Talk:Jonathan Apphus

Jonathan Apphus - NOT Jonathan Maccabeus
The page Jonathan Apphus was renamed Jonathan Maccabeus. I believe that there is no justification for such a move and is based on a misunderstanding. Jonathan was indeed a Maccabean and could rightly be called Jonathan the Maccabean, ie, a member of the group of brothers originally led by Judas Maccabeus. However, Jonathan's name is not and never was Jonathan Maccabeus.

The most obvious source for Jonathan's name is the the (apocryphal) biblical book "I Maccabees". In, Jonathan is called (in greek καλούμενος) - Apphus. Maccabeus is not the family name. It was a name given only to Judas. Each of the brothers had a different name - John Gaddi, Simon Thassi, Judas Maccabeus, Eleazar Avaran, and Jonathan Apphus - all sons of Mattathias son of John son of Simeon, a priest of the family of Joarib. Nowhere in the biblical sources can the name Jonathan Maccabeus be found.

This article should be reverted to its original name "Jonathan Apphus". --@Efrat (talk) 10:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Naming conventions on WP for the Maccabees
Please see Talk:Eleazar Avaran. Discussion: How should the original Maccabees, the father Mattathias and his five sons, John (Johanan), Simon, Judah (Judas), Eleazar (Elazar), Jonathan be known on Wikipedia? Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:ERA
An IP editor has changed all the BCEs to BC, but I am reluctant to revert, since the established usage in this article was "BC" until this edit, which itself seems to contravene WP:ERA. StAnselm (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jonathan Apphus. 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 tag to http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Apphus
 * Added tag to http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Maccabees
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060209080707/http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Jonathan_Maccabeus to http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Jonathan_Maccabeus

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Scripture as sources
You have been told on a number of occasions that scripture isn't reliable sources for historical claims. There is a community consensus that such sources are unreliable (see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE and Scripture as sources. Your reverts are in violation of WP:V which is a core content policy and you need to stop. Im The IP  (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

To any third opinion volunteers: It may not seem like this issue has been discussed thoroughly, but it has. I have previously requested dispute resolution, but it was denied because Watchlonly declined to participate. Watchlonly has indicated on the talk page for Hasmonean Dynasty and their own user talk page that they do not intend to change their behavior.

In this article, Watchlonly insists on using the Books of the Maccabees which is scripture as a source to build a historical narrative. See this diff. This is impermissible according to WP:RSPSCRIPTURE which ways that "Scriptural texts, like the Bible and the Quran, are primary sources only suitable for attributed, relevant quotes". Like many bible books, the Book of the Maccabees contain internal inconsistencies and stand in contradiction with external evidence. See f.e.. Watchlonly has been told about this and why it is necessary to restrict ourselves to proper scholarly sources. They don't get it and I have no idea how to convince them. Im The IP (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:Primary sources are acceptable with proper attribution, including the Book of Maccabees. In other words, the Book of Maccabees is reliable for what the Book of Maccabees says. Apparently you are the only one who doesn't understand that. You did the same thing here, despite text is very explicit that this is what the fricking Bible says. What part of this policy you fail to understand?--Watchlonly (talk) 13:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with whether the Bible is a primary source or not. We on Wikipedia treat it as an unreliable source and refrain from sourcing it unless necessary. It doesn't matter if the paragraph starts with "According to the Bible ..." or not. According to a lot of fundamentalists the earth is 6,000 years old too. But that's no reason for adding that to our articles dealing with the evolution. Im The IP  (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If an article considers important to mention what the Bible says because it's related to the topic, such as history on ancient Israel, you don't revert me if I add specific verses to support this attributed text. Got it? It's not so hard.--Watchlonly (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the policies are what they are. Biblical sources should be replaced with reliable scholarly ones. If you don't like it, you need to take your grievance to the WP:RSN and have the policies changed. Im The IP  (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You didn't replace anything. You removed biblical verses to support a text which talks about the biblical narrative, because it's perfectly pertinent to that part of article. You have no Wikipedia policy to base your editing pattern on.--Watchlonly (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

As you've been told a number of times, the policy is WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. From The Hasmoneans and their State: A Study in History, Ideology, and the Institutions edited by Edward Dąbrowa:

You may not get it, but this is why one should refrain from using scripture as sources. Im The IP (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. No content has to be omitted. But poor sources should be replaced with reliable ones. There are hundreds of Bible commentaries covering the Books of the Maccabees that can be cited instead of the bible verses. That is preferable because it "filters" the bible verses which often contradicts each other. As the article stands now it is impossible to separate the fact from the fiction; what historians believe is true about the historical Jonathan Apphus and what is only found in the Bible. Im The IP  (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)