Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (63 BC)

Military history: Middle East / Roman & Byzantine / Classical C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	Roman and Byzantine military history task force
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Jewish history Mid‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancient Near East

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Siege of Jerusalem (63 BC) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 August 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that after his successful Siege of Jerusalem, Pompey the Great entered the Temple's Holy of Holies (15th-century painting by Jean Fouquet, pictured), where none but the High Priest were allowed?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/August.

Wikipedia

Era dating of this article

Recently, User:Avilich has been aggressively reverting any changes that use the CE/BCE era dating system. I note that all the era dating on Siege of Jerusalem (a disambiguation page) uses BCE/CE era dating. "But for Jews, the A.D. designation is a sticking point....Jewish scholars have used the B.C.E. and C.E. designations for a long time..." (Courant). C.E., the abbreviation for "Common Era" is used by Jews and other non-Christians to refer to the same system of reckoning... (UPenn). See the convention used by the Jewish Virtual Library. Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE) was recently brought in line to a convention both used by mainstream historical scholarship and authors writing about Jewish history. Many articles on Roman history use BC/AD and that make sense in the context of Roman history, or Christian history, but it does not make sense in the context of Jewish history. I am requesting further clarification of consensus on this matter. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one aggressively pushing your opinion without consensus. It took you two reverts to start a discussion, and even then you came to threaten me on my talk page afterwards (by rights I should be the one rubbing 3RR on your face). Avilich (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See previous consensus Talk:Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70_CE)/Archive_1#Siege_of_Jerusalem. I did not come to your talk page to threaten you with WP:3RR. I am following procedure because I am required to procedurally warn you before making a complaint to the administrator noticeboard. I will ignore the overtones of Christian hegemony being "rubbed on my face" (as a Jew). Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 05:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I offended you with language (I'm not a Christian), but that's just a different page and the discussion doesn't apply here. Avilich (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is perfectly relevant here, almost all the arguments that applied on that move request apply here as well. Both concern Roman-Jewish conflict with Jerusalem, offset by 150 years. The political issues are nearly the same. BCE/CE assures WP:NPOV precisely for this kind of article. It is not needed on Julius Caesar, but it is needed here. Consensus can be extended across multiple articles if the interests are similar. I can open an RFC if you'd like. Did you read the consensus cited? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 06:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did, and it doesn't change anything. If the result of a page discussion can be used to preemptively decide the title of another page, then who will decide to which extent this can be done? A move proposal is what should've been done in the beginning. And there's no such thing as nPOV: all dates are based on an arbitrary (pov) reference. If npov is the ends here, then a Jewish year should be displayed alongside Christian one, rather than just keep the christian one but call it 'common era'. Avilich (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per Era style: "An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content; seek consensus on the talk page first (applying Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Retaining existing styles) by opening a discussion under a heading using the word era, and briefly stating why the style should be changed." You should not have changed the era without opening a discussion. Dimadick (talk) 09:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Dimadick that it was not correct to make the change without prior consensus. Even though I am generally strongly in favor of using BCE/CE on articles that are strongly related to Judaism or Jewish history and culture, I usually refrain from making the change myself without prior discussion, because according to WP:ERA that is not how to go about this. After that is said and done, I agree with the proposed change. I likewise agree that the discussion at Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE) can at least be used as an indication that a similar change might be appropriate here. The change was made, without discussion, and that was wrong, but let's be adults now, and not oppose a good proposal because of a procedural mistake. Debresser (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAIT. To change the WP:ERA of articles the proper procedures needs to be used. It was not done in this case. See also WP:STATUSQUO. ImTheIP (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand WP:ERA, this article should not have been changed. I believe I am agreeing in this comment with all other users here, except Avilich. I therefore support reverting the text to the original format. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Warshy: I think you tagged the wrong editor, as I had also been opposed to the move. I had decided not to continue reverting in the interest of stopping an edit war, and leave other editors to decide what to do. Avilich (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then I believe the text should be reverted to the original format and this issue should be now resolved? Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 20:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean. Someone has already reverted all changes: the page is exactly as it was before. Avilich (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Warshy: If you agree with the changes, can you make the appropriate reversions? I am going to draft a guideline proposal to cover all appropriate Jewish history articles where the primary interest is that of Jewish history (versus say, Roman history). Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since I joined the discussion only here (and not at the Project page discussion), and since I was the last one to join here, I'd prefer that either you, or Debresser, or Dimadick would do the changes. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 21:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should not have been changed back to BC. Based on ERA and because this article is about Jewish history, we should be using BCE. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any policy that requires articles about Jewish history to use the BCE/CE format. Furthermore, the sieges of Jerusalem aren't exclusive to Jewish history but are also part of Jerusalem's history, Palestinian history, Levantine history, Middle Eastern history, and (in some cases) Christian history. There are established procedures that can be used for changing the era of articles. Use them. Edit-warring through contentious changes that violate WP:ERA is not the way to do it. ImTheIP (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ImTheIP, the Siege was due to the Jews in Jerusalem, and then which resulted in the Temple's destruction. To say the primary focus of the siege isn't Jewish history is just trying to bring the IP conflict into this article when it doesn't exist. Further, as per page moving, you are not supposed to move pages that may be contentious, and it should have been brought it to RM for discussion and not moved back and forth, by anyone, including yourself. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The siege you are looking for is here Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE). I believe moving the page back was motivated by WP:ONLYREVERT and WP:FAIT. ImTheIP (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ImTheIP, no, this siege resulted in the end of Jewish independence in the area and the start of the wars which culminated in the destruction of the temple. Regardless, this should have been brought to RM, and not just reverted back and forth. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]