Talk:Aelia Capitolina

Philistines
I don't hide my reverts in minor changes, but the Zionists who keep enforcing their POV on the history of successive Gentile colonies between the Philistines, Greeks, Romans, Galatians, Franks and others are doing just that. Please, come off your cloud and meet real humans. TheUnforgiven 18:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The Philistines never occupied the highlands. Their settlements were along the coast. Your linking an article about Jerusalem to a people who never lived is factually incorrect and your insistance that they did live there is bizaare. It is not a theory that is propounded by even the most violently ant-Zionist and anti-Semitic groups. If you wanted to link this to Jebusites or Canaanites, that could possibly have more merits. As it is I am reverting your link to the PHilistines. --Briangotts (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It only has to do with ancient European colonies in the region, linked by names and this is all explained here:  Please, stop yuor zionist reverts to make it seem like Gentile interests in the region are minute.  When the Middle East is the concern of American and European Christians, it had been as important as was seen during Greco-Roman times and before with the Mycenaeans.  Jebusites have nothing to do with Aelia Capitolina.  TheUnforgiven 18:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Your commentary makes you appear completely unhinged. You have yet to provide a single reference connecting the area of Jerusalem, or the colony of Aelia, with the Philistines. You are now well over the 3 revert limit, in spirit if not in form. Wikipedia generally, and this article specifically, are not a soapbox for your crusade. "Gentile interests in the region" have nothing to do with Philistines. --Briangotts (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You are trolling the entire reader base with your Jewish POV that Alexander and Romans had no ancient claims to a Gentile plantation in the Levant inasmuch as modern Zionists claim Israel based upon their ancestors, no matter how far flung such claims are. Please, allow neutrality and both sides to be heard but not your suppression of education about this article.  TheUnforgiven 18:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, what in the world are you talking about? Galatians have a claim on Jerusalem now? Why not Chinese or Martians? --Briangotts (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Clearly, the Martians are here to stake a claim! Tomer TALK 19:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

prohibition

 * Roman enforcement of this prohibition continued through the fourth century.

What prohibition?
 * Hopefully this clears that up a bit. :-) Tom e rtalk  09:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction with Simon bar Kokhba
This page states:
 * The establishment of Aelia Capitolina resulted in the failed Bar Kokhba's revolt of 132-135.

Bar Kokhba's revolt also supports this. But Simon bar Kokhba in contrast asserts:
 * After Bar Kokhba's defeat, Jerusalem was razed, Jews were forbidden to live there, and a new Roman city, Aelia Capitolina, was built in its place.

I assume the Simon bar Kokhba article is incorrect? Just want to check with someone before I edit. Thanks. cab 04:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

What I found about this subject was exactly what you write, cab, what's the source of the information provided here?

To me it seems more like the Simon bar Kokhba article is correct on this point and this article incorrect.

Reference: Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi: "How did Sunday keeping begin" - a summary of the book "From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity.", section "Hadrian's Legislation"

Deleted external links
External link or links have recently been deleted by User:Calton as "horrible Tripod pages which add little information, are full of ads, and fail WP:EL standards." No better external links were substituted. Readers may like to judge these deleted links for themselves, by opening Page history. --Wetman 15:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Era style
This article does not have an era style. If you must add an era style, it would be preferred that you use the neutral " BCE "/" CE " out of respect for the Nerva-Antonine Dynasty since they had no affiliation, or liking to Christianity. If you object, please provide a valid reason as to why. Lupus Bellator (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There's no reason to change from one convention to the other, per WP:ERA.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The article used the BC/AD convention until you removed it today. The BC/AD style should be retained in the future according to WP:ERA.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I restored them. There is no rationale or consensus for these changes. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Lupus Bellator needs to find a more constructive way to spend his time. I oppose changing or deleting era designation in this article, per the Plotinus example at WP:ERA. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. Well said. Thank you Cynwolfe. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Any information about what the area of Temple Mount was used for?
Or are we to assume that it was bare, or what? Great article otherwise - very informative. Thanks. Ender&#39;s Shadow Snr (talk) 09:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Aelia Capitolina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217114200/http://jeru.huji.ac.il:80/ed22.htm to http://jeru.huji.ac.il/ed22.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Foundation
Perhaps the article should take into account "Jerusalem and the Bar Kokhba Revolt Again: A Note" by Eran Almagor, ELECTRUM Vol. 26 (2019): 141–157, http://www.ejournals.eu/electrum/2019/Volume-26/art/15133/ (abstract with link to full pdf article) which suggests Aelia Capitolina was founded during the last stage of the revolt which halted earlier reconstruction http://www.ejournals.eu/electrum/2019/Volume-26/art/15015/ Mcljlm and "Eusebius and Hadrian's Founding of Aelia Capitolina in Jerusalem" by Miriam Ben Zeev Hofman, ELECTRUM Vol. 26 (2019): 119–128 http://www.ejournals.eu/electrum/2019/Volume-26/art/15015/ (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC) Mcljlm (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * These articles are fascinating but they seem to point in the opposite direction. For example, Miriam Ben Zeev Hofman writes: "No doubt, therefore, remains about the correct chronological sequence of the events: the founding of Aelia Capitolina preceded the Bar Kokhba war by at least a decade." So it appears that what historians suspected was correct. However, perhaps Hadrian didn't really "found" Aelia Capitolina in 129/130, perhaps he merely "inaugurated" the city while it was being built? Im The IP  (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistency in article re: Aelia Capitolina + vile "Talk" entry
The article begins: "Aelia Capitolina (Traditional English Pronunciation: /ˈiːliə ˌkæpɪtəˈlaɪnə/; Latin in full: COLONIA AELIA CAPITOLINA) was a Roman colony founded during Emperor Hadrian's trip to Judah in 129/130,[1][2] centered around Jerusalem, which had been almost totally razed after the siege of 70 CE. The foundation of Aelia Capitolina and the construction of a temple to Jupiter at the site of the former temple may have been one of the causes for the outbreak of the Bar Kokhba revolt in 132"

However, in the "History" section, we find the following: "The older view is that the Bar Kokhba revolt, which took the Romans three years to suppress, enraged Hadrian, and he became determined to erase Judaism from the province. Circumcision was forbidden and Jews were expelled from the city. Hadrian renamed Iudaea Province to Syria Palaestina, dispensing with the name of Judaea.[10]

Jerusalem was renamed "Aelia Capitolina"[11]"

Although it may appear to be a minor difference, it is not. Much as noted in this section, "Jews were prohibited from entering the city on pain of death, except for one day each year, during the holiday of Tisha B'Av," Hadrian renamed Judea Syria Palaestina and Jerusalem was renamed Aelia Capitolina for the purpose of further separating/erasing the Jews/Hebrews from Judea. These were not separate incidents, they were part of a greater political strategy.

One additional point - it is noted that (in the older view), "the Bar Kokhba revolt, which took the Romans three years to suppress, enraged Hadrian, and he became determined to erase Judaism from the province." That is partially correct. The Bar Kokhba revolt was the last straw - the Romans were sick and tired of the militant uprisings and violent revolts of the Jews, of which Bar Kokhba was the most recent. Two nations stood up to the might of (Greece and) Rome - the Jews and the Persians - the Persians were more successful. The Persians were also adversaries of Greece and Rome, and it has been suggested that the Jews, who had connections with the Persians going back to the time of King Cyrus, received support from, and in effect assisted the Persians in their fight against the Empires.

I do not know how to edit. I am old and technologically not adept. However, I have a suggestion for someone who can edit - perhaps the person who produced the History section. There is a distinct difference between changing the name of Jerusalem for political reasons and founding a colony "centered around Jerusalem". Both for consistency's sake, and what I believe to be historical accuracy - as written in your History section of this article - I suggest beginning the article as follows:

"Aelia Capitolina (Traditional English Pronunciation: /ˈiːliə ˌkæpɪtəˈlaɪnə/; Latin in full: COLONIA AELIA CAPITOLINA) was the name given by Hadrian to Jerusalem as part of his campaign to erase Judaism from the Judean province. Circumcision was forbidden and Jews were expelled from the city. Hadrian renamed Iudaea Province to Syria Palaestina, dispensing with the name of Judaea.[10]"

If this change were made, it would be consistent with the History section and with history. Whether the name was assigned to a "new colony" or simply to the area/region that had once been Jerusalem, it seems to me more parsimonious to go with the latter.

Finally, in terms of the article, I noticed in a few places "Judea" (or "Judaea") is spelled with a capital 'I' rather than 'J', "Iudaea" - see e.g., sentence above, "Hadrian renamed Iudaea Province..." It may be helpful to change those I's to J's. - Regarding the first entry in the "Talk" section - "Philistines", it is foul and offensive. I did not see the entry(s?) to which the writer refers, but there is no excuse for the snide attitude and racist orientation throughout this entry. The repeated reference to the "Zionists who keep enforcing their POV..." (Zionist is sometimes capitalized, sometimes not), "Please, stop yuor (sic) zionist reverts" is a cowards use of what may seem to be more acceptable than simply writing "Jew(s)" (with one exception - see below). Of course, use of the word Jew rather than Zionist would leave the writer open to charges of racism and bigotry, which I assume are not something the writer would prefer. Interestingly, there is one sentence in which the writer states,"You are trolling the entire reader base with your Jewish POV..."

The writer's bias is laid out clearly in sentences such as, "...inasmuch (sic) as modern Zionists claim Israel based (sic) upon their ancestors, no matter how far flung such claims are", followed immediately by, "Please, allow neutrality and both sides to be heard..." How neutral; how ironic. Speaking of irony, when the writer puts down the poison pen, s/he has the ability to make reasonable points, e.g., "The Philistines never occupied the highlands. Their settlements were along the coast." Unfortunately, the entry is instead loaded with ignorance, bile, and bigotry. There is far more than enough of all three these days. There's no need to print more of the same. 2600:8807:C112:9100:24E4:9925:8AC8:A133 (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)