Talk:Hasmonean dynasty

message: Some mention should also be added to this article that John Hyrcanus destroyed the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim in 108 B.C.  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. 
--Sponsianus 00:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: temple Gerizim

message: I removed the part about pig meat being offered in the defiled Temple. This anecdote should surely be treated with the caution best applied to all ancient sources. If anyone wishes to add an account of Epiphanes' assumed crime feel free to do so, but IMHO they should be presented as "The book of Maccabees" says, because the background of the king's intervention in Jerusalem is extremely complicated. 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.
--Sponsianus 21:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy

message: Shouldnt this be Hasmoneans or Hasmonea or Hasmonen Kingdom? -Ste|vertigo 06:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking the same thing. It should be Hasmoneans or Hasmonean Dynasty. --Gilabrand 06:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I object to the use of the image containing the map of the Hasmonean Kingdom set against the background of the so-called present-day borders of Israel. 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. I'm in the habit of using Wikipedia as a source of factual, unbiased information. 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? If it is Wikipedia's standard policy to discourage user participation in this agressive way, then in my view, it fails in its stated purpose. --82.215.24.131 13:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: please do not double post. you have left this comment at talk:Golan Heights, Talk:Hasmonean, Talk:Judas Maccabeus, Talk:Maccabees, Talk:Hanukkah, and Talk:Jewish history. I have moved it to .  Jon513 14:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for opening that Image talk page and for your comment. 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.--82.215.24.131 17:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection to the use of this image 

message: I will try to put some work into this in the next few weeks, but right now I really do not have a lot of time to dedicate to sustained writing for Wikipedia.  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.D. 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.  it has been a long time since I read this stuff so I cannot say specifically how it would change the article.  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 16:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other sources 

message: 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.Sponsianus 21:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of portion under Jewish religious scholarship

message: For over a thousand and five hundred years one of the most fascinating subjects has been kept secret by two distinct Jewish families. Descendants of the most prestigious aristocratic Jewish priestly family managed to survive the killing of Herod – the Great, by marrying Edomite concubines converted to Judaism to maintain alive the main seed of their ancestor for generations to come. The`Ben Machabi` and `Cohen Perea` families have decided to announce one of the most exciting discoveries of all times. The claim of being the only descendants of the Machabee kings, the last Jewish heroes who restored the Temple of Jerusalem, eyewitnessed the Hanukah miracle, and were named eternal kings of the Jews and High Priests of the Jewish nation by the Sanedrim (1 Mac 14). The Machabees were the Jewish family who fought for and won independence from Antiochus IV Epiphanes of the Hellenistic Seleucid dynasty. They founded the Hasmonean Royal Dynasty and established Jewish independence in the Land of Israel for about one hundred years, from 164 BCE to 63 BCE. The surname Cohen `Perea` comes from a geographical location called Perea, a well known wilderness place in ancient Judea, where the Machabees (who were Cohens or from priestly family) have dwelt, built their fortress and hid their personal valuable treasures. The surname Machabi is the Latin version translation of the word Machabee. Despite the Diaspora, and geographical remoteness, these two families: Ben Machabi who is originally from Portugal and Spain, and Cohen Perea from Amsterdam and later in Spain, did heard about each other. After the first phone contact they find out that both families shared and carried the exactly same tradition, history and facts. In January 1969, both families decided to marry their sons in order to fuse the family into one to assure the continuation of their tradition and their unique claim. Joseph Cohen Perea, son of Yonatan Cohen Perea and Telma Machabi daughter of Godfrey Machabi, had their marriage arranged to occur in New York, United States in the most prestigious Jewish community located outside Israel, in Boro Park, Brooklyn. From this marriage, was born in Brooklyn, New York 1973, Moshe Cohen Perea, 35 years old today. He lives in New York City. Along with the oral tradition and few records, like old family ketubahs with Aramaic inscriptions containing Machabee symbols, which were passed along the hands of the male descendants of the Cohen Perea family, there is this one very old specific coin that was confirmed in 2007 as legitimate by IAA (Israel Antiques Authority), very rare, original coin that was issued from Alexander Jannaneus, son of John Hyrcanus, the first king of the Machabee Hasmonean Dynasty to produce coinage. The evidences continue. One of the most impressive moves made by this family just happened six months ago in July of 2008. Moshed Cohen decided to run a DNA test in both sides of his family. He collected a DNA sample from his dad Joseph Cohen Perea, and from his maternal grandfather Godfrey Ben Machabi, in order to run a genetic compatible test. The results indicated that both individuals tested share the Cohanim J2 signature and incredibly the exact same 12 mark values (Cohen Perea = 12 23 15 10 13 18 11 15 12 13 11 29  and Machabi = 12 23 15 10 13 18 11 15 12 13 11 29) in their Y chromosome, meaning that both individuals tested have 100% chance of sharing the very same ancestor who lived in a time frame period no longer than one thousand and five hundred years ago. This incredible match has a low probability of 0.0001% do occur in two dissimilar individuals who have two different surnames and live in two different poles and countries apart.  The DNA results left no more doubts. Science and tradition have perfectly worked together to demonstrate that the Ben Machabi and the Cohen Perea are actually two identical genetic individuals and thus from the very same family. The family believes that the moment has come to disclose this tradition, its history, the facts, the irrefutable proofs, and all the evidences included." From the article- The Machabees are back by Alex Aharon.
:Hi Chris.  We have discussed this already.  Can you provide a citation?  If not, please stop adding this to the article.  Thanks, Kaisershatner (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal of Adding the folowing information that is valid for readers 

message: I think that the image showing the family tree of the Hasmonean Kings should be fixed because the tree connects Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II as the children of Aristobulus I, but actually, they were the children of Alexander Jannaeus.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.113.70 (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family Tree Image Correction 

message: The introductory section contains a statement that can't be right and is not supported by the body text later:
Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, Simon's great-grandsons, became pawns in a proxy war between Julius Caesar and Pompey the Great that ended with the kingdom under the supervision of the Roman governor of Syria (64 BCE).
The civil war between Caesar and Pompey took place 49–45 BC; this is 20 years earlier. There was no civil war in the 60s. In the late 60s, Caesar was a governor in Spain, and was not yet much of anybody. Caesar and Pompey were political allies when Caesar left for the Gallic Wars in 58 BC; Pompey was even married at the time to Caesar's daughter, whose death around 55, I think it was, was one of the factors in the two men drifting apart. So Caesar had nothing to do with Pompey's actions in the East in the 60s, and that is not what the rest of the article says. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronological problem 

message: Please see Talk:Eleazar Avaran#Naming conventions on WP for the Maccabees. Discussion: How should the original Maccabees, the father Mattathias and his five sons, John (Johanan), Simon, Judah (Judas), Eleazar (Elazar), Jonathan be known on Wikipedia? Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions on WP for the Maccabees 

message: Nabateans seem to be largely ignored in the article? Makeandtoss (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Nabateans

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hasmonean dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050629084248/http://www.adath-shalom.ca/greek_influence.htm to http://www.adath-shalom.ca/greek_influence.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The introduction is too long. Kapeter77 (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too long 

message: In this diff  you deleted a citation needed tag and inserted text which has no source. You need to stop edit warring and you need to find a source for the text you added. ImTheIP (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Watchlonly (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't need your approval to provide sources for perfectly reasonable content. You are the only one objecting this under a stupid pretext. Also stop WP:Wikihounding.--Watchlonly (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration of unsourced material 

message: Not filing a formal WP:RM yet, but as a general question for talk page watchers...  would there be any support for moving the article to something like Hasmonean kingdom, Hasmonean state, or even something like Hasmonean Judea?  "Dynasty" usually refers mostly to the ruling line, yet this is clearly an article on the state/polity as a whole, not the family.  And yes, I know there are plenty of cases where dynasty is used this way (Qin dynasty), but that doesn't mean it's a good idea - it's like having the article on England at "Windsor dynasty" or Saudi Arabia at "House of Saud".  Both of the 21st century books in the "Further reading" section use "Hasmonean state" in their titles.  Any thoughts?    SnowFire (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Between citation needed tags, unreliable source usage and simply wholly unsourced paragraphs and sections (let alone additional considerations about source quality), this page still has a long way to go to meet basic verification requirements. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification needed 

message: According to the article on Tigranes the Great, in 73-71 BCE the kingdom was conquered by the Armenians. There is no mention of any presence of Tigranes' forces in Judea in this article. One of the two must be wrong. Once this is sorted out, at least 2 or 3 articles must be amended: this one, Tigranes the Great, and Salome Alexandra (ruled c. 76–67 BCE). Arminden (talk) 09:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conquered by Armenia (73-71)? 

message: ? Arminden (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  How did they call their kingdom?