Talk:Second Temple
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Style
Much of this article seems to be written in an attempt to mimic King James style English. This has caused a lot of spelling errors, odd circumlocutions, and incomprehensible passages. This lends an air of inauthenticity to the article. Or maybe this is all the result of the article it was copied from?
- See the bottom of the page; most of it comes from Easton's Bible dictionary of 1897. Jayjg 03:40, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Cyrus the Great did not kill himself "ingloriously". He died in battle.
It seems problematic to me that the article tells a story of the reconstruction of the Temple with information largely gleaned from the Hebrew Bible. I assume this is a result of the use of text from the Bible Dictionary. However, the information gleaned from the Hebrew Bible may or may not be true and should be presented as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakirr (talk • contribs) 22:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] References
Ok, this is not flamebait or trolling but the question is important as follow. Is there any historical evidence of the second temple, not that it existed, but of the construction process? Because the only references found on the text comes from the Bible and I'm not sure that is the best reference you can get. Samuel Sol 10:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC) That is true. Many people do not believe in or read the Bible. I wouldn't believe this page. Needs to be worked on and needs sources! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.209.104 (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- WP:V opens with The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The material is verifiable. If you do not believe in the source, that is not the point. I've removed the unreferenced tag. Yngvarr (c) 17:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Opening paragraph
The temple was rebuilt seventy years later by Cyrus the Great in 515 BC.
It is not clear to me whether the temple refers to the first or second temple, as both are mentioned before the above line. Skippydo 12:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's obvious from the dates. I changed it to first temple just to clarify. Skippydo 12:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] BCE/CE v BC/AD
Clear consensus on this and other Judaism related articles is for the BCE/CE date style. If you change it to BC/AD without so much as an edit summary or a substantial reason for change, as per WP:MOS, expect to have your edit swiftly reverted. Steven J. Anderson 13:41, 4 November 2007
- I invite a coversation on this then. Since the original dating system used was AD/BC, please provide an explanation for a change to BCE/CE that is consitent with Wiki policy and rationally related to the article. Jpetersen46321 19:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- It took me a while to get back to this, but here it is:
- First although the article was created with AD/BC era style, the reason for that is that it was copy-pasted from Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897) and carried the following disclaimer:
This is an article from the public domain Easton's Bible Dictionary, originally published in 1897. This article is written from a nineteenth century Christian viewpoint, and may not reflect modern opinions or recent discoveries in Biblical scholarship. Please help the Wikipedia by bringing this article up to date.
- Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not mandate that articles must retain the era style in which they were created. They only say that changes to an era style must be done for a substantive reason. The era style of this article had been kept stable and consistent for some time until this edit, which I believe was against consensus and without substantive reason. I also believe there is a clear consensus in favor or BC/BCE for articles related to Jewish History and Judaism. I am therefore returning this article to BC/BCE era style --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
If you make history out to be a science you should note that widespread use of a convention which is reasonable and accurate makes that convention interchangable and even more preferable. Unless the convention is more readily understood there exists a "substantive reason" for the alternative. Science is not for the scientists...or in this case for those who would expel such unreasonable force to push a less used convention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.189.5.201 (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your argument, (if it is one) would justify the complete abandonment of BCE/CE in favor of BC/AD everywhere on Wikipedia, an idea which has been clearly rejected by the Wikipedia community in extensive debate and discussion. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)