Talk:Alexander Jannaeus

message: I'd like to know why it is stated in the section about the civil war, that "the rebels unbelievably asked for Seleucid assistance"? I think it needs substantiation. --Xact (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seleucids and the rebels 

message: Caesarea Maritima was founded by Herod Antipas in the late 1st century BC, so how could it possibly be a conquest before this date, unless it is referring to Stratonospyrgos (Straton's Tower)? Either way, something is incorrect.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.64.176 (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caesarea's founding date 

message: Where does this number come from? Josephus?</br>
Whoever counted the 6,000 dead? Even today police and military would be unable to evaluate such a high number of people. This number sounds very fanciful, as most numbers in Josephus. This should be mentioned.
And this mass of people killed in the Temple courtyard? There are measurements of the Temple available. Could the courtyard contain such a crowd? </br>
And where were the soldiers to kill so many people? With swords and spears? The whole account is fanciful. Killing 10 people is a big job, killing 100 a gigantic job, and killing 1,000 simply improbable.
Josephus, writing in Rome, simply invents his figures. He had no military reports of numbers. He left for Rome with some personal documents and no archives. How on earth could he evaluate such numbers? They are simple feelings, to express a magnitude, not a report of objective quantities.
--ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: 6,000 people killed in the Temple courtyard?

message: Another legendary number cited by everybody.</br>
Who counted them? That's a lot of crosses to assemble and set up, and a lot of soldiers to erect the crosses and set up the victims on their crosses?</br>
Again, Josephus is writing in his comfortable rooms in Rome, and inventing whatever figures he wishes to employ to  illustrate the magnitude of the repression. There was nobody around ever able to dispute his numbers.</br>
These crucifixions are sometimes mentioned as being the inspiration for Paul's Jesus having been crucified.
--ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: 800 Crucified?

message: A discussion to change the era-style of the article is ongoing at WikiProject_Judaism#Requesting_consensus_to_change_era-style. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Era-style change 

message: Hi. The map was introduced here, in 2008, by Alorkezas, an editor ("student of European Studies at the University of Warsaw") who contributed for 3 years. His main interest was "Palestine under Roman rule" and in April-May 2008 he contributed maps for pretty much every article about Hasmonean and Herodian rulers. I don't understand what you mean by "the file has no source to support it" - WP maps are usually created by editors based on copyrighted online maps, so that's the norm. Maps old enough to be (c)-free are usually out of date and irrelevant. The one here must be compared to other maps of Jannaeus' kingdom from reliable sources, that's the criterion. Checking out several (see list below), it is obvious that different sources came up with slightly varying maps, which is not surprising, since that's how political geography worked in the more remote past: it was a matter of changing political allegiances, partial conquests, and basically of spheres of influence. Also, the region has large areas of desert or steppe, where the central power (if there is one) doesn't count for much anyway; what matters is who controls the cities, the roads, and maybe the water bodies and courses. Also, the original sources are remote in time and biased. So you'll NEVER get a UN-type map. That said, Alorkezas' map looks good. One can argue if the following areas were indeed Hasmonean, or had the size offered by Alorkezas:
* Αzotus/Ashdod
* northern tip of "Iturea": was it indeed so long? It seems not.
* Was what's now Haifa (where Mt Carmel touches the Med) part of the kingdom? Most maps say yes, but not all.
* Rhinocolura (El-Arish) is left out of his map, but I can see why, this would add a lot of empty space around the actually relevant territory.
All these aspects are rather minor, good sources differ in regard to them, so Alorkezas' map seems to me perfectly OK for our purposes. I would cut a bit from the northernmost tip, his "Iturea" has a length more than 3x the distance between the Sea of Galilee and Lake Hula (Semechonitis), while most other maps use a factor of maybe 1.5x, limiting it to slightly north of Paneas (Banias). Southern Syrian local patriots might disagree, but I'm pretty sure that particular bit doesn't throw the map into the "we're better off without" category. At all.
Conclusion: somebody who knows how to use the WP mappping tools ( interested?) should cut "Iturea" to size, and the rest is OK. Other changes and additions can be made, such as names of provinces (see Austrian map), but don't seem essential. Until that's done, Alorkezas' map belongs back in, since it gives all the important info and SERVES THE NEEDS OF THE REGULAR USER, which is the only relevant principle.
Here a few of the more convincing maps out there:
*Kunsthistorischen Museum Wien
*The Map Archive
*Carta
Cheers, Arminden (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it's a minor issue, but most sources show more territory than what this one is displaying. Jerm (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  You tried to justify the map based on the uploader’s time on Wikipedia and the kind of topic s/he has edited which is completely irrelevant. You provided sources which the maps in them agree more with each other than the one already here, then say Alexander had know interest in the Transjordan as if your an expert. You think the map here is already too big. How would you know if it was too big? The map does not even have a source to support its boundaries. And FYI, Alexander expanded plenty in the Transjordan. It’s clearly stated and sourced at the “Death” section. Jerm (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

text: A content dispute does not end suddenly by leaving without consensus. I have stated my argument for the removal of the map because it’s boundaries is not sourced. The map is from 2008. It is 2020. This map has been displayed for ten plus years. It is inaccurate. The sources which you provided support my argument. If you are going to leave the discussion, you are informing me that I have approval to remove it because you’re not willing to continue the discussion. And do not wait for a third party to establish your argument. You are the one who reverted me. Provide a reliable/educational source that supports the maps boundaries. And in response to just “google it” is not an argument. It is not my responsibility to establish your argument. If you’re really serious about an agreement, just get of rid this unsourced misleading map. Jerm (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am still waiting for you to respond to my question. Do you have an educational source which displays a map almost exactly like this one? The sources which you provided do not support the boundaries of the one currently being displayed. I know you are waiting for a third party to dispute on your behalf, but I want you to answer my question. Please do not argue in favor for the map simply because you like it. That's like saying you like inaccurate information. Jerm (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

text: I appreciate it that you messaged the uploader, however, that tells me you don't have a source to support the map yourself. I also saw in the message saying that I had concerns about the maps boundaries not being big enough in the Transjordan. My counter for that is the fact that I never really specified the issues concerning the map other than its boundaries not being big enough. I did not specifically say the Transjordan only. Now that I'm talking about it, I'll point out the obvious issues. There are no labels for the regions conquered by Alexander or the small white region surrounded by the Hasmonean kingdom at the coastline. There are also no labels for the cities which Alexander conquered. At this point, we're just making the readers guess. And then you say the map it too big. How do you know that? How did you determine the boundaries without a source? I was going to provide a reliable source on what the map should look like, but you did it for me by providing sources. I'm sure this map was acceptable in 2008 but this is 2020. We have as editors so many sources available. I can come up with another map from a reliable source that correlates with the maps on the sources you provided, but for some reason, you are struggling to provide one for the map here. Instead, you're in favor for the map because you like it or it looks good. That is not an argument, that is an opinion. You told the uploader you don't support my opinions, but I'm stating obvious facts. You don't want to be in this dispute because you can't produce an argument, nor can you counter mine. That's why you keep messaging or pinging someone else, so you can have them do it for you. I'm not letting you though. If you really want to leave this discussion, then self-revert or let me revert for you. Stop wasting my time. Jerm (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  My friend, you should first and foremost take a step back and use your skills in understanding written text. What does the heading of this "discussion" say? I formulated it with a purpose. Read that, understand it, then read my full answer, understand that, and you'll be not be wasting anybody's time anymore, starting with yours. I do NOT like the old map, for starters. Good luck. Arminden (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really don't care what the heading says, and I'm not surprised you're still avoiding my questions. But now you suddenly don't like the map? I'm definitely not convinced because you still want to keep it. Truthfully, because you like it. Again, that's an opinion. Stop wasting my time. If you can't counter my arguments or produce your own, then I have every right to remove that misconception of a map. Jerm (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

text: Arminden provided a solid set of remarks on maps, and asked for a discussion of the merits. So far Jerm has sidestepped everything Arminden has requested input on. This is not about aesthetics.Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you elaborate what you mean by "aesthetics"? Jerm (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the remark above mine, esp. 'artistically it looks low quality'.Nishidani (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map: we need one, don't delete a good one w/o replacing it 

message: Hello , you changed the lead from Alexander ruling Judaea to Judah with a redirect to Kingdom of Judah. I reverted it back because the Kingdom of Judah is referred to the biblical southern kingdom first ruled by Rehoboam. Judea (alternative spelling "Judaea") is the term used for the Hasmonean/Herodian kingdoms. Jerm (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello  That's fine, you're right, I didn't check. What I thought (and it only took me a second) was: a) the Maccabeans were from the area of Judah, they started off in the Shephelah and focused on Jerusalem, so theirs (later, as "Hasmoneans") was a kingdom of Judah, which gradually expanded into Samaria, etc.; and b) Judaea is the Latin name, and Pompey only showed up in 63 BCE, Alexander & Co. had no business calling their kingdom in a language nobody cared for yet. But the terminology already exists as it does, closed topic. I was wrong. What I wanted was to reintroduce a wikilink to the kingdom, which was missing; all the rest was secondary fallout. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judea