Talk:Josephus/Archive 2

Era style
Since there has been edit warring over this recently, it's probably worthwhile to have a talk page thread about it. The last time this was substantively discussed appears to have been 2006, when no consensus was reached. Of course this was long before the Manual of Style was written –– Wikipedia's norms were quite different back then –– so in any case it would be worth making sure that the way we handle this issue accords with current standards and practices. At MOS:ERA we find: The default calendar eras are Anno Domini (BC and AD) and Common Era (BCE and CE). Either convention may be appropriate for use in Wikipedia articles depending on the article context. Apply Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Retaining existing styles with regard to changes from one era to the other. There we are reminded that The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." So what reason was given for the most recent attempts to change CE to AD? First Article was started using AD dates, then Consensus on the talk page seems to have been to preserve AD dates, and there certainly wasn't a consensus to change. I certainly didn't see a clear talk page consensus back in 2006 either way, but in any case it's also common for consensus to be formed through editing (per WP:EDITCON), so it's worth looking into when the CE/BCE era style became stable in the article. From my perusal, it seems the CE/BCE style has been the norm here since at least 2015, with occasional attempts to return it to AD/BC style being quickly reverted. See e.g.. If anyone has a substantive reason why we might wish to return to AD/BC style other than WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, I would welcome their engagement here. If not, we should return to the stable version and the edit warring should stop. Generalrelative (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Does one revert really constitute edit warring? If you want to argue that this article should change to use CE notation, the onus is on you to make that argument. The dating convention was changed in 2015 without seeking consensus.Ficaia (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You made a change, I reverted it, then you reverted the revert. That does indeed constitute edit warring. Next time, try opening up the talk page discussion yourself as recommended by WP:BRD. And no, you are wrong about how consensus works. I linked WP:EDITCON above, so I suggest you go back and read it. In fact, consensus is most often achieved through editing rather than talk page discussion. And since BC/BCE has been stable for 6 years, it is rather the one who wishes to change it who has the onus to explain a substantive reason for doing so per MOS:VAR. I hope that makes sense, and that we can move on from this collaboratively. Best, Generalrelative (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The current use of CE dates seems to trace back to this edit, which was made without consensus 1. Subsequent efforts to return to the established AD dates were undone without explanation. How is that consensus-building? There clearly were editors who did not agree with the change but they were wrongly told not to revert to AD dates Ficaia (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Consensus does not mean unanimity. Since the CE/BCE style has been largely stable since 2015 –– despite attempts to shift it back –– it should be clear that insisting upon changing style without substantial reason is inappropriate. And on the substance of the issue, I tend to agree with that IP editor's point. CE/BCE is indeed more neutral and more appropriate for non-Christian figures and events. That's where the depending on the article context language in MOS:ERA might come into play. But again, I'm not sure we need to get into the substance of the issue since the longstanding stylistic consensus on this page is quite clear, as is the principle established by ArbCom. Generalrelative (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In the year after the edit in question, there were multiple attempts to return to AD dates: 1, 2, for example. These edits were reverted without explanation. In one case, the article was again reverted to AD only to be yet again undone, by this editor 3, who commented: "please do not change CE to AD without consensus". But there was no consensus to use CE dates in the first place, as evidenced by all the reverts. (Cf. WP:EDITCON: "An edit has presumed consensus unless it is disputed or reverted") Ficaia (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no need to shout. At this point it appears we are talking past one another. I will restore the status quo version of the article and we can wait for others to join this discussion if they choose. Generalrelative (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * MOS:ERA is very clear that an article should use the dating style that was first used in the article, and that any suggested change should be discussed on the talk page. The fact that the policy was violated in this article back in 2015 is irrelevant. If you look at the article history, there have been attempts since then to revert to the consensus style which were wrongfully reverted. Ficaia (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * MOS:ERA is indeed very clear: An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content. The style that has been consistently employed here since 2015 is very obviously the established era style. Arguing otherwise is nonsensical and smacks of WP:TENDENTIOUS. Any interested third parties stumbling upon this discussion, please see User talk:Ficaia for context. Generalrelative (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Btw, I searched around for a centralized discussion on this matter. The most recent I could find is this: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 220. There does seem to be a lack of clarity over how long an undiscussed ERA change needs to be in place before it is considered "established", but it is also pretty clear that 7 years is far, far beyond that threshold. Generalrelative (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * MOS:ERA: An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content; seek consensus on the talk page first by opening a discussion under a heading using the word era, and briefly stating why the style should be changed. There was no such talk page discussion. The style was changed back in 2015 without comment or explanation, and if you consult the page history you'll see that there have been multiple attempts since to return to the original dating style. You can accuse me of bad faith, but the policy is very clear that we shouldn't change the dating conventions in an article in this way.
 * Btw, the discussion you dug up is not policy, and several editors involved in it seem to disagree with the actual wording of the policy. Ficaia (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * To your final "Btw" point: Yeah, obviously. This is how Wikipedia works. We look for the centralized discussion and we respect the consensus we find there. It's fine that some editors disagree with the wording of the guideline; consensus does not require unanimity. In any case I've posted a follow up here (and pinged you): Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Feel free to state your argument there. Generalrelative (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * To your other point, if you actually read the discussion I linked to, you'll see that several highly respected editors explicitly state that the interpretation you're arguing for is unreasonable. And no one argued to the contrary that such an interpretation would make sense. But in any case, I've requested comment so perhaps we will get some new clarity. And who knows? Perhaps others will find your arguments more persuasive than I have. Generalrelative (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ficaia is correct. Changing to BCE/CE without consensus was against WP:ERA so effectively reverting the change was okay. GeneralRelative had a chance to get consensus for the BCE/CE change on the Josephus talk page, but so far has failed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * False. See the centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. The rough consensus is against Ficaia's interpretation (and yours). Generalrelative (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

So, this article has been around for 20 years. And the last 6 it used CE/BCE. Prior to that, it was AD/BC. As far as I can tell, there was no consensus to change it. The MOS:ERA is quite clear that it should remain BC/AD until there's consensus to change it to BCE/CE. The argument that it's been one way for the last 6 years does not hold water and there's nothing about implied consensus in the MOS. I suggest BC/AD gets restored and then here on this talk page it gets discussed which era should be used. Masterhatch (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Once again, there is currently a centralized discussion about the matter going on at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and the rough consensus there is against this interpretation. Go ahead and weigh in there if you think your arguments will be persuasive. I'll happily accept whatever is determined there. Generalrelative (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I dispute this interpretation of the MOS talk discussion. At present I don't think there is any consensus there. And leaving that aside, we have a 2 v 1 on this page wishing to return to AD dates. Ficaia (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please refer to WP:LOCALCON for why we defer to the judgement of centralized discussions (and why they're generally a good idea). The conversation at MOS talk is clearly far from over but as of now the majority of those who have weighed in on the matter –– by my count 4 to 2 (leaving you and me aside) –– have told you you're wrong. Generalrelative (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In deference to the opinion voiced by, one of the primary authors of the MOS, I've restored AD/BC against my own judgement. If others decide to argue for a change to CE/BCE in this case I'd support that, but I don't think I need to be the one leading that charge. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I prefer BC/AD too, but it would be easier to simply delete all era references and leave the bare numbers. Avilich (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Deleting all the era references wouldn't really be a good idea when dealing with this time period. But beyond the first mention or two of AD (or CE if the article gets changed in the future), we don't actually need to mention the era again unless it's unclear about which era is being referenced. So, in other words, a whole bunch of those ADs can be removed. Masterhatch (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Relying too much on original sources?
In such an article, the use of original sources is very helpful. In fact, in a discussion of a set of ancient documents, to fail to do so would make the article just a way of passing on views that a little more than gossip. The point is that the discussion is not original research. 49.196.45.182 (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I'm removing that needless flag at the top of the article. Not sure why it was ever placed there, article has tons of secondary sources. --Lewismr (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Josephus's own writing, a primary source, can be used for quotes and the like, but not to establish factual statements about his life in Wikivoice. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Josephus claimed that he strived for accuracy, but historians have long suspected that he may have misrepresented people and events, including his own role in whatever he describes. His accounts about the origins and ideologies of the Zealots have been seen as misleading at best, as he blames them for all revolutionary violence by Jews. :


 * "Several scholars, such as Gunnar Haaland and James S. McLaren, have suggested that Josephus's description of the fourth sect does not reflect historical reality, but was constructed to serve his own interests. According to Haaland, the part covering the sect acts as a transition and an introduction to the excursion concerning the Jewish schools of thought, all of which Josephus presents to portray the majority of Jews in a positive light, and to show that the Jewish War was incited by a radical minority. Similarly, McLaren proposes that Judas and his sect act as scapegoats for the war that are chronologically, geographically and socially removed from the priestly circles of Jerusalem (and Josephus himself)." Dimadick (talk) 09:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Image removed
There used to be an image of Josephus, why was it removed?

If it was removed because it is not contemporary/because we don't want to use an image for him, then why Maimonides article has a picture, from the 19th century? Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about the Roman bust purported to be of Josephus? If so, the answer is given here: Talk:Josephus/Archive_1. Generalrelative (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * User:GeneralrelativeThanks for the discussion link
 * I actually had in mind the more modern engraving
 * https://www.worldhistory.org/Flavius_Josephus/ Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Aha, got it. I'm not sure why that one was removed. Generalrelative (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Same here. If the community has nothing against it I would restore it. Mark. PaloAlto (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Alternate names for Josephus
Not sure why this was deleted, but I reinserted the alternate names, which are well-supported by the cited sources.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Josephus never had any alternate names, adding a patronym and a reconstructed modern translation doesn't create a new name. Academic sources overwhelmingly refer to him as simply Josephus, and your general topic sources obviously don't qualify. See also MOS:LEADCLUTTER. Avilich (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead of this article begins with “Flavius Josephus”. But he did not take the name Flavius until A.D. 69.  Before then he was called something else beyond merely Josephus, because “Josephus” would have been inadequate to identify him and distinguish him from the many many other people in his community named Josephus.  I have just reduced clutter in the lead per your suggestion.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * His name was always simply Josephus, and what he used to distinguish himself is irrelevant: lots of ancient cultures used patronymics, but these should not feature in the lede unless they are used commonly and non-trivially in English sources. Reliable sources like the Oxford Classical Dictionary and Brill's Pauly call him simply Josephus, not "Yosef" or "Ben Matityahu". General topic sources like Making History: The Storytellers Who Shaped the Past written by non-specialists are not generally reliable and should be avoided. Avilich (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t understand why you’re not objecting to the first word of the lead: Flavius. If we include Flavius in the lead, then it seems obvious we should also include Matityahu, because the former supplanted the latter.  The title of this article makes clear that the predominant name is simply Josephus, but it’s very typical for a lead to give fuller names.  Many Wikipedia BLP leads begin with a full name including middle name, even though almost no one knows the middle name, and that’s fine, we want the lead to include a fuller name if there is a fuller name than the article title.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Once again, he never "supplanted" any name and was never called "Matityahu". Your basis for assuming this is unsupported by reliable sources. There is nothing more to add aside from the "Flavius Josephus" that was already in place before your edits. Avilich (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Consider this book: Goodman, Martin.  Josephus's The Jewish War: A Biography (Princeton University Press, 2019).  It clearly says his name was Yosef ben Mattityahu.  Clearly, Martin Goodman (historian) is a very reliable source.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * He also calls him "Josephus (the) son of Matthias", but each of those terms is used no more than 3 times throughout the entire book, and nowhere does the author say that those are anything more than patronymics. On a much wider scale the use of "Yosef ben Matityahu" in English sources is basically zero when compared with the alternative. Avilich (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Look at the opening sentence in the lead of Cher. Did you know her last name was Sarkisian?  Almost no one knows that.  But that was her name before she got famous.  Same with Josephus.  As Goodman says, before Josephus got famous, he was “the young Judean priest Yosef ben Matityahu”.  Of course the patronymic had to be used or else no one would have known which Yosef was being referred to.  I’m not highly invested in whether we mention the full name Yosef ben Matityahu but it does seem very well-sourced, accurate, and typical for Wikipedia articles.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Goodman says nothing of the sort, your quote is out of context, and your example is anachronistic. We should give WP:DUE weight to what the totality of published reliable sources say, and the weight given to your preferred name is basically zero (and Goodman himself uses the term no more than 3 times), so I'm removing it. Avilich (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)