This made even worse the general hostility between Samaritans and the Judeans. I moved some paragraphs from the Maccabee page to here, and added some closing words. You must stick with the dating system laid out at its creation. That said, people can try to create a consensus here to switch it.
|Published (Last):||27 April 2007|
|PDF File Size:||11.23 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||17.15 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
This made even worse the general hostility between Samaritans and the Judeans. I moved some paragraphs from the Maccabee page to here, and added some closing words. You must stick with the dating system laid out at its creation. That said, people can try to create a consensus here to switch it. They vastly overstate the point, but are at least two votes to switch. I just cleaned up a few messes on this page and am getting tired of it.
A user stated above "you must stick with the dating system laid out at its creation. To the contrary, there are two acceptable reasons for changing a date style: Changes made for a "substantive reason. Changes to make the article internally consistent.
That change should be made the other way round. But if enough readers and editors come through and feel strongly about it, we can build that consensus. This anecdote should surely be treated with the caution best applied to all ancient sources. These accounts might be possibly better suited for the Hanukkah article. Also, I changed G-d to divine. While not at all wishing to offend anyone by forcing them to read the full word such as it is spelt in other Wikipedia articles though people must be prepared to see it on the Internet , I think this diplomatic rewriting keeps consistency and neutrality.
There is indeed an article called G-d , but the full word is spelt out there. It should be Hasmoneans or Hasmonean Dynasty. The image is also being used in the articles on Hanukkah , on Maccabees , on Judas Maccabeus , on Jewish history and on the Golan Heights.
But these are not the internationally recognised borders of Israel. The image suggests that the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem are integral parts of the state of Israel, whereas this is subject to international disputes.
To present these borders as undisputed facts, is to lessen the quality of information provided by Wikipedia. I therefore decided to remove this image. In a very swift reaction by a Wikipedia administrator, he accused me of "blatant vandalism". That is absurd. Ocasionally, I make a small contribution to try to enhance the factual accuracy of an article.
To enhance an article is not vandalism. It is what I thought Wikipedia was all about. There are undoubtedly many images available that could be used in these articles that depict the borders of Israel, while clearly marking the disputed Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights as disputed entities. Why would an unbiased encyclopedia, out of of all the available options, choose an image that is provided by the Israeli Foreign Ministry?
I have moved it to Image talk:Hasmonean-map. But I would also have to disagree with you on multiple postings. There is a good reason to place multiple postings. Many users only view one of the involved pages. If they wish to see whether there are differences of opinion on the article they are reading, they have a right to a complete overview.
Now if they would happen to forget to click on the image itself and subsequently on its Image talk page , but instead would only view this discussion page, they would be denied that complete overview, if there were no multiple postings. My initial thoughts looking at this is that it contains what some might call a lot of original research, and could be in violation of WP:ATT. Put another way, the article ignores considerable work by established historians. For starts, ther has been debate over how to interpret the sources to understand the Hasmonean rebellion.
The classic positions are laid out by Elias Bickerman From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees and Victor Tcherikover Hellensitic Civilization and the Jews - the article should provide an account of the debate between the two as to the causes and nature of the rebellion. It should also draw on work by more recent historians: Shaye J. Cohen, M. Stern in the massive volume edited by Ben-Sasson and Lee Levine. This may be too much for one person to do but if there are a few really committed editors here maybe you can divide up the work.
My point is that there are some very good works of scholarship out there, verificable and reliable sources, and the first thing to do to improve this article is to take account of that scholarship. Slrubenstein Talk , 7 March UTC Removal of portion under Jewish religious scholarship[ edit ] I just removed the quote by the scholar Nahmanides, for from what I can see he is referring to the dynasty of Herod the Great, not the Hasmoneans.
Please clarify if this is wrong.
Who were the Hasmoneans? Question: "Who were the Hasmoneans? Upon his death his sons continued the rebellion and were eventually successful in gaining Jewish autonomy under the Seleucids and then, with the disintegration of the Seleucid Empire, full Jewish independence. Simon brother of Judah Maccabee and son of Mattathias was the first Hasmonean ruler of an autonomous state. The Hasmoneans are also called Asmoneans. According to Josephus , a priest named Chashman, from the family of Jehoiarib cf. Their history is found in the works of Josephus and the apocryphal books of 1 and 2 Maccabees.
Ancient Jewish History: The Hasmonean Dynasty
The Hasmonean Dynasty