doesn't seem strictly necessary. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Monochrome's citations of Hetzron predate Wexler's and Zuckermann's publications, so it can hardly be used as evidence that they aren't well accepted. I haven't seen Reshef, and we certainly need to include sources like that, as many people reject Wexler's thesis, though (according to reviews) not always for linguistic reasons. There are other contrary sources. E.g. Callaham (2010:38) Modality and the Biblical Hebrew Infinitive Absolute: "the status of Modern Hebrew as a genetic descendent of Biblical Hebrew is questionable due to the unique circumstances of its invention as a modern language." I'll look for more this evening.

As for the tree, we have the Semitic tree at Hebrew language, which is where nearly everyone will go before coming here. This article is specifically for revived/reinvented Modern Hebrew, and language-revival is a contentious process. I don't think we should sweep that under the rug by treating Modern Hebrew as just another language. It's not: it's a remarkable language, which I don't say out of religious sentiment but precisely because it's the greatest success at language-revival. Something so fundamental to the nature and implications of the language shouldn't be tucked away at the end because Monochrome thinks it's of no import. — kwami (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Zuckemann, BTW, was selected to write the article on Israeli Hebrew in the 2010 Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World and the 2nd ed. of the Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, which are entirely mainstream linguistic references (read the review at the WP link). He sums up his hybrid hypothesis with "Israeli is a hybrid language, both Semitic and Indo-European. ... both Hebrew and Yiddish act equally as its primary contributors (rather than as 'substrata') ... Although Israeli phonetics and phonology are primarily Yiddish and its morphology is mainly Hebrew, the European contribution ... is evident even in its morphology." People might not accept Wexler to any great extent, but the fact that Zuckermann has such mainstream acceptance should be reflected in the WP article. Choosing one hypothesis over the other in the info box would not be NPOV. — kwami (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Note that Reshef postdates Zuckermann, and again, I seriously doubt his is the mainstream view. If it is, we should change the name of this article to "Israeli" rather than "Modern Hebrew". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not the mainstream view. Kwami, please stop pimping your theories on Esperanto and other articles. We know you believe them, as you have called Modern Hebrew "Israeli" and stated on talk pages that it is relexified Yiddish, etc. But it's not notable to the articles except as a means to plug Wexler's work. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I've taken the time to read most of Wexler's work and will probably write a paper addressing the claims he made, his work is notoriously unreliable. Almost every proposal or claim he's made is controversial and/or turned out to be politically-motivated. He's still pushing the Khazar theory for instance, going as far as to claim that Eastern and Western Yiddish are separate languages and that the former is "relexified" Lir-Turkic (Khazar)... Which, in turn, would make MH a Turkic language (if we take the whole "relexified Yiddish" theory seriously). This article gives his theory way too much credit, that's for sure (and the same counts for Zuckermann, who isn't mainstream either as the source I cited points out, for that matter). No wonder why kwami keeps ignoring the sources I provide. --92.150.150.130 (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Adoption of this edit to add context and nuetrality: [1]

Support or Oppose? Needless to say I support. --Monochrome_Monitor 04:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Ugh, even the coloring of the template as a mixed language is wrong. Hebrew is not a mixed language, tt's an Afroasiatic language. The vast majority of linguists agree. --Monochrome_Monitor 04:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

If the vast majority agree, you should have no trouble finding a reliable source. An encyclopedia of linguistics would be a good place to look.PiCo (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not an edit you linked to, so I have no idea which edit you're talking about.

Your lead and section intro make unconditioned claims about classification, which are then contradicted by the text. Both need to reflect the content of the article, not WP:TRUTH.

You're also tucking the classification section down at the end of the article, inside of phonology. Your organization is incoherent, and I assume is motivated by a desire to promote your POV and hide away or downplay anything that disagrees with it. That's not encyclopedic. — kwami (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You're the one who's not being encyclopedic. Classification is less relevant than actually describing the language. It's secondary in importance. And contradicted by what text? The alternative opinions? Just because alternate views exist doesn't mean we can't use mainstream views. You have shown me no source other than individual scholars, (such as a society of linguists), that consider Modern Hebrew to not be Semitic. Modern Hebrew is classified as Semitic, and I sourced that. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Regardless, It keeps getting reverted back to my version, so I think it is you who should take your version to the talk. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It keeps getting reverted by logged-out IPs addresses. That means nothing: they might be you.

I'm not saying don't use mainstream views. But don't say it "is" one thing, as if there were no dispute, and then hide sources saying it's something else. That's dishonest.

Sourced it with what, a dictionary? A newspaper article? Read WP:RS, since it appears you understand neither how to source an article, nor the content of the sources that you do use. — kwami (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the sources? I deleted the dictionary source. Now it's sourced with several linguistics societies and textbooks on Semitic languages. I will also remind you against using personal attacks. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice fallacy there with logged out IPs. When Other Legends Are Forgotten reverted it too. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You might want to look up "fallacy" in the dictionary.

I know what fallacy means. My verbal IQ score is nearly four standard deviations above the mean. You keep making personal attacks. Please be civil. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Arguing that I should accept your edits because someone reverted to them, while you do not need to follow your own instruction, is hypocrisy.

Pointing out that you're screwing up the article or violating WP editing policies is not personal attack. We have sources that say A and others that say B, and you sum it up by saying the truth is A. That's treating opinion as a factual claim. Read WP:TRUTH. We also have a conventional outline for organizing language articles, which you appear to be trying to circumvent to push a particular POV. I can only conclude from that that you are editing in bad faith. — kwami (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Monochrome_Monitor you should slow down and achieve consensus for the edits you're trying to make or you'll find yourself banned from editing. Open a new section for each change and discuss. The link you posted at the top here is not a diff so it's difficult to understand what you want to change. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Differences

My edits. Not including well-sourced edits because they're "garbled" is blatant nonsense. I'm sick of the politicization on this page. We should not be endorsing a minority view as if it were the majority. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC) There needs to be a consensus established so kwami stops deferring any improvements to the article. It has been monopolized by one editor for far too long with the same points being made on the talk page only to never be adopted. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you remove the above two comments which do nothing to help achieve consensus, and focus on the actual content. What do you want to add, and what do you want to remove? In bite size chunks. Language tree? State the change and provide the sources. Other stuff I don't remember the jargon for? Same. Change and sources. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The edits are up there. They are sourced. The language tree is sourced. Check the edits. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to go looking for it. Post the specific proposed edits and sources here. Not a link to the article. Not a link to a huge diff nobody's going to bother looking at. A specific proposed edit and sources that can be discussed here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

And stop trying to put stuff that was contested back into the article without consensus. If someone were to report you right now for edit warring, I'm pretty sure you'd be blocked. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

How am I the one who's edit warring? I've only reverted it twice. Kwami has reverted it six times. --Monochrome_Monitor 04:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

He is restoring consensus versions. You are inserting stuff that has been objected to. Trust me, if it went to a board you'd have a problem. I think at least some of the stuff you want to put in the article should be in the article, but you have to do it the right way. Please post a small change you'd like to make and the sources supporting it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

That's the thing, they aren't consensus versions. They are his versions that have become the status quo despite many attempts to rectify them. For one, the most important thing is the infobox. We should include the mainstream familial descent of Modern Hebrew. Also, using an infobox color reserved for Creoles and pidgeons is simply ridiculous. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:consensus.

It's the color used for pidgins, creoles, mixed languages, and similar languages that are not unclassified but can't be readily placed in a tree diagram that assumes direct descent. We don't have a separate color for revived languages, apart from black for constructed languages. I suppose all revived languages are constructed, so technically that color might be better. — kwami (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

A version that has been in the article for a while (months) is considered as having implicit consensus and needs a new consensus to change. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Example of a mainstream source (Oxford University Press) classifying Hebrew as Semitic: International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Volume 3, p 145 (you can find this particular part of it online) "Modern Hebrew evolved out of the Northwestern branch of Semitic over several periods in the history of the Jewish people... Biblical Hebrew... Mishnaic or Rabbinal Hebrew... And Medieval Hebrew" This is the classification of Hebrew I put in the infobox. I have looked, and I could find zero linguistics societies or encylopedias classifying Hebrew as a Creole language. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No-one disputes what it says. Modern Hebrew *did* evolve out of the NW branch of Semitic. The question is *how* it evolved: was it simple genealogical descent, as your version of the tree implies, or did it evolve in the ways described by the several sources we have in the classification section? — kwami (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

You're proposing the changes, so you need to justify them. Read WP:BOLD. People have argued on both sides of this, and I've even got thank-yous for restoring the status quo. I've also let many of your edits stand, as I assume they are improvements, but reverted you for POV edits like hiding the classification discussion inside phonology at the very bottom of the article, and then contradicting it further up. — kwami (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't "hide" anything. Classification is of minimal importance to the actual language. If you are referring to making it a subcategory, that's just a typo. I used too many equals signs. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

If classification is of minimal importance, why do you insist on adding it to the lead in a way that contradicts the text of the article? We don't need to repeat the classification of Hebrew in the lead of Modern Hebrew any more than we need to repeat the classification of Chinese in the lead of Modern Chinese. We certainly shouldn't sum up a dispute of "maybe A, maybe B" by flatly stating "it is A". — kwami (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't contradict anything. The views of a minority don't contradict the views of the majority. I'm fine with not including it in the lead though, as long as it uses my infobox. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

When mainstream sources disagree, we try to accommodate both, and mainstream sources like Hetzron cite Wexler. — kwami (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You keep bringing that up. He is cited as a dissenting view, though the mainstream authors clearly disagree with him. The source says it's a Semitic language. I didn't include that source so you could exploit it, but to show how it was tempered by mainstream sources. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You evidently didn't read the comments above on Hetzron, or even the ref that you say I "keep bringing up". He didn't cite Wexler as a dissenting view, but as a primary source for the nature of Modern Hebrew. — kwami (talk) 03:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Another fallacy. Just because he cites Wexler as a source for one thing (the fact that Hebrew has been influenced by Indo-European languages, which is uncontested and could have been sourced by anyone) doesn't mean he's endorsing his bizzare theories that Yiddish is Sorbian and Esperanto and Hebrew are Yiddish. In fact, he uniquevically declares that Hebrew is genetically semitic. --Monochrome_Monitor 04:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the source. And it's odd that whenever you say something false, that's a "fallacy" on my part. — kwami (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stop making edits and then immediately reverting them. I assume you're trying to create diffs. Just post the changes you want to make on the talk page. Or use your sandbox. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay then. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Kwami, unlike you I actually take the time to check the sources you post and the fact of the matter is that Hetzron didn't cite Wexler, Ruth A. Berman did... But by all means, don't believe a word of what I say and go see for yourself. Either way, that's above the point since Modern Hebrew's inclusion in Hetzron's book does a great job highlighting our initial point in the first place, namely that the mainstream academic view/consensus is that MH is a Semitic language (not "relexified Yiddish", nor a "Semito-European hybrid": A Semitic language). You yourself stated that we use Hetzron "as the primary source for the Semitic classification", so now's the time to prove it. --92.150.150.130 (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Arriving at a consensus

The only things we haven't worked out are the infobox— which I think should be

Modern Hebrew
עִבְרִית ʿIvrit
Lyrics of the Israeli national anthem Hatikvah הַתִּקְוָה ("The Hope") with vowel points
Native to	Israel
Native speakers	(5.3 million as L1 (not all native) cited 1998) as L1 or L2 by all 7.4 million Israelis
Language family	Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Semitic Northwest Semitic Canaanite Modern Hebrew
Early forms	Biblical Hebrew Mishnaic Hebrew Medieval Hebrew
Writing system	Hebrew alphabet Hebrew Braille
Signed forms	Signed Hebrew (oral Hebrew accompanied by sign)
Official status
Official language in	Israel
Recognised minority language in	Poland
Regulated by	Academy of the Hebrew Language האקדמיה ללשון העברית (HaAkademia LaLashon HaʿIvrit)
Language codes
ISO 639-3	heb
Glottolog	hebr1245
The Hebrew-speaking world:   regions where Hebrew is the language of the majority   regions where Hebrew is the language of a significant minority

And for the classification section I propose:

Modern Hebrew is genetically an Afroasiatic language of the Semitic family and the Canaanite subgroup. Although it has been influenced by non-Semitic languages, Modern Hebrew strongly contains its Semitic character in many of its features, as can be seen in its morphology and grammar and much of its syntax. However, because of the massive number of loan words, loan translations and loan shifts, as well as the phonetic and syntactical differences between Modern and Biblical Hebrew, some researchers question its "Semitism". Several alternative genealogies were suggested in recent years. Though differing in scholarly value and soundness of argumentation, none were well accepted in academic circles.

• Paul Wexler claims that modern Hebrew is not a Semitic language at all, but relexified "Judaeo-Sorbian". He argues that the underlying structure of the language is Slavic, but that it has adopted the vocabulary and inflectional system of Hebrew.
• Shlomo Izre'el focuses on the "emergence" of "Spoken Israeli Hebrew" in terms of a "creation of a new language" and attempts to fit the nativisation of this "new linguistic entity" into the "larger continuum of Creole and Creole-like languages", but does not seem to believe that it was relexified, either from a Slavic or any other linguistic substratum (with references to his own earlier work on the creolisation hypothesis (1986) and the works of Goldenberg (1996) and Kuzar (2001).
• Ghil'ad Zuckermann compromises between Wexler and the majority view: according to him, "Israeli" (his term for Israeli Hebrew) is a Semito-European hybrid language, which is the continuation not only of literary Hebrew but also of Yiddish, as well as Polish, Russian, German, English, Ladino, Arabic and other languages spoken by Hebrew revivalists. Thus, "Yiddish is a primary contributor to Israeli Hebrew because it was the mother tongue of the vast majority of revivalists and first pioneers in Eretz Yisrael at the crucial period of the beginning of Israeli Hebrew". According to Zuckermann, although the revivalists wished to speak Hebrew, with Semitic grammar and pronunciation, they could not avoid the Ashkenazi mindset arising from their diaspora years. "Had the revivalists been Arabic-speaking or Berber-speaking Jews (e.g. from Morocco), Israeli Hebrew would have been a totally different language – both genetically and typologically, much more Semitic. The impact of the founder population on Israeli Hebrew is incomparable with that of later immigrants."

According to Robert Hertzon,

"It is futile to ask whether Modern Hebrew is the same language as the idiom of the Hebrew Bible. Clearly, the difference between them is great enough to make it impossible for the person who knows one to understand the other without effort. Biblical scholars have to study the modern language if they want to benefit from studies written in Hebrew today and Israelis cannot properly follow Biblical passages without having studied them at school. Yet a partial understanding is indeed possible and the similarities are so obvious that calling them separate languages or two versions of the same tongue would be an arbitrary, purely terminological decision."

references

Though I'm flexible on the latter. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

So I re-added the table. Revert if you like (I don't like obviously), but try not to revert my recent phonological edits --Monochrome_Monitor 14:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I reverted everything rather than parsing your edits. Go ahead and add back the ones that actually follow our sources. — kwami (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

If it's accepted, the only remaining ovjective I have is classification, which implies that all "scholarly views" are ones which don't consider Hebrew Semitic. --Monochrome_Monitor 14:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You haven't addressed any of the real issues. You still sum up "may be A, may be B" as "it is A". We can't say Israeli "is" a Semitic language. That's a violation of WP:NPOV. You also quote Hetzron (1987), when Hetzron (1997) says something very different, as do many more sources written in the last quarter century, such as the Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Since we do not have a consensus tree from the lit, we can't have an objective tree in the info box. But we do have the Semitic tree at Hebrew language, which people will see before they see this. As it is, we have the tree for Biblical Hebrew at Hebrew language, though arguably that is inappropriate, because Hebrew is more than just Biblical Hebrew. I haven't worried about that, because it's been balanced out with the info box here. But if we don't have that balance, IMO we would need to remove the info box at Hebrew language, and have only the dedicated boxes at Biblical Hebrew and Modern Hebrew. Or else have two boxes at Hebrew language, one for each. — kwami (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

"Hetzron (1997) says something very different" Again, this is incorrect: Hetzron did not cite Wexler, Ruth A. Berman did. Moreover, Modern Hebrew's inclusion in Hetzron's book just highlights the mainstream academic view... In other words, that Modern Hebrew is a Semitic language. Really, I'm tired of repeating myself over and over again. --109.208.201.70 (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hetzron is editor of that work and had control of its contents. He put his name on it. If he thought Berman was wrong, he could have sent the chapter back for revision. Meanwhile, his earlier book predates the views we're debating. — kwami (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Ruth A. Berman wrote the article on Modern Hebrew, not Hetzron. She's the one who referred to Wexler, not Hetzron. You're trying to make it sound as if Hetzron endorses Wexler's "relexification" theories, which definitely isn't the case. As you said, Hetzron is the editor, and so Modern Hebrew's inclusion in his survey of Semitic languages alongside Arabic, Maltese, Neo-Aramaic, MSA, Tigrinya, Tigré, Amharic, Argobba, Harari etc just highlights the current scholarly view: That MH is a Semitic language. For some odd reason, you fail to process that simple fact. --92.150.67.201 (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

We have academic sources that tell us what the mainstream view is. And that's that it is Semitic with various influences. We do not give equal weight to the mainstream and the fringe, and that's what you're suggesting we do. Also, do you have to call it "Israeli"? That's not a common name for the language (I bet there are maybe a few dozen people in the whole world that call it that), and is confusing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read our assessment of the Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics and explain to me why you would characterize that as WP:FRINGE. We have Reshef saying Zuckermann is not accepted by the mainstream, but then we have mainstream publications choosing Zuckermann to write on Israeli Hebrew. A minority view, fine (that's why it's second in the info box), but hardly fringe.

As for "Israeli", that's just short for "Israeli Hebrew". See Nurit Dekel, Colloquial Israeli Hebrew. — kwami (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I have suggested the more general wording "revitalised Mishnaic Hebrew or mixed Yiddish–Hebrew" for the classification field in the info box. That would accommodate both the majority view and the view of mainstream sources such as ELL2. As for WEIGHT in the classification section, I agree that the majority view needs adequate representation. But blanking other views isn't a good way to accomplish that. — kwami (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Reshef above clearly says that Zuckermann etc al are not widely accepted in academic circles. That is a much stronger source than editors' assessment of what it means that someone was published in a certain publication, wouldn't you say?

Dekel specifically notes a distinction between "Israeli" and "Israeli Hebrew".

Your suggestion gives equal weight to the mainstream and fringe (or majority and others, whatever you'd like to call it). That's a violation of DUE. I think we should have the family tree (as that's the majority view) and some text explaining the other significant but not mainstream (or less mainstream? I don't care) views. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Reshef says that. And other sources say different. We have two views in mainstream sources, and you're attempting to portray one as fringe, which either means you don't know what "fringe" means, or you're putting your personal POV above covering the sources. When mainstream sources disagree, we need to reflect that here. — kwami (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I have not seen a single source that says that Wexler or Zuckermann are the majority view. There are not two views with equal weight in mainstream sources. That's just false. All you have for claiming Zuckermann is mainstream is that he was published one time in one mainstream encyclopedia (is he the only one who discusses Modern Hebrew there, by the way?) Wexler and Zuckermann are minority views that are not well accepted in academic sources. We have an academic source that says that. They should not be given equal weight to the majority view. We do indeed need to reflect the disagreement, giving more weight to that which has more weight in the sources. Right now it's 50/50 with Wexler in the infobox. Wexler himself would probably object to that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's Zuckermann himself saying that the prevalent view is that it's a Semitic language. That should pretty much settle it, yes? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

"other sources say different" Quite the contrary, which is why you have failed to provide a single source stating that the "hybridisation" and "relexification" theories are mainstream. Besides, Reshef isn't the only source stating that these are fringe theories, if you'd taken the time to read the sources I provided you would've noticed that... Yet again, you don't even check your own sources (this is increasingly clear going from your constant claim that Hetzron endorses Wexler's theories), so there's that. --92.150.67.201 (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

There are few problems right now:

-"Relexified Yiddish" is not much supported except for Wexler and ruled out by others who also question the classification of the language. Therefore it is overused, why using it in the info box and not Zuckermann for instance?

-The consensus that Modern Hebrew is derived from former Hebrew dialects is not represented but only shown as a possibility. Actually there's a huge reference to "non Semitic" classification suggestions in contract to negligible mentioning of "commonly seen as a direct continuation of Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew", and even that isn't represented properly.

Infantom (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Honestly I think the section should be deleted. It's very existence is silly. Just look at Maltese, which is unambiguously classified as Semitic though it's phonologically Indo-European, uses a Latin alphabet, and is 50-70% morphologically indo-european. --Monochrome_Monitor

The section should be there, but the current version is problematic. It almost entirely regards the non-Semitic/mixed possibilities with very little reference to the mainstream opinion. very unbalanced. Infantom (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me we have consensus to include the family tree here, based on multiple eminently reliable sources that say that the prevalent view is that modern Hebrew is a Semitic language and that the minority views are not well accepted in academic circles. Anyone have any policy based objections left? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

WP is not a democracy. Consensus is not established by votes. We have some editors pushing one side of an academic debate and minimizing the other, even saying that the one side is Truth. That's not how things work here. We have mainstream academic sources saying that Hebrew is a (revived) Semitic language, and others saying that it's a mixed or hybrid language. You can't ask for a more mainstream source than ELL2. To deny or minimize mainstream sources violates NPOV. — kwami (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Au contraire, we have sources saying that the view it's a Semitic language is the mainstream prevalent view and that the minority views are not well accepted in academic circles. This is what our article should show per NPOV. The only thing missing from the infobox right now is a note saying that some academics have a different view with a link to the classification section. NPOV-wise not mentioning the not widely accepted minority views is much less of an NPOV violation than giving them the same weight as the prevalent view.

Come on, even Zuckermann admits his view is not widely accepted. What more do you want? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

NMMNG, you well know that Wexler and Zuckermann are scholars of the highest quality. Their views are widely cited. Kwami is right to say that there is no unitary "Truth" to this question, and that should be reflected throughout this article (including the lead) in proportion to their weight. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Both Wexler and Zuckermann say their views are not the prevalent view, and other academic sources concur. I never said there's a unitary "truth", so I don't know where you get that from. I said Wexler and Zuckermann should get their due weight, which is not very much. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Presenting it as a list of individuals and their views is a mess. The information should be organized as a paragraph. Drsmoo (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Classification

Modern Hebrew is classified as genetically an Afroasiatic language of the Semitic family and the Canaanite subgroup. Although it has been influenced by non-Semitic languages, Modern Hebrew strongly contains its Semitic character in many of its features, as can be seen in its morphology and grammar and much of its syntax. However, because of the massive number of loan words, loan translations and loan shifts, as well as the phonetic and syntactical differences between Modern and Biblical Hebrew, some researchers question its "Semitism". Several alternative genealogies were suggested in recent years. Though differing in scholarly value and soundness of argumentation, none were well accepted in academic circles.

• Paul Wexler claims that modern Hebrew is not a Semitic language at all, but relexified "Judaeo-Sorbian". He argues that the underlying structure of the language is Slavic, but that it has adopted the vocabulary and inflectional system of Hebrew.
• Shlomo Izre'el focuses on the "emergence" of "Spoken Israeli Hebrew" in terms of a "creation of a new language" and attempts to fit the nativisation of this "new linguistic entity" into the "larger continuum of Creole and Creole-like languages", but does not seem to believe that it was relexified, either from a Slavic or any other linguistic substratum (with references to his own earlier work on the creolisation hypothesis (1986) and the works of Goldenberg (1996) and Kuzar (2001).
• Ghil'ad Zuckermann compromises between Wexler and the majority view: according to him, "Israeli" (his term for Israeli Hebrew) is a Semito-European hybrid language, which is the continuation not only of literary Hebrew but also of Yiddish, as well as Polish, Russian, German, English, Ladino, Arabic and other languages spoken by Hebrew revivalists. Thus, "Yiddish is a primary contributor to Israeli Hebrew because it was the mother tongue of the vast majority of revivalists and first pioneers in Eretz Yisrael at the crucial period of the beginning of Israeli Hebrew". According to Zuckermann, although the revivalists wished to speak Hebrew, with Semitic grammar and pronunciation, they could not avoid the Ashkenazi mindset arising from their diaspora years. "Had the revivalists been Arabic-speaking or Berber-speaking Jews (e.g. from Morocco), Israeli Hebrew would have been a totally different language – both genetically and typologically, much more Semitic. The impact of the founder population on Israeli Hebrew is incomparable with that of later immigrants."

According to Robert Hertzon,

"It is futile to ask whether Modern Hebrew is the same language as the idiom of the Hebrew Bible. Clearly, the difference between them is great enough to make it impossible for the person who knows one to understand the other without effort. Biblical scholars have to study the modern language if they want to benefit from studies written in Hebrew today and Israelis cannot properly follow Biblical passages without having studied them at school. Yet a partial understanding is indeed possible and the similarities are so obvious that calling them separate languages or two versions of the same tongue would be an arbitrary, purely terminological decision."

I think this section should be worked to put more emphasis on the prevalent view that it's a Semitic language, and explain more clearly that the minority views are minority views. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Two problems. First, we say MH "is" A when our sources disagree as to whether it's A or B. That violates NPOV. Second, while Hetzron is a RS, the Hetzron quote given here predates the views it is being used to debunk. That's a violation of SYNTH. — kwami (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hetzron (1997)

Hetzron (1997) p313 cites (Wexler 1990) and (Fisherman 1986) But seems to miscite Wexler as supporting the theory that Yiddish and Slavic are contact languages of modern Hebrew. A view that Wexler does not share. Hetzron does not address Wexler’s relexification theory.

I think editors need to be careful about SYNTH and incorrectly ascribing views to Hetzron.Jonney2000 (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Berman is summing up the existing literature in just a few words. I'd be cautious in assuming that both she and Hetzron made an error: *that* would be OR. They cite Wexler as a legitimate source for what the language is, not as a crank or a fringe view. — kwami (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The fact remains that you are reading something into the cite that is missing from the source we have no way of knowing. I think you need to write from the sources.Jonney2000 (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not writing at all. People have been saying that Wexler is WP:FRINGE, and that we need to instead follow people like Hetzron. But Hetzron himself cites Wexler (or, to be precise, edited a volume where Wexler is cited as a mainstream source), invalidating that argument. That's my only point. — kwami (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

My personal view which should not matter is that Wexler is a mainstream scholar. However his Yiddish theory is not well accepted. Overtime he has diverged more and more from the mainstream and made many claims.

You have to remember that Wexler had a long career before his Yiddish theory and not just in Yiddish linguistics.

The whole idea of relexification of any language is somewhat controversial and also new only dating to the 1980s and more the late 1980s. Wexler himself seems to say as much.

https://books.google.com/books?id=XHd2ACl7l4UC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=controversial+relexification&source=bl&ots=mlvl_rBcsj&sig=i6AZCdtAlsMiIQSzG2NCZIoIXWo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAGoVChMIiKfjsuyNxgIVhlWSCh2i4wCp#v=onepage&q=controversial%20relexification&f=false

The idea of relexification has been criticized as discounting migration and being postmodern etc.Jonney2000 (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

But that's still all besides the point. There's more to it than just Wexler. Zuckermann may be a better representative. It seems that people are struggling with how to characterize Modern Hebrew, just as they at first struggled with how to describe creoles. — kwami (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

This is getting kind of ridiculous. You are obviously synthesizing. Why wikipedia can't just reflect the mainstream view is beyond me. 50.187.216.93 (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stop dragging your feet kwami and go with the consensus. Everyone here seems opposed to the theories you want to endorse. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You can't ask for a more mainstream source than ELL2. There is no SYNTH in reporting what a RS says. — kwami (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Kwami. Monochrome, we have a duty to represent views held by the scholarly community in proportion to their weight. We must use objective, not subjective, measures to determine that weight. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Not classifying Hebrew as Semitic is absurd

Wikipedia classifies Maltese, which is written in the Latin Alphabet and is 50-70% Italian and English, as Semitic. Why not Hebrew? Answer: double standards. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

My solution is to delete the classification section altogether. If it doesn't exist on Maltese it shouldn't exist here. 50.187.216.93 (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea but you shouldn't have done it without going to the talk page. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely absurd. Change it please as soon as possible.--Tritomex (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the most hilarious part of this article is the infobox, which lists Hebrew as a "mixed language"... It reminds me of Metapedia, which used to claim that Hebrew is a "bastardized jargon" and a "made up language". --92.150.67.201 (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I did change it and it got reverted. It was reverted back though. I'm going to undo it if someone tries to change it back. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, it's totally like Metapedia. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

So since there is a consensus to keep the table, should the classification section be kept? It's really POV right now, and frankly its very existence is undue weight.--Monochrome_Monitor 17:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Do not remove the classification section. That would be a gross NPOV violation. There's a controversy and the encyclopedia should note it. If you think the way it's written now is POV then add stuff to make it less so.

Also, announcing your intention to edit war like you did above is never a good idea. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not edit warring if it's consensus. Also, I tried to make the classification section more nuetral but it got reverted. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It's edit warring even if it's consensus. There are ways to deal with someone who reverts to a non-consensus version, and edit warring isn't one of them.

If it gets reverted bring it to the talk page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I DID. Look above. No one responded to it. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

And so does modern spanish. Makes sense sort of. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

This whole debate is absurd. Hebrew is Semitic language and it can be demonstrated by enormous quantity of reliable sources. --Tritomex (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

A lot of other languages have a classification section, including Maltese which was brought up above. If there's a controversy it's our responsibility to cover it neutrally. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem is not the classification section itself, but the fact that the mainstream view isn't represented properly although the massive consensus we have here. Infantom (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

MM (top of thread), you appear to be unaware of how linguistic classification works. Maltese has an unbroken chain of transmission back to Arabic, so there's no question about its genealogy. This is not the case for MH. Also, having a large fraction of foreign vocabulary is not grounds for calling a language "mixed", or English would be too. We have mainstream views that say MH is Semitic, and others struggling to account theoretically for its history. What do you call a language that went extinct and was then revived? Can it ever be the original language? With MH, how to characterize the European elements: borrowing? substratum? relexification? language mixture? These questions are not settled in the literature, so we should not present them as settled with bald statements that MH "is" a Semitic language. — kwami (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Not all linguist agree with that. Some such as Noam Chomsky have asserted that Hebrew remained a spoken language among Jews. They are also probably in the minor but may well outnumber those who view Modern Hebrew as a mixed language. Other may accept this to greater or lesser degrees. Hebrew :::was used as a sacred language by Jews.

Mixed languages have many way of forming Viveka Velupillai gives a nice list that should probably be added to the mixed language article.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Dw-YBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA83&lpg=PA83&dq=Mixed+language+vs+relexification&source=bl&ots=H-OWi0lSgt&sig=rbGzqZZg99zUY4w3NICPgSzERkg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEsQ6AEwB2oVChMIv_SQwaqOxgIViAuSCh1biwrx#v=onepage&q=Mixed%20language%20vs%20relexification&f=false

All languages have element of other languages. However for the purpose of the info box the most well established linage should be used. Not many linguist classify Modern Hebrew as a mixed language.Jonney2000 (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• I am quite conversant with the literature on mixed languages, and Hebrew is not generally considered mixed in that literature. All languages are mixed - and in linguistics being a mixed language refers to specific types of pervasive mixing that puts genealogical connections into doubt. Yes, MH has contact influences from other languages which sometimes causes scholars to emphasize its non-Semitic elements, but not to a degree that puts its genealogical classification into question. The mainstream view by far is that MH is a semitic language plain and simple. Any discussion of contact traits can be taken in the body of the article but they do not merit representation in the infobox. Maltese is much more "mixed" than MH and still the literature does not consider it a Mixed language in the technical sense.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing "plain and simple" about MH. Per Wexler: "The partial language shift from Yiddish to Modern Hebrew is the only known case of partial language shift to an initially non-spoken/evolving spoken language". And per Blau "Hebrew is the only language which, after not being used as a mother tongue for about seventeen centuries, has become again the native language of a whole nation".

I am concerned that Monochome's drastic changes to this article are not being properly vetted, and that the fascinating complexity of the topic of Modern Hebrew is being whitewashed. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Neither of those quotes have any bearings whatsoever on the genetic classification of the Modern Hebrew language, or even remotely suggests that it would fall under the label of a mixed language.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you actually use Wexler as a source there. His views are not academically viable. --Monochrome_Monitor 12:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Wexler's views are perfectly fine, but they do not mean that Modern Hebrew is generally considered a mixed language.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

"Not academically viable"?! His views have been an important current in linguistic studies for the last 25 years. Honestly, MM, there is no single "Truth" here. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That is wrong. His views have sparked a lot of research certainly, but it is research that in its vast majority disagrees with all of his major arguments and conclusions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

His views are rejected by the overwhelming majority of linguists. You obviously have ideological reasons for supporting them, any nuetral person would agree that it is a "truth" that Hebrew is a Semitic language.--Monochrome_Monitor 15:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

"rejected by the overwhelming majority of linguists" is your WP:OR language, which will continue to be ignored. You should aim to track your language closer to descriptions published by scholars.

See a more scholarly discussion at: Spoken Israeli Hebrew Revisited: Structures and Variation, Yaron Matras and Leora Schiff. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Matras and Schiff are argueing that one should recognize the complexity of MH, not that it should be classified as a mixed language instead of a semitic language. Matras in his "Language Contact" treat both Modern Hebrew and mixed languages at length without ever suggesting that MH should be classified as a mixed language.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You mean where it says that Wexler's is a "radical view that has found few supporters"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, if you then complete the quote's sentence instead of tendentiously editing it. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

He wasn't "tenditiously editing it". He was quoting it. The rest of the quote is "but widely cited due to its provocative attempt to exoticize Israeli Hebrew" Basically your source says he's fringe and a provocateur. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

"Widely cited" and "fringe" are opposite terms. This fundamental misunderstanding that you appear to have is at the root of this whole discussion; I am glad we have finally got to the bottom of it. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

No, many fringe arguments are widely cited - in contexts where mainstream researchers distance themselves from them.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The lead para of the relevant guideline states:

"Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner."

Here we have a situation where a scholarly view is highly "prominent" and "notable", but not "widely accepted". And where that "acceptance" has an obvious political / nationalistic angle. This is covered by the guideline within WP:FRINGELEVEL

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The view should certainly be mentioned in the article. But not in the infobox.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It is quite notable that glottolog sources The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook for it's classification, which uses the Semitic classification. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

If this doesn't sound Semitic, I don't know what does. A person unfamiliar with either Hebrew or Arabic would probably be unable to distinguish Amnon Yitzhak's speech from Hassan Nasrallah's. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion for Morphology

I think it would great if we made a table demonstrating how new Modern Hebrew words are formed, with their root and pattern and the new meaning. I'm terrible at table syntax though, and while I know some Hebrew roots I know little patterns. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that would be useful. It would also be useful to include the grammatical forms that are developing across generations, such as the new future tense. — kwami (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's a fun dual-stem word: the Modern Hebrew word "orange" is תפוז, a combination of תפוח (apple) and זהב (golden). There used to not be a word for oranges since they aren't found in Israel, in Mishnaic times they were called "sweet round etrogs". --Monochrome_Monitor

This site is great: link. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Rename to Israeli Hebrew

Yaron Matras (article linked above) makes an interesting point:

"The language with which We are concerned in this contribution is also known by the names Contemporary Hebrew and Modern Hebrew, both somewhat problematic terms as they rely on the notion of an unambiguous periodization separating Classical or Biblical Hebrew from the present-day language. We follow instead the now widely-used label coined by Rosén (1955), Israeli Hebrew, to denote the link between the emergence of a Hebrew vernacular and the emergence of an Israeli national identity in Israel/Palestine in the early twentieth century."

Any thoughts on this? Oncenawhile (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Considering "Modern Hebrew" gets almost 200,000 hits on Google books, and "Israeli Hebrew" only about 23,000 (both terms in quotes), it seems to me Modern Hebrew is by far more commonly used, so the article should not be moved. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Volume of usage is not as relevant as quality of usage. It seems that most scholars call it "Israeli Hebrew". Oncenawhile (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

No they don't. Searching Google Scholar yields 17,500 results fro MH, only 3000 for IH. And even if they did, that's not what WP:COMMONNAME says. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

CommonName says we should use what's most common in the relevant lit, not what's most common in Google books, not to mention that any count over about 900 is meaningless. But I suspect that MH is more common than IH. Oncenawhile, if you can come up with stats that's changing, we would consider it. At the least, though, we need to keep IH as an alt name in the info box, despite Monochrome's edit-war over deleting it. — kwami (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Refs

References

Reordering the Classification section

Monochrome Monitor, this reordering needs consensus. Please explain your rationale here. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT: anything she disagrees with needs to be hidden at the end of the article. As she put it, classification isn't important and needs to go at the end, despite the consensus to the contrary at Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages/Template. — kwami (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The current classification section implies that MH having a structural Slavic component is a commonly accepted fact, in the same way much weight is given to all the "relexification" and "hybridisation" theories... That's a bit like crediting Alinei's PCT with 2/3rds of the "Indo-European migrations" article while barely mentionning the Pontic Caspian steppe urheimat. I suggest we base the classification section on the excerpt I wrote above (under the "Rectifying the current article's unbalanced content" section), that would be a good start. --92.150.67.201 (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't. It starts off "Modern Hebrew is commonly seen as a direct continuation of Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew". We could give examples of that view, but people can't seem to be bothered. They simply want to deny the POV present in ELL2 and other mainstream sources. — kwami (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, we want to give it the right weight, which is pretty small since several sources say it's not widely accepted by academics.

That said I think where the section is now is correct, and it shouldn't be moved lower in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The classification section gives way too much weight to all the "relexification" and "hybridisation" theories, which are essentially fringe views. For instance, we can read "it is recognised that it has a structural Slavic component" and yet the source used to support this claim doesn't even state such a thing. The excerpt I wrote above deals with these issues... Yet again, I see that you are all too eager to ignore these obvious discrepancies. --92.150.67.201 (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• I would suggest choosing an authoritative source for the classification and follow that exactly in the infobox and then have any discussions in the body of the article. A good choice would be glottolog.[2] This is basically the only way to avoid OR or a misleading or controversial infobox.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It's deceptive. It says "some relevant scholarly views" without saying that all of these views are fringe. It basically says that "the view (mainstream view) that Modern Hebrew is based off of Biblical/Mishnaic Hebrew is wrong. Here's why". --Monochrome_Monitor 04:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

What "it" are you referring to here?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The classification section. Sorry, I thought I was more explicit. --Monochrome_Monitor 04:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The way you indented the comment made it look as if you were responding to my comment specifically.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

-The insertion of Slavic component is based on marginal minority view and it is not presented as such. This fringie views are now expanded without consensus.Tritomex (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Phonology

Our phonology section was unreferenced, and suffered from a confusion between sound and writing. I found what appears to be a good ref, based on corpus data, that warranted a few changes. (Some went into the morphology section; I don't care where the morphophonology ends up.) Monochrome is now edit-warring over several points, replacing sourced info with the original unsourced text. This is not acceptable. Here are the points she objects to:

• The pharyngeals are "very rare", according to the source
• The /x/ is velar. Monochrome contradicts herself, positioning it as velar but transcribing it as uvular.
• The /r/ is usually (>85%) a velar fricative, sometimes (~20%) a uvular fricative. Monochrome wants to remove all mention of the most common allophone.
• Monochrome wants to give allophony/idiolectal variation in the phoneme box for /r/, but not for any other consonant (s~z, ʕ~ʔ~0, n~m~ŋ, etc.). It should be simply /r/, for its usual transcription, or /ɣ/, for its usual pronunciation. I tried one, then the other; Monochrome rejects both.
• Monochrome confuses language with orthography, speaking e.g. of "resh" as if it were a consonant
• The x~ɣ voicing pair has been removed. I don't know if that's a problem with the transcription, or if these two consonants really don't participate in voicing assimilation.

Per WP editing guidelines, unsourced info can be deleted at any time, and all of Monochrome's edits are unreferenced. Everything I added is referenced, and should stay unless we have better refs that contradict it, or unless I misunderstood the source. — kwami (talk) 05:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, to be convincing and acceptable changes like these require references.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The difference with R is that it's not just pronounced differently in different dialects—it's pronounced differently in the same dialects. It literally can occur by the same person in variation with itself. This is why in a source here (i forget which one) the phonology table writes "r------r", to show variations. You must have misunderstood your source, because virtually no one pronounces resh that way. Regardless, I sourced changes. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I recommend you look at a different source, like per se the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. I think you mean well but you can see how your source is so different by looking at other wiki pages on hebrew. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

In that vein, no one should be citing fringe sources for basic facts that could be sourced by anyone. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You're missing the point. You might want to read phoneme so you understand the underlying concept. — kwami (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

WP is not a source for WP. As for the encyclopedia you linked to, it says "Israeli Hebrew can best be described as a typologically 'mixed' language", that the major 'dialect' excludes the pharyngeals, that /ʔ/ and /h/ are omitted in most environments, and lists both /x/ and /r/ as velar, all points you have repeatedly deleted from the article. When your own sources contradict you, yet you continue to edit-war, there is obviously something wrong with your approach. — kwami (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Which encylopedia? --Monochrome_Monitor 02:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. It doesn't put it in it's "mixed languages" category though oddly. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

You're right, I meant to cite The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook

Please read WP:FRINGE. "Fringe" doesn't mean WP:IDONTLIKEIT. When a linguist conducts a statistical study to determine the most common pronunciation of a consonant, it's not "fringe". "Fringe" is things like claiming Hebrew was the language of the Garden of Eden.

You deleted my 'fails verification' tag and added a source to the table, but apparently still aren't reading your sources. It failed even worse with the new source. That is a RS, though, so I accepted it and changed the table to match, changing only the obvious error of /χ/ being a trill. /r/ is now alveolar, but before you start another edit-war, note that it's alveolar according to your own source. — kwami (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

What the article needs

Now that the phonetics section is accurate, the biggest priority is to fix the Classification section. It becomes apparent how ridiculously fringe it is when you see that the half-sentence covering the mainstream view is sourced by the fringe view. After that we should make morphology tables showing how words are created in Modern Hebrew. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

By "accurate" you mean unreferenced and contradicted by multiple references. Perhaps we should address that first. — kwami (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

"Name" section

You do realize that it reprises everything that is wrong with the "classification" section? --Monochrome_Monitor 20:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean you should delete it. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Monochrome, was this your edit, when you were accidentally logged out? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Monochrome Monitor, please could you let us know re the edit above? Oncenawhile (talk) 09:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Monochrome Monitor, if you are silent because you wish to protect your identity, that is good and I suggest you go to WP:Oversight as soon as possible. However, I am worried that you are using this IP account as a sock, to help build consensus for your positions. WP:SPI will be able to clarify this quickly for us. So can you please clarify your position? Clearly if it is the former, please go to Oversight first before confirming, so that your identity is protected. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not me. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I wish you had not lied about this: your edit here [3] suggests you have been dishonest. I was trying to help you. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I have edited wikipedia anonynmously, but of course I wouldn't give my IP away. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

And even then I use proxies. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Regardless, I think classification covers the naming controversy, and creating a whole new section about hebrew being a bastard language is beating a dead horse. That's why it was deleted. It's also very bizarre. I've never seen a section called "name" on languages before, seems like another example of holding Hebrew to a different standard as if it's the only language in the world which should be the exact same after 2000 years.--Monochrome_Monitor 02:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Bibliography and 3RR

Monochrome, why did you delete the bibliography section? This is a very standard section per WP:WORKS. It is also needed for the Template:Harvard citations which are used throughout the article. By deleting it you have broken many of the ref links. Please put it back.

Separately, you are very far over the WP:3RR limit. Are you willing to stick to this going forward?

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

None of the links appear broken. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I am about to report you for edit warring. Please put the section back until you have consensus to delete it. You are vandalising the article without understanding your actions - refs 5, 14, 16, 26, and 35 are now broken. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll restore it. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Monochrome Monitor, thanks, please do. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Or better yet I could just fix the cites directly. Which are broken? --Monochrome_Monitor 20:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I have already listed them above. If you don't fix this in the next few hours I am adding the section back. I am not going to waste my time with this idiotic conversation any more. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, now you're being a jerk. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Standardization

Another unexplained revert from Monochrome here. You deleted a WP:RS source, complete with a direct quote, with the explanation that you disagree. Your view carries no weight here - none of our views do. Please undo your deletion. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Dekar is not a reliable source, considering they think that Hebrew Resh is pronounced as ɣ. That's just wrong. Also, Modern Hebrew was standardized far earlier than world war two. If it were a different source it would be a different matter, but this source has proven to be false on many occasions. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The source also thought that long and shorts vowels are separate phonemes, which no one with an elementary understanding in linguistics would think. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realize that RS meant something you agreed with. Would you please start a thread at WP:RS about correcting their description?

So, linguists don't understand linguistics if you disagree with them. Perhaps we should correct our article linguistics too. — kwami (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with me agreeing. It has to do with every other linguist in the world agreeing. If you can find one other source saying that Resh is most commonly pronounced that way by Israelis, I swear I will give you one hundred dollars.--Monochrome_Monitor 01:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It took me thirty seconds to find one.[4] At the Hebrew pronunciation course at Jewish Dictionary.com, it has "/r/ voiced velar fricative": The articulation of the tongue is similar to that of /x/, but it is accompanied by voicing of the vocal cords. Some speakers use a tongue-tip trill instead of the velar fricative. The trill is also generally used on radio, in the theater, etc. Students may use the trill, but for most native Israelis the velar fricative will sound more "natural".

(It appears the site lifted the description from the FSI publication Mastering Hebrew.[5])

Here's another: Haim Blanc (1960) An Intermediate Advanced Level Israeli Hebrew Refresher Course. — kwami (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

How will you send me the $100? — kwami (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I will admit when I'm wrong, but I don't think that source is a basis for change considering the large majority of sources disagree. Mastering Hebrew, the original source, also says that there are five vowels. ;) --Monochrome_Monitor 01:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC) And mastering Hebrew says that Hebrew uses x, but it uses χ. Your source must be Ashkenazi-centric because x only occurs in Yiddish and ɣ is a common Ashkenazi pronunciation of Resh. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Have the authors of your sources actually checked to see how many people use which pronunciation, like the one I used? That's why I chose that source: he gives evidence for his claims. — kwami (talk) 02:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure, they just say "most people pronounce it that way", w/out figures, but I understand your point.--Monochrome_Monitor 02:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

== Topic ban for user Monochrome Monitor? ==

This is getting ridiculous. Linguists are incompetent if Monochrome Monitor disagrees with their linguistic analysis. Sources are not RS if she disagrees with them, yet the sources she presents to prove her point contradict her edits. She edit-wars with anything she disagrees with, even deleting common names of the language from the info box. Maybe someone could mentor her on how to edit a collaborative project? — kwami (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC) --Monochrome_Monitor 01:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC) She's actually improved this article from something that was terrible a month ago. I don't support the aggressive editing style (though I myself can guilty of it) but she is the last one to be banned for this page, lest this page become even worse. 50.187.216.93 (talk) 01:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

What you added on resh was contradicted by the section on pronunciations of Resh. What you added on vowels was contradicted by IPA for Hebrew and Modern Hebrew phonology. I'll re-add the Israeli Hebrew part, but I don't like how the name is given political loading on the rest of the page. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Literally you and Onceinawhile are the only users I've had a problem with on this page. Far more users have agreed with me on my edits. Blocking me would mean the minority can rule over the majority on wikipedia. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, several other editors have told you your edits and attitude are inappropriate. The fact you call me a vandal because you disagree with sourced edits I'm making, a ridiculous claim, suggests that you are finding it difficult to remain objective. This article isn't about you, or what you believe, it's about what the sources say. — kwami (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I called you a vandal? If I did I didn't mean to. Your edits are all good faith. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. Skimmed too quickly. — kwami (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I was harsh and I apologize for that. Wikipedia is extremely stressful for me. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I swear I'm not usually this bitchy. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The ref for the consonants does not agree with the table. You have again deleted the morphophonology I added (and you were the one calling for more morphology). And the population figure also fails verification: it's the total number of speakers, not the number of native speakers. It took me a long time to find a source that actually gave the number of native speakers. I putting the POV tag back, since it's not worth edit-warring with you over your insistence on using whatever crappy source you can dig up that agrees with your established beliefs rather than accepting reliable sources that might challenge you to think. — kwami (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't delete cleanup tags. Several of your sources fail verification. — kwami (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I restored the old speakers source. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we have a hiatus on edit warring tonight? I have a final and the stress of this will keep me up. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Then why don't you stop edit-warring? You edit-war to contradict your own sources, which is getting pretty close to vandalism. Come on, are you now going to claim the IPA Handbook is a fringe source because you disagree with it? You edit-war over cleanup tags, which can get you blocked. (If you do it again, I will make a request to have you blocked.) You've even deleted morphological info that you requested. It's getting quite ridiculous. — kwami (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not a fringe source. We are just not using it, just like we didn't use it for Arabic phonology or French phonology. I'm not edit-warring. I stopped making changes. I would like it if you did the same for a brief period. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Consonant tables almost never have citations. Why don't you continue your crusade on those articles? Why just Hebrew? --Monochrome_Monitor 03:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

You added the source! and it contradicts the table. Why would you expect anyone to let that slide? Are you asking for the racism of lowered expectations, that we can't expect an article on Hebrew to be anything but shitty? — kwami (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

You both need to shut up and stop editing this article for at least a week. 50.187.216.93 (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Both of you ( @Kwamikagami:, @Monochrome Monitor: ) violated 3RR on this article today (and not for the first time, either). Take a break, or you will be reported. All Rows4 (talk) 04:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I deleted phonetic info. I requested morphological info. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

You deleted morphological and phonological info as well as phonetic info. You cut the morphology section in half. — kwami (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

classification

I've just removed the following from the article:

• In 1928, Gotthelf Bergsträsser stated that Hebrew was risking becoming a “European language in transparent Hebrew clothing”, a warning which has been much quoted by linguists since. Bergsträsser noted that the “break between present-day Hebrew and the older varieties is thus incomparably greater than that between Middle Hebrew and Old Hebrew.” Evaluating Bergsträsser’s position in 1983, Peter T. Daniels noted that as predicted the language “has in fact in large measure "succumbed" to European influence… the syntax looks more European than Semitic and the vocabulary borrows heavily from the many languages Hebrew has been in contact with”.
• In 1977, Israeli linguist Haiim B. Rosén noted that Israeli Hebrew had become "self-supporting and self-perpetuating as probably the only living Occidental language in the Middle East"

The classification section is not supposed to be a dumping ground for every little statement that contradicts what we know is the academic consensus. That's obvious UNDUE and not less obvious POV pushing. We have academic sources that tell us what is the most accepted theory is. We can note (with due weight) that there are other, not widely accepted theories. But stacking more and more stuff is an NPOV violation. Whoever added the above two please explain their significance and why we need them here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

An entire (and big) section dedicated completely to one POV, this is ridicules. The section is so one sided and unbalanced that it's unbelievable. Infantom (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Bergstrasser and Rosen are highly respected linguists, whose views on this specific topic are widely cited. They need to be included if we are to represent the scholarly position appropriately.

I agree that the section requires work, but deleting good sources is the opposite of the correct way to do it.

If you have some good ideas for improvements, please roll up your sleeves and add the necessary content. Once we have as wide a range of sources as we are all comfortable with, we can figure out how to make it flow better, as a bullet point list of scholarly views is not very good.

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

No. The onus is on you to write NPOV text, and stacking more and more cherry picked quotes to imply the widely accepted view is wrong is not NPOV. We can develop the section here and put it in place when it at least has a semblance of complying with our WEIGHT and NPOV policies. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

This article has become a soapbox. Finding sources to back up a view and then cramming them into the article regardless of notability or weight is not the correct way to edit. Drsmoo (talk)

Not only cherry picked quotes but actually sources that support the opposite, for example in Haim Rosen's book, the same chapter that contains the mentioned information in the article is started with: "We cannot appropriately conclude a chapter on the identity of Israeli Hebrew without expressly stating our view that it is a Semitic language". Infantom (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying Oncenawhile cherry picked a quote trying to tendentiously imply the source says exactly the opposite of what it actually says? How shocking and unexpected. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your support NMMNG. AGF is rare around here, and for you to agree that such behaviour from me would be shockingly unexpected was a nice surprise.

Fortunately, your decision to AGF was well placed. The decision to quote his concluding remark came from reading Olga Kapeliuk at [6], who summarizes Rosen in a little more detail with the same quote (and others) but also ignores the introductory point raised by Infantom. Rosen is clear that whilst the language is "genealogically" Semitic (although he says that the definition of linguistic genealogy is notoriously circular), he thinks that the linguistic typology is European. We can add more here to explain his reasoning in more detail, but it is quite complex.

NMMNG, to your earlier point, the onus is on all of us to work on building to our own requirements. It has been previously agreed that the section needs work, so I have been working hard to strengthen the sourcing, as a first step. Here are some good meta sources that conclude with the mainstream Semitic view.

• Joshua Blau (1981). The Renaissance of Modern Hebrew and Modern Standard Arabic: Parallels and Differences in the Revival of Two Semitic Languages. University of California Press. pp. 131–. ISBN 978-0-520-09548-9.
• Olga Kapeliuk (1996). Studies in Modern Semitic Languages. BRILL. pp. 60–. ISBN 90-04-10646-4.
• Amir Zeldes, Is Modern Hebrew Standard Average European?
• Ron Kuzar (1 January 2001). Hebrew and Zionism: A Discourse Analytic Cultural Study. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 123–. ISBN 978-3-11-086949-1.

With a bit of work from all involved, we can make this a useful and interesting section. Vandalising it by removing high quality sources brings us one step backwards.

I will now step back and let you edit the section, since you seem passionate about it, and it would be great for that passion to be used in a constructive fashion for once.

Oncenawhile (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Let me point out that typology has zero relevance for classification, so I'm at a loss to understand why this argument is accorded so much weight by these authors. French is very different from Latin typologically, English very different from Old English (let alone Proto-Indo-European), and Egyptian has changed typology radically several times over the course of its 5000-year-long history. (Remember that if typology mattered, Maltese wouldn't be a Semitic language, either.) So freaking what? That's what language change is all about. Get this: Language change means that languages change! Derp!

The real point is that the normal chain of intergenerational transmission (which links French to Latin, English to Old English and Proto-Indo-European and all the different diachronic forms of Egyptian to each other) is not present in the case of Hebrew. There is a period of almost 2000 years where Hebrew was not used as a vernacular, as anybody's first language, only as a liturgical language (or sometimes as a scholar's language, similar to other classical languages such as Latin or Sanskrit). This lack of native continuity (although there was continuity in that Hebrew remained in use at all times, even productive use, unlike non-classical/liturgical ancient languages such as Akkadian or Sumerian) is admittedly unusual and I'm not sure historical linguistics has a good answer to this problem (that's why the concept of genetic relationship also struggles with the classification of creoles). However, if we knew nothing about the history of Hebrew, linguists would classify it as a Semitic language on account of its grammar, especially morphology (verbs, pronouns, word-formation). And that's why classifying Modern Hebrew as ... what exactly remains unclear, but not Semitic in any case, remains a fringy point of view, on the level of declaring English a Romance or North Germanic language – or Yiddish a Slavic language. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the traditional Yiddish pronunciation of Hebrew (which additionally differed from dialect to dialect, especially in the vowels) is nowhere like the Occidental/Europeanised pronunciation of Modern Hebrew; in fact, the standard pronunciation of Modern Hebrew is often characterised as a compromise between Yiddish and Sephardic pronunciations, with Yiddish consonants and Sephardic vowels. If Modern Hebrew were a Hebrew–Yiddish hybrid, its vowel pronunciation should conform to a Yiddish (Ashkenazi) model too. But, for example, amen is pronounced /aˈmen/ in Modern Hebrew, not /ɔˈmeɪn/; for another example, see Wiktionary. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

"Let me point out that typology has zero relevance for classification" <<<- Ironically-enough, I've said the exact same thing and it has been totally ignored so far. As you said, MH phonology is mainly based on Sephardic pronounciation, the assumption that the Ashkenazi pronounciation of Hebrew is "Hebrew pronounced by Germans" is incorrect as well since the the traditional Ashkenazi pronounciation exhibits quite a few parallels with the Samaritan and Yemenite pronounciations of Hebrew. --109.208.198.93 (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Wexler misparaphrased

Since I'll probably just be reverted if I make the edit myself, someone should correct a misparaphrasing of Wexler, where we claim he says "modern Hebrew is not a Semitic language at all". He doesn't: he claims MH is not a Semitic language genealogically, but he notes that it is Semitic in lexicon and morphology. — kwami (talk) 04:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The claim that Semitic isn't genealogically Semitic is directly contradicted by the fact that Hebrew is a Semitic language morphologically-speaking (a fact which he notes, as you said). But for some odd reason, you have a hard time understanding that. --109.208.198.93 (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

deleted morphophonology

Monochrome deleted my additions of morphophonology, then said it was an accident and told me to restore it. When I did, she deleted it again. I'm copying it here. — kwami (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

When a vowel falls beyond two syllables from the main stress of a word or phrase, it may be reduced or elided. For example:

*zót emérət > stemérət 'that is to say'

*éx korím láx > əkorímlax 'what is your name?'

When /l/ follows an unstressed vowel, it is elided, sometimes with the surrounding vowels:

*ába ʃelaxém > ábaʃxem 'your father'

*ú itén lexá > uiténxa 'he gives you'

Syllables /rV/ drop before /x/ except at the end of a prosodic unit:

*bé-dérex klál > bədéxklal 'usually'

but: ú badérex 'he is on his way' at the end of a prosodic unit.

Sequences of dental stops reduce to a single consonant, again except at the end of a prosodic unit:

*aní lamád-ti páːm > əniləmátipaːm 'I once studied'

but: ʃe-lamádəti 'that I studied'

She also deleted voicing assimilation and the note that /h/ and /?/ are generally not pronounced. — kwami (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I deleted the later because the fact it's contradicted by the rest of the page, which for example says that ʕ is replaced by ?. Then to say that ? is omitted is just weird. It's also covered later on in long vowels. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, I don't think it contributed much to the page. You know what I meant by morphology was actual morphemes. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

So, once again, anything you don't want is not important, because you are the definition of importance. Your arrogance is truly incredible. — kwami (talk) 05:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

And you're distorting my words (again). I don't think it contributed to the article, and my opinion is just as valid as yours. This article is not a Hebrew lesson. It's about the basic characteristics of the language.--Monochrome_Monitor 06:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, reading my own words. I was a bit bitchy, huh? @Kwamikagami: --Monochrome_Monitor 13:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

name section

I removed the following:

The most common scholarly term for the language is “Modern Hebrew” (Hebrew: עברית חדשה ʿivrït ħadašä[h]), although it is generally referred to colloquially simply as Hebrew (Hebrew: עברית Ivrit),

The term “Modern Hebrew” has been described as “somewhat problematic” as it implies unambiguous descent from Biblical Hebrew, which is itself disputed. For example, noted Israeli linguist Haiim B. Rosén rejected the term “Modern Hebrew”, since it did not represent a linguistic entity which commanded autonomy towards everything “Hebrew” which preceded it, instead supporting the now widely-used term “Israeli Hebrew” on the basis that it “represented the non-chronological nature of Hebrew”. In 2006, Israeli linguist Ghil'ad Zuckermann proposed the term “Israeli” to represent the multiple origins of the language. Nurit Dekel notes that the scholarly majority supporting the term ‘’Modern Hebrew’’ may be a result of confirmation bias, i.e. the fact that “most of the researchers are dedicated to the Hebrew origins of the language”, and notes that a naming convention for the language including the term ‘’Hebrew’’ “originally represented a much wider range of views and intentions rather than just linguistic considerations”.

There are several serious problems here.

• Dekel notes the Rosen "claimed" something about the descent of the language, here we have it in the neutral voice.
• Then it goes on to tell us one more time that Rosen claimed something about the descent of the language, from the very same source.
• Dekel doesn't say anything about Rosen claiming something is "widely used", but whoever wrote this SYNTHed Rosen-via-Dekel with another source.
• Dekel says nothing about "confirmation bias".
• Dekel is used for almost everything here.

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello there, feel free to edit and amend as you see fit. Removing the article's description of the well known scholarly debate over the name because of minor editing questions is absurd. Particularly when you don't appear to have read it closely:

• To state that the term "Modern Hebrew" implies descent from Biblical Hebrew is not at all controversial, but patently obvious. Happy to tone it down, but I don't see why something so obvious needs in line attribution. Either way, this is sourced to Matras and Schiff, so your point re Rosen makes no sense.
• Per above, you have misread it. The above is Matras and Schiff, the latter is Rosen via Dekel (I have the underlying 1977 Rosen source as well if helpful to add)
• Again, this is sourced to M&S. It is not synth, as it does not change (or even impact) the conclusion
• That is simply a more elegant summary of her statement, which is then quoted verbatim in the same line
• Per above, there are two high quality "meta" sources here, and many underlying.

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but no.

• You said "unambiguous descent". The source says nothing of the sort. Glad you're willing to "tone it down". Also, you are definitely sourcing it to Dekel (that's what the ref there says) and she only says Rosen said it, not that it's her opinion. Considering Dekel doesn't seem to be some kind of linguistics superstar (it's hard to find out what university she works at, if any), kindly attribute her opinions.
• Again, maybe you made a mistake with the ref tags. I'm going by those.
• It's hardly elegant and why do you need to both summarize and quote?
• I'm not sure you understand what a meta source is. The fact M&S mention Rosen once doesn't make them a meta source. Dekel also relies mostly on Rosen. The only place she relies on more than him is where she says Modern Hebrew is the most common name, a fact that almost gets obscured by the 10x larger section about why some people think its wrong.

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

To your first two points, you misread the refs - the Dekel ref at the end of the sentence sources only the "which is itself disputed". The unambiguous descent is a paraphrase of M&S who write: "as they rely on the notion of an unambiguous periodization separating Classical or Biblical Hebrew from the present-day language"

On confirmation bias, we can debate about style (it is usually preferable that sources are paraphrased rather than directly quoted), but do you disagree with the substance? I.e. that her sentence is not clearly referring to confirmation bias?

And on the last point, you should read M&S in more detail.

On the basis of this high quality discussion, I will clarify the ref point which caused confusion, and remove the confirmation bias paraphrase since you don't like it. Any other points you have I suggest you edit directly. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Does "an unambiguous periodization separating" two things mean "unambiguous descent" from something? I'm no expert on linguistics jargon, but that doesn't make sense.

I don't think she's talking about confirmation bias. Where did you get that from?

Kindly do not put the text back in the article before you fix all the problems and get consensus. Post a draft here. You often tell other editors to do that so kindly follow your own demands. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Re periodization, they are saying that they are divided into sequential periods. Arguably it is more than descent, but "periodization" seems an unnecessarily jargonistic word for our encyclopaedia. Do you have a preferred description? I am happy to use the quote verbatim if you prefer.

The use of the word "dedicated" implies emotional as well as rational conviction. Since you disagree, I will just use the quote.

As requested:

Amended Name section The most common scholarly term for the language is “Modern Hebrew” (Hebrew: עברית חדשה ʿivrït ħadašä[h]), although it is generally referred to colloquially simply as Hebrew (Hebrew: עברית Ivrit), The term “Modern Hebrew” has been described as “somewhat problematic” as it implies unambiguous periodization from Biblical Hebrew, which is itself disputed. For example, noted Israeli linguist Haiim B. Rosén rejected the term “Modern Hebrew”, since it implied a linguistic entity which did not command autonomy towards everything “Hebrew” which preceded it, instead supporting the now widely-used term “Israeli Hebrew” on the basis that it “represented the non-chronological nature of Hebrew”. In 2006, Israeli linguist Ghil'ad Zuckermann proposed the term “Israeli” to represent the multiple origins of the language. Nurit Dekel notes that the scholarly majority supporting the term ‘’Modern Hebrew’’ may be a result of the fact that “most of the researchers are dedicated to the Hebrew origins of the language”, and notes that a naming convention for the language including the term ‘’Hebrew’’ “originally represented a much wider range of views and intentions rather than just linguistic considerations”.

Oncenawhile (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Still many many problems.

In the first sentence, where did "generally" and "colloquially" come from? What wrong with "most people call it X"?

In the first sentence of the second paragraph, you're SYNTHing M&S talking about periodization and Dekel who says nothing about periodization.

In the second sentence, "noted" is editorializing, "Israeli" is uncalled for as we don't usually note the nationality of academics and the fact he's a linguist is unnecessary, or do we put "linguist" in front of every linguist.

Continuing with the second sentence, you're citing both Rosen and Dekel, but you're obviously only using Dekel. Rosen says "some autonomy", you dropped the "some". Neither Rosen or Dekel say 'everything "Hebrew"'. When talking about "non-chronology" Rosen is saying what he thinks people who don't use the term "Israeli Hebrew" think, not what he thinks.

There's probably more, but this is enough for now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent and important comments. I have taken all of them, except the last on re non-chronology. The sentence is sourced to Dekel who writes "Rosén supported the term Israeli Hebrew as in his opinion it represented the non-chronological nature". Whilst only RS count, FWIW I happen to agree with her interpretation of Rosen (p18), as Rosen is giving his opinion. The section has now been added back to the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

fixing classification section

Right now it's basically a soap box for minority views.

Here's what I propose, again:

Modern Hebrew is classified as an Afroasiatic language of the Semitic family and the Canaanite subgroup. Although it has been influenced by non-Semitic languages, Modern Hebrew strongly contains its Semitic character in many of its features, as can be seen in its morphology and grammar and much of its syntax. However, because of the massive number of loan words, loan translations and loan shifts, as well as the phonetic and syntactical differences between Modern and Biblical Hebrew, some researchers question its "Semitism". Several alternative genealogies were suggested in recent years. Though differing in scholarly value and soundness of argumentation, none were well accepted in academic circles. Paul Wexler claims that modern Hebrew is not a Semitic language at all, but relexified "Judaeo-Sorbian". He argues that the underlying structure of the language is Slavic, but that it has adopted the vocabulary and inflectional system of Hebrew. Shlomo Izre'el focuses on the "emergence" of "Spoken Israeli Hebrew" in terms of a "creation of a new language" and attempts to fit the nativisation of this "new linguistic entity" into the "larger continuum of Creole and Creole-like languages", but does not seem to believe that it was relexified, either from a Slavic or any other linguistic substratum (with references to his own earlier work on the creolisation hypothesis (1986) and the works of Goldenberg (1996) and Kuzar (2001). Ghil'ad Zuckermann compromises between Wexler and the majority view: according to him, "Israeli" (his term for Modern Hebrew) is a Semito-European hybrid language, which is the continuation not only of literary Hebrew but also of Yiddish, as well as Polish, Russian, German, English, Ladino, Arabic and other languages spoken by Hebrew revivalists. According to Robert Hertzon in The World's Major Languages, "It is futile to ask whether Modern Hebrew is the same language as the idiom of the Hebrew Bible. Clearly, the difference between them is great enough to make it impossible for the person who knows one to understand the other without effort. Biblical scholars have to study the modern language if they want to benefit from studies written in Hebrew today and Israelis cannot properly follow Biblical passages without having studied them at school. Yet a partial understanding is indeed possible and the similarities are so obvious that calling them separate languages or two versions of the same tongue would be an arbitrary, purely terminological decision."

--Monochrome_Monitor 04:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the errors. The first sentence is incorrect, and the quote used to debunk the alt theories predates them and so is invalid for that function. — kwami (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I think this is much better. And the first sentence is not incorrect, that's how Hebrew is classified. 50.187.216.93 (talk) 05:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: this appears to be a sock for Monochrome,[7] who has been blocked for such abuses. — kwami (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

1. He's right, the first sentence is not incorrect. 2. Try again. It's from 2011, and their theories are from 1990, 2003, and 2006, respectively. --Monochrome_Monitor 05:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC) So far you have put up no sound argument as to why my edits should not be included. --Monochrome_Monitor 05:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The current classification doesn't even list a classification. It just says a bunch of fringe views which contradict eachother. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Monochrome_Monitor 05:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You don't know what "fringe" means, and so what if they contradict each other? You're falsifying data in e.g. the phonology section to make everything look clean (and agree with your opinions), but things aren't always neat and clean. If sources contradict each other, it's our responsibility to reflect that in the article. — kwami (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I think he means that the section gives massively undue weight to a handful of minority views that contradict the mainstream view which is in turn almost completely unrepresented.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I've been saying this for weeks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

A dozen other uses have called them fringe, do they not know what fringe means? I didn't write the phonology section. It's been that way forever, with the exception of me adding allophones of /r/. --Monochrome_Monitor 06:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You never added a cite needed tag in your long reign over this article when the phonology table was exactly the same except for the two allophones. What changed? --Monochrome_Monitor 06:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, that's exactly what I mean. --Monochrome_Monitor 06:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

And the mainstream view is only represented by a fringe view (Wexler, who claims Esperanto is relexified Yiddish), ironically enough. --Monochrome_Monitor 06:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that's hilarious. 50.187.216.93 (talk) 06:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the section, maunus. I hope you're okay with me merging it with my own proposal, since you mostly used my sources anyway. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Whoever is producing the next draft of this, please take into account the above sources at #classification_2. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

That's how Hebrew is classified by most sources. Saying it's X and then giving a bunch of refs that it's not-X is just bizarre. — kwami (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The solution is to remove the undue weight given to Wexler, Izreel and Zuckerman. Not to remove the mainstream view and the sources supporting it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

My perspective is that this section should be structured not as a list of people's views, but as a paragraph or two describing the key issues in the debate and explaining why most scholars define it as Semitic. We now have some good sources to allow us to write this. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I cleaned up some of the unfelicitous wording ("Modern Hebrew strongly contains its Semitic character", "as can be seen in its morphology and grammar and much of its syntax", "Modern Hebrew has attained so much influence from its substrate languages that it can be considered genetically hybrid"). I only mention that here because we've had so many reverts: "contains" and "attained" are not the correct meanings of those words, "grammar" is redundant, and "can be considered" is weasel wording.

I left the intro alone, as it's so contentious. I suggest the following wording:

Modern Hebrew is commonly seen as a direct continuation of Mishnaic or Biblical Hebrew, which was a Semitic language of the Canaanite branch.

IMO we don't need to beat to death the idea that it's a Semitic language. If it's a direct continuation, of course it's Semitic. The over-reffing is a consequence of the debate on this page, an attempt to prove a particular POV, and belongs on the talk page. It's inappropriate for an article. (WP:Citation overkill.) Reshef (2011) should be adequate as a source for the usual classification being Semitic, shouldn't it?

There's considerable debate as to whether Mishnaic Hebrew is a direct continuation of Biblical Hebrew, and whether Modern Hebrew is a continuation of Mishnaic, Biblical, or a conflation of both, and we don't want to make a specific claim.

The statement "Modern Hebrew is classified as an Afroasiatic language" is true, but trivially so. It's also true to say it's classified as an Indo-European language or as the Adamic language. All are classifications. Most classifications have it as Semitic, so that's what we should say. — kwami (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The need to "beat to death" the idea that it is semitic comes from the enormous undue weight given to the opposing minority viewpoint. Untill that undue weight is corrected it is necessary in order not to mislead the reader. Also it is not over referencing. It is very normal to have many refs for a particularly contentious fact. And no we shouldnt say most classifications. We should say that it is semitic. That is the broad consensus view. And it is what we do with other languages as well. We dont say that most classifications classify English as a West Germanic language. It simply is one, in spite of some minority claims to the contrary that are entirely parallel to the situation here. Yes, we should not claim that it is a continuation of Mishnaic or Biblical hebrew - it is enough to say that it is a revived Canaanite language based on Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I still think it's odd to need so many refs because a statement is contentious, but to make a blanket statement as if it weren't. Anyway, I used some of your wording to intro the Hetzron quote.

BTW, the IPs that have been responding to Monochrome appear to have been sock puppets. — kwami (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

This revert by No More Mr Nice Guy needs explanation please. It is not the same as the previous version, but includes the feedback. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Read the section. The problems are the same as the last time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy, there were two concerns raised last time. Re Rosen, the description has been cut down and a sentence has been added to summarize his point more closely. And re the overall point re "dumping ground", Kwami has already improved the section, and the comment is not specific to Bergstrasser and Rosen. Your revert also cut out some points which have nothing to do with the edit last time, including adding a number of good references to support the majority view.

Unless you can provide a useful explanation as to what you would like changed, I will be adding this back. It will be easier if you provide constructive comments which can actually be actioned - let me know if that is a concept that you need me to explain further. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Kindly read the discussion, particularly Maunus' points. If you continue to add more weight to the minority view I will keep removing it. As I'm sure you know, the onus is on you to gain consensus for your additions. If you read the discussion and somehow thought you have consensus for adding more minority views, this might be a WP:CIR issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Things have changed since the previous discussion, as I describe in my post above at 17:36, 26 June 2015, so "read the discussion" and "you need consensus" are not workable arguments. If you are too lazy to consider the edit on its own merits, you will be ignored. I will wait 24 hours more, and if you continue to refuse to engage in discussion, I will add the text back. You need to learn how to contribute real value to wikipedia, as opposed to just being obnoxious for its own sake. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I think User:No More Mr Nice Guy is right and User:Oncenawhile should not force the text for what there is no consensus. It gives WP UNDUE weight to fringe theories that could mislead the readers regarding the mainstream view on Hebrew language.Tritomex (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree entirely. So we all agree. Except that NMMNG's revert covered a whole range of things. The "weight" topic refers to two sentences. To avoid us being here forever, with people who haven't read the edits making vacuous talk comments, I will split my edit into parts. Then I will bring here the specific sentences being added. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. Please provide actionable comments on the text added into the article: [8]. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Oncenawhile, it's unclear to me why you decided to represent a balanced approach by Haim Rosen, when we know that his assertion is leaning toward one POV. It is very clear the he supports the Semitic classification but it cannot be understood by your wording. Infantom (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

See explanation here: [9]. I am following Olga Kapeliuk's description. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

If you're using Kepeliuk then you should be sourcing to Kapeliuk, not deliberately showing only one part of Rosen's opinion and sourcing to him. But none of that matters since you're going against consensus in adding more minority views. Also, loading the sentence about these minority views not being widely accepted with extra refs that add nothing is unnecessary and may give a reader the impression that this is more controversial than it actually is. Please gain consensus for that as well before adding it back. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You haven't read the references, have you? I will be adding the footnotes (ie the first part of my edit) back in unless you can explain why each one is not appropriate. You'll be surprised when you read them. Please stop this disruptive behaviour. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I think giving proper weight to fringe views demands discussion on the scope which those views should be used in text. In my opinion the most recent addition was not appropriate. This article already gave to much weight to fringe views (For example Wexler view which is almost unanimously rejected by Hebrew language experts and linguists is presented, which would be correct, however the fact that his theory is considered fringe is not ) So in my opinion any further addition on line of denial of the Semitic nature of Hebrew(a marginal position in Hebrew linguistics) should be presented here and discussed if it is needed at all in this text. This mean to discuss the sources, the date of publishing (modern scholarship would be preferred) and than decision of the scope and place where it can be eventually added to the article. By saying this I mean that marginal views, which are already mentioned in text can not take more space that they should have in accordance with their prominence in Hebrew linguisticsTritomex (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC).

Please distinguish WP:Fringe views, which are obvious nonsense like Hebrew being the Adamic language, from marginal views, which are hypotheses held by a small minority of legitimate scholars. Zuckermann's may be a marginal view. It is not a fringe view. — kwami (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Per this edit (which I have not yet added back into the article), Bergstrasser and Rosen are even more mainstream and widely cited, yet are being reverted because of overall weight. We need to consider this carefully.

My view is that the section should reflect the current state of scholarly discussion on the question of classification, which we can base upon a selection of the highest quality meta analyses of the classification question.

If people agree with this as a concept, we can then focus on building consensus around a group of sources to follow. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

To reflect the state of scholarly discussion, it should put more emphasis on the fact its a Semitic language and less on all kinds of minority views, as per NPOV. We have some meta sources that show this nicely. Meanwhile, quit adding refs loaded with quotes that don't support what they're ostensibly there to support but rather your POV push. Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I will not quit improving the quality of the sourcing, irrespective of whether you are able to adhere to WP:AGF. Unless you show evidence of having read the wikilink and references being added, I have no choice but to ignore your disruptive behaviour. The problem with your behaviour is that you appear to think that WP:BRD does not require you to actually read what you are reverting. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Oncenawhile, this style of editing is not likely to be a productive use of your time. If you think some of your edits are uncontroversial, you could try making just them; for the rest, it would be a good idea to present them here for discussion with your reasons for thinking they'll improve the article. — kwami (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I've read the quotes you're trying to sneak in between the ref tags, and find that they do not support what they were ostensibly put in there to support, as I noted the first time you tried this little trick and I reverted you. Notice not a single editor has supported your edits.No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kwamikagami, I agree with you - in fact I did try just making the ones I think are uncontroversial. Unfortunately No More Mr Nice Guy appears to have a vendetta against me, so I have to hold my line pretty firm in order not to encourage him to continue his childish behaviour. Trust between him and I has broken down completely, as you can see from the terminology he uses such as "trying to sneak in" and "tried this little trick".

All I am keen to do with the uncontroversial edit is not lose the value of the high quality sources I have found and spent the time to cite up. I genuinely don't believe it achieves anything other than that, but my friend is continually seeing ghosts.

I am stuck for ways to move forward because NMMNG's comments haven't provided any information to consider - they are just various forms of speculation and disdain.

My motto has always been wikt:if you can't beat them, join them, so as he has stooped to that level here and on other articles, I am happy to join him there for as long as he wants.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Please explain your last sentence. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You can read into it whatever you like. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to read into it, I want to understand what you meant. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that he means if you edit-war, he'll edit-war back. Once, that's only going to get you blocked. (Someone else might get blocked too, but maybe not.) — kwami (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

That is not what I mean, as edit warring is not in my nature, so I better clarify. I mean that the quality of my talk page edit comments will match the quality of NMMNG's for as long as he likes. If he refuses to show evidence of actually reading what he is reverting, or refuses to explain himself properly, then we can continue going round and round for as long as he likes until he is ready to engage in meaningful discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

There are other people who raised concerns regarding the scope of text based on fringe/minority theory intended to be inserted into this text, the need to expand this theory further (there are already mentioned) and certainly there was no consensus (which is necessary precondition) for such action. Nothing of this issues have been addressed.Tritomex (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, and they need to be addressed. We need some constructive input and analysis from those espousing these views to be able to action them. At the moment, all that is happening is NMMNG is deleting an improvement to the overall text quality and sourcing because he doesn't like the weight.

For us to be able to improve the article, we need actual counterproposals, instead of just "no".

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Population

Monochrome has replaced an estimate of the number of native speakers from 2012 with a "more recent" estimate from 1998 that isn't even the number of native speakers. Is anyone else going to police this article, or are we just going to let it devolve into bullshit? — kwami (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not from 1998. It's from 2015, read the cite. It links to Ethnologue's article on Hebrew because that's the last one on the web, but the actual figure is from their 2015 release. --Monochrome_Monitor 05:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The field is "native speakers". The date should therefore be for the number of native speakers. That "more recent" date is 1998. — kwami (talk) 06:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

No, you didn't. You clicked the link. The link is automatic. The actual cite is the release from 2015, the 18th edition of ethnologue. You didn't read it, unless you bought it or pirated it. --Monochrome_Monitor 06:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

We do not cite Ethnologue as 2015, but with the date of their citation. You replaced the number of native speakers from 2012 with a number of non-native speakers from 1998 and put it in the "native speakers" field. That is fraud.

You two are being petty shits, pardon my French. It's fine how it is. Ethnologue is RS. 50.187.216.93 (talk) 06:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not a RS. We use it only because often nothing better is available. — kwami (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a reliable source, yes. But when more recent or more accurate sources are available we use those instead.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Archive

This page is getting too long to navigate. Anyone know how to archive it? Maybe leave the last two or three sections. --Monochrome_Monitor 06:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Just archived it. --Monochrome_Monitor 06:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Note that you archived significant sections of the talk page, with discussions active over the last few days, a mere 10 minutes after notifying editors that you found it 'too long to navigate'. As an unintrusive (here) editor who finds much of these discussions unsatisfactory, and indeterminate, I find that precipitate action preemptive of any objections (people have a lot of their day not following minute by minute talk pages on Wikipedia) with the appearance of deciding by unilateral fiat that contentious issues have been resolved. Nishidani (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You're the first one to even mention it, but okay. I restored the section. --Monochrome_Monitor 15:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do not archive threads which have been active in the last week. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Refs

References

Map suggestion

The current map Shows all of Israel as Hebrew speaking, Judea-Samaria and the Golan Highets as "Used by the significant minority".

The whole of Israel is not entirly Hebrew Speaking while there are areas, mainly in the North that are a majority Arabic speaking. Judea and Samaria is also mainly Arabic speaking and the Golan Highets are mainly Hebrew speaking.

I Suggest using this map or something like it:

Blue - Hebrew is the majority. (+50%)Light Blue - Hebrew is the significant minority, (50%)Lighter Blue - Arabic is the significant majority (+75%)White - Hebrew is not used at all.

Bolter21 (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a good improvement but will need sourcing. Do you have statistical tables with the underlying data for each of the regions you have coloured in? If so, I suggest you add them to the file source on commons. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I used this: http://www.cbs.gov.il/statistical/arabju.pdf

I am planning on enhancing it but I think that there is no need to put too much information but if we do go for too much information, I think that a map with all the Arab cities marked as Hebrew speaking insteed of Native Hebrew speaking (Becuase all of them Nativly speak Arabic), and as I said, this souldn't be the final map because it can be so much better. Bolter21 (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. On that basis, it seems reasonable except for how you have coloured Area C. The number of Palestinians in Area C is apparently unknown. And showing Area C as one big block is visually misleading, particularly re the Jordan Valley - according to this page, the Jordan Valley is majority Palestinian. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This is unsourced (RS-wise), SYNTHed from several places, ORed based on all kinds of assumptions made by the editor who created it, political bullshit. It should have no place in this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Palestinian Refugee detected? Showing the Golan Highets as Minority Hebrew isn't political? Anyway, as I said two times, this is not a final version, this is a script I made to show what I am aiming for. Oh and by the way, Area C is home to 90,000-180,000 Palestinians (Accuarding to the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories and B'Tselem). As I mentioned in the map Info, the darkest blue indicates where Hebrew is a significant majority (+50%) and most estimates show that this is the percentage in Area C but I do agree that this is problematic and the source of this problem is that the map is based on regions (Natural Regions in Israel, used by the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics). I wanted to make a map based on muncipal regions (Cities, Villages and regional councuils). In my opinion, this map shouldn't be an Ethnic map but a map that describes the Areas where Hebrew is used. Bolter21 (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

And one last thing, The Jordan Vally, as said that page is a majority Palestinian but you havent understood it. They say that 47,000 Palestinians live in the Jordan Vally, most of them are in Jericho (even though Jericho has 57,000 residents). The Jordan Vally is mostly Rural and most of the Palestinians there (as said in the page) live in the city of Jericho which is in Area A (As showen in the white hole in my map). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolter21 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious? This map is supposed to show what percentage of people speak a certain language, and none of the source you use have any information on that. Not a single one. You're engaging in obvious blatant OR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@No More Mr Nice Guy: What?

Bolter21 (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

That paper does not deal with language. It deals with ethnicity. Do you understand the difference? Do you understand what OR is? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Arab population in Israel speaks nativ Arabic. But ok, if this is your argument, so Hebrew is a majority in all of Israel, Golan Highets and Area C.. Source Bolter21 (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Arabs speak Hebrew and Jews speak Arabic. If you're going by native language, half of Jews speak something other than Hebrew. If you're going by L1, you still need sources. — kwami (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not going by L1, these is the areas where Hebrew is spoken. In the Arab community, Hebrew is less spoken in everyday althogh most of the population can speak Hebrew. Arabs in cities and villages speak Arabic as L1 and in everyday use. The source I gave refelcts all the answers to your questions (And alline with what I saw as an Israeli who visited more then 10 major arab cities and met tens of Arabs in person). If you think it will be more accurate to show all of Israel as Hebrew speaking... go for it. I poseted this map mainly because it said that Hebrew is the "significant minorty" of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and the Golan Highets that are wrong in both cases, one is not significant and one is a majority. But as I said more then 3 times, This is not a final map. If you want to imporve it Suggest how can I make it better.Bolter21 (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

"Modern Israeli Hebrew continues to be considered a Semitic language by most experts"

I added a "failed verification" tag against this sentence. Can anyone provide a quote supporting this in equivalent words?

I think a sentence as important as this needs to be more carefully nuanced. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Counting

The lead says that there are about 9 mln speakers of Hebrew. The next sentence breaks it down to 3+2+1+.5, which makes 6.5 mln. Am I missing something (about 2.5 mln somethings)? Debresser (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Bulk edits to be discussed

@Monochrome Monitor: @Drsmoo: please explain your rationale here for each of the components of the contested edit:

1. Why the opposing views in the "classification" section should be removed, and what if anything has changed since the detailed discussion above on the same topic
2. Why the sources from the "classification" section should be removed - these are high quality references. Even if consensus is gained to reduce the weighting of the opposing views above, there is no need to also delete the references supporting the remaining sentences
3. Why the "name" section should have sources and other text removed from it. This topic is unrelated to the above.
4. Why remove the statement that "Idioms and calques were borrowed from Yiddish"

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The information about Yiddish idioms is very much true, and should be kept. Debresser (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I was the one who added the bit about yiddish, not sure why/how it got deleted. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor: it has been two and half weeks since you were first asked to explain these edits. You have been fighting about them non-stop, but you have yet to set out any of your rationale on this talk page. Please could you please provide full explanations for each of the above edits? I particularly want to understand what has changed since you made this proposal a year ago, and why you don't think you should respect the community with discussion before making these mass deletions. Many thanks. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Monochrome 1. Oncenawhile is correct about WP:BRD, and I view your edits in which you restore your own information as edit warring. That is a warning. 2. Where is that consensus you claim in the last edit summary there exists for this information? I don't see that discussion. Debresser (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the opinions of the scholars should stay, though it's a bit overdetailed in my opinion. Infantom (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

This discussion was already held here, here, and to some extent here

The purpose of the article is to explain the subject, rather than to serve as an attack page. The consensus regarding Modern Hebrew is well known, yet large amounts of space were given to WP:Fringe opinions. The version I reverted to, which did mention the divergent opinions, held the correct proportion. It's interesting that looking through the edit history, the original revert was described as a "whitewash." This is a curious way to describe changes to an article about a language. It frames the removed section as criticisms of/or negative information about the subject, which is strange. Drsmoo (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The previous conversations you linked to above with User:Kwamikagami were held one year ago. They concluded that the article should stay broadly as it was and not add more sources. Monochrome even proposed the existing structure ([10]). You and Monochrome just rode roughshod over that consensus, without respecting other editors here by engaging in discussion.

Describing the removing of Wexler's views as a "whitewash" is not curious at all. Wexler believes that his theory has met with hostility in the academic world "in part because of the pressure of Zionist ideological needs" (source - we used to make this statement in the article before Monochrome deleted it without discussion last year). User:Nishidani has explained with the detailed and colorful analysis that only he can in this thread why it is incorrect to classify Wexler's theory as fringe.

@Drsmoo:, separately, will you provide your views about (2), (3) and (4) above please? Just commenting on one part of a bulk revert is not at all helpful.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the conversations were indeed held one year ago and the conclusion was that the fringe sources sources should be given less weight, that more emphasis should be put on the fact that it's a semitic language, and that the way it was currently presented wasn't ideal. The conclusion you wrote is incorrect.

You may not think it's strange to describe reducing the prominence of fringe linguistic theories as a "whitewash", but I (and likely others) do. In doing so, you're portraying yourself, and the sources, as being critical of the subject (ie that criticism is being censored), which they aren't. This is in fact an article about the Modern Hebrew language, and these are theories about the classification of this language. The fringe theories you advocate to be prominently featured are considerations of the subject, they aren't hostile criticisms and aren't intended to be such, and they are given due weight based on their prominence. But again, it's curious that you feel they are hostile to the subject. Drsmoo (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: I provided you above a direct quote from Wexler himself about hostility. So why are you focused on me - a lowly encyclopaedia editor? I am just the messenger. Your curiosity should be directed at the esteemed linguistics professor who made the statement about hostility himself. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: for the third time, please explain the rationale for the other components of your revert. So far you have spoken only about part (1) above. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I've restored the stable version, both as per WP:BRD and after reading the failure to present any coherent argument here. The edit warring is disruptive and will be reported if it continues. I support those in favour of changing start an RfC as a first step. Jeppiz (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Wexler may indeed have his opinions about why his theories aren't in line with the mainstream consensus. I would think most academics would ponder, privately or publicly, why there is a discrepancy between their conclusions and the mainstream. The issue is framing the article as if this is some binary, either/or debate in which "both sides" must be adequately represented. It's not. There are a multitude of researchers who inevitably reach individual conclusions and a consensus develops. They aren't on "teams" or "sides." Some researchers have conclusions that are outside of the consensus, which is normal. The problem arises when wikipedia editors decide to sort these varying conclusions into "our side and their side" and then claim that both sides must be represented otherwise it's "whitewashing." It's not. It's certainly an issue to go on a hunt for as many sources that conform to findings categorized as "our side" as possible, compile them into a Synth that pretends that they are all on the same "team" of "divergent opinions" in a long section, and then essentially dominate the article with them. Doing so naturally leads the article to a few conclusions. 1. the article stays that way and a minority opinion becomes the dominant one in the article, making the page misleading. 2. A race begins in which compilations are made of researchers, in which case the article becomes a long list of individual opinions and ends up bloated and unreadable. Or 3. The article presents broad descriptions of the general sense of researchers, which is the most readable way. Regarding other points, I simply did an "undo" of what was a very bad diff. There were clearly sections that had been removed that weren't intended to be removed. Additionally, looking at the discussions that were held a year ago, there was a consensus (which included me) that the list of fringe presenters was bad. It's just that no one made the edits until now. Drsmoo (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The current state of the article is poor, confused and amateurish.

1: It is missing notable scholars like Noam Chomsky who think Hebrew remained a spoken language.

2: Modern Hebrew maybe non-chronological if only because it sometime reverts towards biblical Hebrew rather than its predecessors. A point that the article in its current state does not seems to get. In other words, middle Hebrew is more modern then modern Hebrew.Jonney2000 (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this.

Reading the rest of the thread above, there is at the very least a clear consensus that this article has a lot of room for improvement. Since there are many interested editors here, it shouldn't be difficult to create consensus for improvements on this talk page.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

A consensus was already established, just not implemented. The consensus doesn't appear to have changed.Drsmoo (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there was a consensus for the current stable version. You should read the old threads properly next time. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. The consensus was that the fringe sources were bad and shouldn't be there. This consensus hasn't changed. Drsmoo (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

On my running roughshod, yes I proposed the current structure, but you have to understand I was trying to compromise. What this article used to be was an abomination. It called modern hebrew a creole, basically. Change can't be made in one night. Also, since I proposed that, people (i think onceinawhile) kept adding more and more crap, making it into a dumping grounds. And since kwami isn't haunting this page anymore and demanding modern hebrew be classified as a creole I figured it was time to make a change. What really "inspired" me was seeing the feelings of drsmoo, nomoremrniceguy, et al... I thought, hell, looks like a consensus! --Monochrome_Monitor 03:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Translation: there was a detailed discussion a year ago with a few editors on both sides of a debate. A compromise was reached. You stopped after a ban for sockpuppetry. After waiting for a year and seeing one of the opposing editors being less active, you make a bulk deletion of high quality sources without discussion, which you then repeat twice when opposed, still without discussion for two and a half weeks. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll remind Oncenawhile to be civil, avoid personal attacks, and assume good faith. Making declarations about other editors supposed intentions doesn't leave a good impression. Yes there was and is a consensus that the fringe opinions are bad. Drsmoo (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Oncenawhile made several points. They have not, as far as I can see, been addressed. That itself is a sign of bad faith editing. It may be less sexy to argue on the talk page at length for a compromise, than just revert or edit-war, but it is the way things (ought to) work here.Nishidani (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

His points were addressed by both Monochrome Monitor and I, unfortunately you weren't able to see it because in typical fashion the talk page is a mess. I see you didn't comment on the bad faith and incivility by Oncenawhile. I'll add that WP:CAN is also a sign of disruptive editing and bad faith. Drsmoo (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I can't see that his points were addressed, and Debresser also has noted some puzzling behavior. Oncenawhile did not canvas me. He called me and Irondome to his page to help lower the tension. That is sensible, and you are way overreading things by taking all of this personally.Nishidani (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I am pathologically disorganized. I can barely plan for next week, certainly not next year. There was no "waiting". I put this page out of my mind for my own sanity and was reminded by a green dot in my watchlist of its existence. I came here and was very upset because in the interim the delicate compromise I proposed was taken advantage of. As for Kwami, he was not one of many opposing me, he was the ONLY ONE opposing me, and quite passionately so. Well, you were involved a bit too, so that makes two people. And look here now, you're the only person who is content with the article in its current state! Anyway, when I went to talk I found a truly pitiable "discussion" where three or four editors expressed their concerns about the page and you basically told them to fuck off. So, I was bold and made an edit that I thought properly implemented their suggestions and my own. I expected to be reverted at least once, such is the nature of a bold edit. But I wanted to rekindle this debate and get people talking, to provide an alternative to the status quo enforced by a few fringe editors. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: Dear God this will never get resolved. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

It will get resolved, we just have to resolve it. Drsmoo (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. We just need to break the issues down in to smaller components, otherwise we will never reach a clear consensus. The best discussions are ones which start with the most focused questions. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The only issue is over representation of fringe sources which are dominating the article. I propose removing the bullet points, which i called for a year ago, along with the consensus, and adding the refs to the sentence about non mainstream opinions. Drsmoo (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Not a totally crazy idea. To ensure an orderly process, I suggest you create a new thread with this specific proposal. I won't object if you opt for a WP:BRD so everyone can see the edit you have in mind. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree completely and advocate for the exact same. No new thread needed in my book. Also, my bold edit was basically exactly that. --Monochrome_Monitor 04:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

This has been a long term heated discussion, so please don't make any changes without a clear discussion. It will be easier than you think to have a constructive debate and make progress. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

We're having the discussion right here/now and there seems to be agreement (once again) that the bullet points are removed and the sourced used as ref in the sentence referring to non-mainstream opinions. Drsmoo (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not agree. The only people who agree are you and MM, the same two people who were trying to edit war this through last month. I doubt other people are going to get involved in this thread now it devolved into such a mess.

If you want to make progress you would be better off startin clean. Please trust the community by starting a proper discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

There are already several threads discussing the same thing. There is also a clear consensus for removing the fringe opinions with @Tritomex:, @Monochrome monitor:, @Maunus:, @No more mr nice guy:, @Infantom: and @Drsmoo: agreeing, and @Kwamikagami: and @Oncenawhile: disagreeing. I've noticed that in contravention of WP:BRD, you haven't actually discussed any reasons why you dislike the edit. Simply reverting without discussing is edit warring. I'll wait a few days to allow you time to come up with discussion points. Drsmoo (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

For those of us new to the party, is the question whether to increase, decrease or leave essentially intact (from the current version at this writing) the three comments from dissenters in the section "Classification"? StevenJ81 (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Having just seen this discussion noted at WP:Israel and read the article, I think it's quite clear that there is a huge amount of undue weight given to the (admitted) fringe positions, and this needs sorting. I agree with the above section that removing the bullet points would probably be the easiest way of resolving this. Number 57 15:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

According to Drsmoo in WikiProject Israel this discussion is based on the fact the article suggests that Hebrew is not a semitic language and therefore it contains WP:Fringe. I read some of the theories saying Hebrew is not semitic or simmilar theories as well as learned a semitic langauge (Quranic Arabic) for three years as well the bible (In Biblical Hebrew) for ten years, Talmud and S.Y Agnon literature (in Hazal Hebrew) for the last three years and Medieval Jewish poetry... With all this I never saw a reliable source that said "Hebrew is not a semitic language" or anything simmilar that actually convinced me. It has the same grammar with some vocabulary from other languages. The fact English has almost 60% influence from French and Latin doesn't make it a Romance language, it is a West Germanic language.

Therefore I completely support Drsmoo's call to remove or minimize the information about scholarship against the inclusion of Hebrew as a Semitic language. There is a very clear reason why they are a minority of scholars. My suggestion is to remove the three scholars from the Classification section and leave the sentence "None of these proposals have been met with general acceptance and Modern Israeli Hebrew continues to be considered a Semitic language by most experts." and maybe modify to make more sense within the article. Also It would be right to move this part to the bottom of the section. Currently it seems like the section expresses disappointment that the international linguistic community doesn't accept it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm the guy who brought the classification issue up and brought forth much of the sources in this section (see here), I've been following this debate very closely and I'm going to be rather blunt. Having read much of what Wexler has written, I can tell you his theories aren't just fringe theories, they're extreme fringe theories, in fact his theories are so irrelevant that no linguist out there has taken the time to offer a rebuttal and the main reason for this is that his theories self-destruct as they rely on illegitimate methodology. I've also come to the conclusion that the undue amount of publicity fringe theories get in this article (MH was classified as a "relexified Yiddish" when I first chimed in) has very little to do with linguistic debates and more to do with political bias. This situation is supported by a tiny yet extremely vocal minority of users, take Oncenawhile for instance, while he enjoys portraying himself as a "pro-NPOV" editor he actually views his mission as removing "hasbara propaganda" (his words, not mine) from wiki articles, in turn this is why he spends much of his time downplaying or deleting large parts of articles detailing arab persecution of Jews (he calls this "contextualising"), but by all means don't believe a word of what I say and go check his editing history. Like I said, I've been following this debate and I'll keep watching very carefully, I've gathered many other sources highlighting the mainstream view (I'm a student in linguistics after all) and I'll be using them if you try anything funny again. I am not posting these sources now because I didn't forget how Hetzron's book on Semitic languages was cynically instrumentalised by the aforementioned minority of editors to support fringe views, I know there's no depth to which they won't sink. 109.208.71.162 (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I get your point and agree, just don't make it a personal debate right now. It's very close to WP:NOTFORUM.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

And why, exactly, shouldn't this be personal? Just have a look at Nishidani's page and editing history - this guy even called Eran Elhaik a "genius", population genetics being a personal hobby of mine for the last 10 years I understand full-well where this is going - and tell me it doesn't violate WP:SOAP, I dare you. So no, I will not shy away from calling out this vocal minority of political activists parading as pro-NPOV editors. Take note and understand that. Either way, thanks to this minority the classification section is a textbook example of WP:UNDUE. 109.208.71.162 (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about policies, not about personalities, and there are all kinds of personalities with wild motives on here, but the way to move forward effectively is by following Wikipedia's policies and not get caught in the trap of personal attacks. If what someone says is unsupported/factually wrong, then demonstrate it to be so rather than worrying about the motivations of the individual member. Also, I'd recommend creating an account, as it will allow you to do more. For example, I didn't even include you when determining the consensus on the page, due to your not having an account. Drsmoo (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm a busy man, I simply don't have the time to create an account here. On the other hand I've been closely observing what has been going on here for over a year, and only a fool would deny the general theme I've described here, namely politically-biased editors using fringe sources to tamper with the article's content while disregarding the majority view. I really couldn't care less whether or not you included me in determining the consensus on the page, I'm merely here to watch and, if need be, post additional sources highlighting the majority view in case the aforementioned minority tries anything funny again. 109.208.71.162 (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I mean, it's up to you. Do whatever you want. My opinion is if you have the time to post as an Ip you have time to make an account, it takes like 15 seconds. And if you feel strongly about improving Wikipedia, which it seems you do, then you can do that more effectively with an account. Drsmoo (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I love you guys. This makes me soooooo happy. Early birthday present! I remember the "relexified yiddish" version of the article. Hahaha. That was classic.--Monochrome_Monitor 03:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Opposition to Revival

There is no mention of the huge opposition to the revival and secularisation of the Holy Tongue. Chesdovi (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to add it then? Drsmoo (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Rabbi Shmuel Salant said that one of his biggest mistakes was being in opposition to the revival of Modern Hebrew. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if he still feels the same way about his alleged u-turn in Olam HaEmess? Chesdovi (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Most likely, since he wrote that it was a stupid decision that ended up alienating the younger generation. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

But it has ended up alienating a whole generation of Jews from Judaism.... I'm sure in hindsight he has reconsidered. Chesdovi (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

And rabbi Nissim Karelitz and a few others objected to the modern Hebrew handshake. I don't think this opposition requires more than three or four sentencesNishidani (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I could create an article about it. Chesdovi (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

No, a sentence or two is all that is needed. Your article would most likely be considered a fork and quite possibly a violation of your TBAN since we all know why you are doing it. If you have sources, then let's see if we can find a spot for it here, but it most certainly is not worthy of a full article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Keep it short and sweet, Chesdovi, while of course there is no problem in adding ref links to several books, as you often do.Nishidani (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it here though, I would add it to the revival article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Haim Be'er seems to have writen something on this matter: From the Language of G-d to the Language of the Devil. Chesdovi (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Leave it to the haredim to rain on the parade. --Monochrome_Monitor 10:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

It should be included though. --Monochrome_Monitor 10:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Should "Language of the Devil" be referenced in this article? Chesdovi (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Second map suggestion

I created this map a few months ago: (click to enlarge).

I can make a simmilar version of this map for Hebrew, making Arab speaking areas light blue and simplify the map by removing the municipal boundaries. I also have a map for the West Bank but it doesn't have much information becuase it is hard to find maps of municipal boundaries there but if you have any suggestion about how should it be in the West Bank I can try to arrange something.

I generally think the current map is bad.. I would prefer something like the Romanian Language map for example. I can also make the map internationally correct by inserting the green line in East Jerusalem and maybe making striped lines in the Golan Heights, to imply these two are not recognized as part of Israel

Opinions?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I like it. Looks great. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess it's a green light to make a draft, which will be made somewhere in the next decade.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's an initial draft version: link. Is this a good direction? This brought me to think about certain matters: It's obvious that within Arab municipalities Hebrew is not the native language but is official there and also spoken by some, So I thought about making it as: Places where Hebrew is native (Jewish localities), places where Hebrew is official (Arab/Circessian speaking localities) and places where Hebrew is not official but known and used (West Bank and Gaza).. Also, what about mixed cities? They apear large enough in the map so we could show neighborhoods, in West Jerusalem there is an absolute majorirty for native Hebrew speakers while in East it is mostly divided into different neighborhoods. Some cities like Tel Aviv, Lod and Nazareth Ilit have Arabic speakers only in spesific neighborhoods where they are not always a majority. Also one last thing. Is this map too big? It is too large for me to merge the Negev into the bottom part of the map becuase my computer is not strong enough to deal with such size. Should I try making a much smaller version? The current map can't be edited, beucase it is too small and one pixel is like 10km in reality so there is not alot of workspace and alot of information can't be shown. There is the option of using the "statistical regions" like in the older map I suggested (somewhere in this talkpage) but I fear it won't show enough information.

Any suggestions?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:BRD

@Monochrome Monitor: please confirm whether you understand how the WP:BRD process is intended to work? It is not called WP:BRRD for a good reason. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Haha. At the same time, I think the paragraph about Zuckermann and Dekel is good, and interesting, and therefore worth having. But no reason to have the same thing twice, so the first paragraph can go. Debresser (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you answer the question please? Do you intend to follow WP:BRD or not? Oncenawhile (talk) 02:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC) [removed as wrong person... Oncenawhile (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)]

I don't particularly trust you when it comes to the "discuss" part. Considering you were against the consensus on this page and it only got fixed quite recently. I agree with degresser that it's silly to have it twice.--Monochrome_Monitor 05:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but I don't get this. You don't trust me because I was against consensus in a previous argument. What is wrong with being against consensus? All that matters is that once consensus is gained, it is respected by all. And I pride myself on respecting consensus. What happened last time on this page was simply that consensus was not properly formed. If a proper discussion is held there will never be any problem.

Re this edit, showing it once is fine. Can you show me what you mean?

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

May I clarify debresser? I think the bit about most people being devoted to hebrew origins shouldn't be there. It's a sardonic jab in the direction of the deleted stuff, which was deleted for a reason. I think it's extraordinary to have a "name" section in the first place. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I would just remove the Nurit Dekel part or heavily reword. She prefers the term Israeli but uses the term Israeli Hebrew in her work which is odd.

I think she is still an independent scholar.Jonney2000 (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Independent yes, odd, also yes. I'll find another cite.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Image

I don't think the image of Shalom with vowel points represents modern hebrew particularly well. For one, modern hebrew doesn't use nikkud like ever, unless for language learners. And there's nothing identifiably modern about "shalom", excluding the vowel points the exact same spelling of the exact same word was used in biblical hebrew, except of course in the paleo-hebrew alphabet. I think we should use a screenshot from modern hebrew literature, like how medieval hebrew lit uses the guide for the perplexed.--Monochrome_Monitor 06:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Initially I though about Hayim Nahman Bialik because he is considered 'Israel National Poet' but he died in the 30s and his Modern Hebrew is still a mixure between Modern and Medieval. So I have two offers (and I need to check abouy copyrights): A very popular children song by Lea Goldberg (if you want to listen) which is very known and also written in very simple Hebrew (unlike other poets who write in a high langauge that has elements of medieval and biblical Hebrew. The second thing is probaby the song "Atur Mizkhekh" by Avraham Halfi (sadly he doesn't have an English article). This song is one of the most popular songs in Israel and is written in simple Hebrew. It is known becuase of a cover made by Arik Einstein which is almost a national symbol.. Maybe we should call some Israelis from WikiProject Israel.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, the national anthem can't be used to represent Modern Hebrew because it is not written in Modern Hebrew. (Beucase someone offered it in this discussion)--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, technically that stuff is all modern hebrew, but I understand what you're saying. Some stuff is written at a higher register Register (sociolinguistics), which in hebrew's case adds medieval and classical elements. Written language is much more conservative than spoken, and I guess you want to reflect the kind of hebrew people speak. Tell me if you think of something good :)--Monochrome_Monitor 13:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Re onceinawhile, the technique is called "rocking the boat", thanks. ;) Have you guys come up with anything good for an image? From the Israel wikiproject...--Monochrome_Monitor 12:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

ooh, I forgot to bring up the subject there. I"ll do it now.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I wonder whether a cropped version of this image (more focused on the windows) would be any good? It shows a variety of fonts, styles, inclusion/exclusion of niqqud, etc. Number 57 14:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

That's near my house, I can take a better picture of it. That's a good offer, because a symbol of revived Hebrew is the newspapers.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

"The Palestine Post", man that's ancient! That paper has gone to shit. It caters too much to evangelical christians.--Monochrome_Monitor 01:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I replaced the picture. I picture Number 57 offered. Sadly, the larger newpaper there was vandalized, but I managed to crop the one on the top which is clear enough. I took this picture at evening so the shadows are bit annoying, but I think this is good enough.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Quality not so good, redlink. Revert. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

So you want to to take the picture again?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't understand the question? Debresser (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

He's asking if you want him to make another photo, of better quality.Nishidani (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Isn't there a free picture of an Israeli newspaper available somewhere? Debresser (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Number of speakers in the Infobox

By the way, the info box is a partial fiction with the usual figure inflation and misrepresentation of the source customary in these articles. It should not be Native Speakers giving an inflated figure. You either retain 'Native speakers' and put Approximately 4,900,000 (2013). Or put Speakers with the subcategories and the precise figures given by Dekel.

'As of December 2012, colloquial Israeli Hebrew is spoken among 7,878,000 Israeli residents within the state of Israel, out of whom 4,378,000 are native speakers, and the rest are either bilingual, or speak Israeli Hebrew as a second language. According to various, unofficial, estimates, Israeli Hebrew is also the native language of over half a million speakers living outside Israel.' Nurit Dekel, Colloquial Israeli Hebrew: A Corpus-based Survey, Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, 2014 p.1 Nishidani (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. My mother is not a native speaker, both my grand mothers were not native speakers. The Arab guy where I worked was a native speaker, but his parents weren't. Mainly all the Arab medics in my Magen David Adom station were not native speakers. When we came with an ambulance to people, there was always this problem, where the man who called for us was only a Russian speaker. In other words, native Hebrew speakers are mainly in the second and third generation since the establishment of Israel, where you have a million Russians not native speakers and another 1.6 Million Arabs, the majority of whom are not native speakers.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

You can find the right format to get the statistics accurately arranged using Dekel's data from the model in the English language infobox Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)