Talk:Jeconiah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Dating Sections Are a Problem[edit]

The bulk of the article on Jeconiah, as it stands, is concerned with arguing about the exact dating of Jeconiah's reign. The dating discussion, in turn, is almost entirely about whether the destruction of Jerusalem was in 586 or 587 BC. In addition to the article being dominated by fairly convoluted details of chronology, the tone is very strange. It's as if two or more anonymous editors are using the Wikipedia article as a forum to argue with each other about the date, but because they both speak with one voice (editors don't name themselves in a wikipedia article), it sounds as if Wikipedia is carrying on an argument with itself that 99/100 readers won't be able to follow. My suggestion would be to do radical surgery on the article and just strip all that discussion way down to a single paragraphs along these lines: "Some scholars prefer a 586 date and here are some of their names. Others prefer a 587 date and here are some of their names. The end." However, I'd very likely be stepping on some toes if I just went to town on this article, so I'm just going to leave this note in the Talk page unless some other editors think I should give Jeconiah a radical chronectomy.Alephb (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Your suggestion sound fairly reasonable. I second you. (But in fact I don't know, whether I can be of any help, in case you should get dragged into an edit war.) --johayek (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Johayek. In my mind, this is a small enough issue that I wouldn't push very hard for it if I got some opposition. Plus, I haven't done that much editing on Wikipedia yet, so I'm not all that certain about what some of the unspoken norms are about serious reductions in article size. Right now the 586/587 discussion is a little bit of an eyesore, but it's not as if its something that going to seriously mislead a reader. Anyone can scroll past it and get the meat of the article still pretty easily. If anyone thinks the dating sections should stay, then there's other edits that can be made: a lot of small edits to work on the organization and flow, some citations added here and there. Maybe I'm just fresh and naive, but I'd imagine there's ways to improve the article without an edit war.Alephb (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)