Talk:Jewish–Roman wars

Military history: 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 articles

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

Jewish history Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

(random head)[edit]

(inserted for readability. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

From Dispute_resolution:

Avoidance

The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place.

Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The Three Revert Rule forbids the use of reverts in repetitive succession. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to respond in kind, and do not make personal attacks.

Writing according to the "perfect article guidelines" and following the NPOV policy can help you write "defensively", and limit your own bias in your writing. For some guidelines, see Wikipedia:Wikiquette.

Jayjg: "Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The Three Revert Rule forbids the use of reverts in repetitive succession."

Jayjg: This is the version you are reverting to:

The First Jewish-Roman War (66–73 CE), against the Roman Empire is sometimes called The First Jewish-Roman War.
The Bar Kokhba's revolt (132-135 CE), also known as The Second Jewish-Roman War or The Second Jewish Revolt, was a second major rebellion by the Jews of Judea. Alternatively, some sources call it The Third Revolt, counting also the riots of 115-117, the Kitos War, suppressed by the senator Quintus Lucius Quietus who governed the province at the time.

Do you seriously consider this to be a useful wikipedia entry?

This is my recommendation for an improvement:

Rather than just revert without explanation, why don't you express what your issues are with my attempt to clean up this article? Keep in mind, this is a disambiguation article.

Your version removed useful information; disambiguation pages should not just be links, but should provide some context. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Useful information? Nonetheless, quoting from Disambiguation:

"A disambiguation page contains no article content, only links to other Wikipedia pages."

You're reading the page too narrowly. Disambiguation pages do, indeed, typically have context information on them. See, for example, Jesus (disambiguation) or Sara. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but obviously it's not a requirement as you claimed above and the version you are reverting to has very little if any useful information. Do you really think it's important to point out to the average reader that: "The First Jewish-Roman War ... is sometimes called The First Jewish-Roman War" or that it was between the Jews and the Roman Empire or that Bar Kokhba's revolt is sometimes called the second or third war depending on if you count the Kitos War? In addition the information about "Quintus Lucius Quietus" is incorrect and there is no wikipedia link to him at this time, for more information see Kitos War.

Disambiguation pages are generally done that way, as an aid to the reader; blind links with no context are not helpful. I can provide many other examples of disambiguation pages that are done this way - e.g. Cat (disambiguation), New York (disambiguation), London (disambiguation), etc. What I cannot seem to find is a disambiguation page that contains only links. If you think the page contains incorrect information, please correct it, but please stop removing all context, as this is starting to look like simple vandalism. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you know that Christianity template you just added to Sabbath? Well, it turns out that Sabbath (disambiguation) doesn't just give a list of bare links either. Go figure. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up some of the more wordy phrasing on the page. Some descriptions should certainly be kept in order to differentiate between the wars, which are, as mentioned, often cited by number; but there's no need to reiterate the participants of the wars under each one, since they all involve the Romans and the Jews. The bolding of text might need to be toned down also, since it is currently somewhat excessive. Kirill Lokshin 01:12, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Why the Samaritan revolt?[edit]

What has the Samaritan revolt to do with the topic of the article? The Samaritans and Jews were enemies since at least the Maccabee revolt, probably earlier. The Samaritans rebelled against oppressive Bysantine Christians (nominally East Romans, however), not against a pagan Roman Empire. That the Samaritans today are considered a Jewish sect is a modern invention, they're descendents of the Israelite Northern kingdom, not Judaea, mixed up with foreign peoples deported by the Assyrians. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's so blatantly off-topic, that I was compelled to remove them. If dislike, simply revert. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Samaritan revolt was lead in alliance with Jews. And of course Samaritans are not Jewish sect. I revert you back.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Half a million dead?[edit]

This number looks fantastic for a 2nd century war. The source is full of exagerations and seems to be politically motivated.

At this time, the Roman Empire as a whole had only 50 million people. The Holocaust was only possible with modern racialist justifications and industrial war methods. 78.29.170.229 (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-I agree that the article isn't perfect, but the figures aren't that extreme. Caesar is thought to have killed hundreds of thousands (up to a million) in the Gallic Wars, the levelling of Carthage in the third punic war would have killed about 400,000, so it's a big figure for the period, but by no means unique. I'm not passing judgement on the sources themselves, but the casualty figures listed in the article aren't that far outside the norms for Roman warfare in the period.OneCatch (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are also speaking of the 1st-2nd centuries CE, when the Roman Empire population was quiet near its peak. Anyway we use here all available reliable sources, so there is a reasonable range from 250,000-1,100,000 in the great revolt, depending on historian's opinion and Josephus' primary source.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lissak as a source[edit]

IrisZoom, you are the one who is trying to make changes from this long-stable page. If you want to remove a source, you are the one to convince for the necessity of its removal per WP:BRD.GreyShark (dibra) 12:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are misunderstanding the method and should think of it before you accuse me of misuse. If someone, you misued it by starting an edit warring. However, this is not the important thing so lets move on.

The arguments you have used are that Lissak is "Dr. of History" and that her numbers are good as an "overview". She is a Dr. in American history. I have read her articles about the topic we are discussing here and she doesn't give any source or explanation about the numbers. We are talking about a self-published blog. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is technical - can you give me a link that shows the published review is a blog?GreyShark (dibra) 13:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct - i can see this a blog (i thought it is a self-published article). I still do think her numbers make sense, but we can keep the numbers with requested source, while deleting the link to Lissak's blog. Agreed?GreyShark (dibra) 13:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if its a blog or another type and doesn't meet the criteria. However, I think we leave it as it is now but inserting the template "^{[better source needed]}", because the other numbers from Cassius Dio and Josephus seem grossly exaggerated. There must surely exist better estimates from other and reliable sources. Shall we do so? If yes, you can insert the template here and I will revert my edit in two other articles (List of massacres in ancient Israel and First Jewish–Roman War) and insert the template, where Lissak was used as a source, because of the same reason stated in the first sentence. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with "Better source". I however don't agree that Cassius Dio and Josephus should be defined as "exaggerating" - those are excellent primary sources and their credibility should only be brought with proper historian analysis and not our own. Some historians indeed doubt the seemingly high casualty numbers, but interestingly today the maximalist approach has become the mainstream (see [1]), giving Cassius and Josephus a great deal of authority and authenticity.GreyShark (dibra) 21:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying we should define them in a way in the article. In fact, they are very important. But I think the numbers seems exaggerated and I naturally welcome other estimates as long they meet the criteria. So if someone wants to add another estimates, as done now but with a bad source (Lissak), I welcome that. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now inserted the template in the articles. Best regards. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.GreyShark (dibra) 19:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jews lie. Plain and simple. 222.49.248.13 (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious. Antisemitism - plain and simple.GreyShark (dibra) 18:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism?[edit]

Article mentions nationalism as one of the factors for the Jewish revolts. This is false as nationalism is a fairly modern concept which arose from the French Revolution onward. There was no such thing as nationalism before, people were generally loyal to a religion or to a particular leader rather than to their "nation" (which is a modern concept too). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.57.129 (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you feel is the difference between Iudaeans and a nation? Not all Iudaeans were religiously observant or strictly loyal, but all shared a culture. They even remained segregated in other states and often remained loyal to their heritage. Certainly no race but yes, a nation. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism is as much a new concept as fire. No kidding - there was Roman nationalism, Germanic nationalism, Bretonic nationalism and Judean nationalism in the classic era and wars were fought over it.GreyShark (dibra) 18:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath[edit]

While reading this article, I realized that there is information missing. The article clearly gives the history of the Jewish-Roman Wars; however, it barely discusses the aftermath. I will add how these three wars caused the transition from Temple to Synagogue, the increased authority of the Rabbis, and the development of Rabbinic Judaism. All of my information will be coming from a secondary source, From Text To Tradition, by Lawrence Schiffman. If someone wants to discuss my plans on changing this article, please let me know on this Talk Page or on my Talk Page. ^[1] Yiftach18 (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good - go on.GreyShark (dibra) 18:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://books.google.com/books?id=3kWYHyBb4C8C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

[1] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=3kWYHyBb4C8C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

[1]