Talk:Salome Alexandra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Salome Alexandra is part of WikiProject Jewish history. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles.

Project Jewish history To-do: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: History of the Jews in the Land of Israel Copyedit: International response to the Holocaust, Henry Cohen (? add categories), History of the Jews during World War II Wikify: Category:Jewish Encyclopedia inline citations should be changed to footnotes and edited for comprehensibility. Cleanup: Xueta (quite a mess) Stubs: Category:Jewish history stubs, Category:Jewish biography stubs NPOV: Category:Hasmoneans Other: Review: Föhrenwald (expanded) Translate: from German: Judensau

[edit] dating

The WP guidelines state that either version (BCE or BC) is acceptable as long as consistent. The main objection raised to the BCE version was that its use was inconsistent. I have solved the problem by making it consistent throughout the article. The dates were originally BC because that is how it appeared in the 1905 Jewish Encyclopeida. Since scholars now use BCE almost exclusively, I fail to see any reason why this article should not do likewise. Since the only objection raised previously was consistency, reverting my adjustment has no justification whatsoever. --Briangotts (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Sortan is being reverted as it is a sockpuppet account used for trolling, but your point deserves a response. The key point is that we are writing for our readers - who potentially is any English-reader in the world. The style that Jewish scholars adopt is unlikely (in general) to be a good one for our audience. The article needs to be factually accurate, but it also needs to use an approach and language that will be understood by as many as possible the world over, jguk 12:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

BCE/CE is not Jewish nomenclature. Please review the scholarly works of the English speaking world over the last 50 years. You will see a steady progression towards the use of Common Era notation, to the point where to use BC today makes a work look unscholarly and antiquated. You have still failed to justify yourself in terms of Wikipedia policy on date notation. Please review that policy prior to reverting further. Briangotts (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Moreover, I fail to see how you can accuse Sortan of sockpuppetry. I have no information on that one way or the other. His/her edits, nonetheless, are valid and I fail to see how they constitute trolling. --Briangotts (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

A review of Sortan's edit history, coupled with Sortan's clear knowledge of WP practice, is clear evidence that this is another user in disguise. That Sortan's edits are almost exclusively in controversial areas and contrary to how the community has recently voted, means that Sortan knows he will be reverted. Making edits that you know will be reverted and will cause a fuss is trolling.

On your other point, please note we are not writing a scholarly work - we are writing an encyclopaedia for an international audience. We therefore, wherever possible, should be using the language the man on the Clapham, Delhi, Melbourne, Cape Town or New York omnibus will understand. Certainly BCE notation has no currency whatsoever, as far as I have seen, amongst the general population in Britain. My understanding is that the same is true for India, as well as other places. As with every other element of style, when you write, you write for your reader - so what we should be using is clear.

I also disagree with you that usage of BC makes something look unscholarly (although it wouldn't make any difference here anyway, as we are not writing for academics). It's quite easy to find hundreds and thousands of scholarly articles on the internet that use BC on the internet - there must be many more in university libraries throughout the world, jguk 17:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Please see [1], and, though less informative because of a large number of irrelevent hits, [2]. This is searching ONLY Oxford University's website.

If you are going to continue your crusade to Christianize the dating system on this article please do so by changing the BCEs to BCs and not by reverting - in the past you have reverted over numerous improvements and links.--Briangotts (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

FWIW... I understand that BCE was proposed to be a remedy to those who may take issue with the Christian BC and AD. BC and AD have been in use for nearly 2000 years, however. They were certainly in use when any living individual learned to read and write. I tend not to be offended by inconsequential de facto standards that pre-date me by 1000 years.

Today is Thursday July 20th, by my calendar. July was carried over to the Gregorian calendar from the Roman Calendar, and was named for Julius Caesar... a pagan. Thursday was from a pagan culture pre-dating the Romans and is in honor of that culture's god, Thor! The naming conventions used in the days of the week and the months may be offensive to more than non-Christians. Again, I tend not to be offended by the inconsequential.

I'm not very excited by the BCE issue, but I would support a calendar change to celebrate the first 100 years of world peace... AM... possibly, age of man, if you will, or perhaps a change to commemorate the day the Earth banned nuclear weapons. Until then... I'm afraid that there are more important issues that confront this small planet.--Dogfish 20:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)