Talk:Judas Maccabeus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-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.)

There are two different spellings for Judas' father's name: Mathathias and Mattathias. Aligma 03:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Pseudonym 2 Objection to the use of this image 3 Merge proposal 4 Proposed move

[edit] Pseudonym

"Pseudonym" implies someone is trying to hide their identity, which is clearly not the case here. "Epithet" may have some unfortunate modern associations (probably because epithets like "the Hammer" aren't much seriously used in the Western world anymore), but it is the correct term.--Pharos 06:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, I am trying to avoid "unfortunate modern associations". BTW, let's not forget that there was no such this as surname until many-many centuries later. What else do we have: nom de guerre, nickname? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I removed "surname". I think most readers will understand that calling someone "the Hammer" was not meant as an insult. An epithet is definitely a kind of nickname, but it doesn't have the same connotations of use. It would also be quite anachronistic to say that some 2,000-year-old person had a nom de guerre. I really don't think "epithet" is such a bad word; might your negative impression of it have been influenced by the somewhat common Wikipedia practice of dumping offensive content in "List of X epithets"?--Pharos 07:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

In the Maccabeans article it states that Maccabee is "an acronym for the Biblical verse Mi kamokha ba'elim Hashem, "Who is like unto thee among the mighty, O Lord!" (Exdus 15:11)." Does it also mean hammer? Which is correct. I have no knowledge of Hebrew, so someone please help me out here...

[edit] Objection to the use of this image

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 Jewish history, on Hasmonean 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 13:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

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 Image talk:Hasmonean-map.jpg. Jon513 14:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

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 17:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

There are now two articles on the same person: Judas Maccabeus and Judah Maccabee, which must be merged. Please do not remove the tag until the merge is complete. Beit Or 15:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed move

I propose to move this page to Judah Maccabee, which appears to be a more common name in the modern English. Beit Or 20:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Judas Maccabaeus, Jonathan Maccabaeus and Simon Maccabeus seem to be the popular form both as article title and incoming links --Henrygb 21:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)