Talk:Book of Habakkuk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Themes[edit]

Hi! First, I wanted to let you know I edited out a few typos for you. Nothing major. Secondly, I wanted to ask you about the themes. To me, this book certainly involves the themes of God's judgment of the wicked and His salvation of those who trust in Him. I haven't read any commentaries on it, though. What do you think?

Sharon L.

Sharon,

Thanks for the help in the editing! I think that you have raised a good point that dovetails with the theme that I have. i think God's judgement goes hand in hand with the fact that Habakkuk is struggling with the fact that God is using a pagan nation to take out this judgment. I'll make some revisions.
--BSCT 12:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BC/BCE[edit]

Per WP:ERA, I wanted to try to establish a consensus for either BC or BCE so that the edit warring between the two versions will cease. From looking at the article and the sources used, it appears that BC would be a better choice, as (from what I could see) BC seems to be the version used in the reliable sources, and was the version used in the original version of the article, and was consistently used for years.

Until EncycloPetey inserted BCE into the article in 2008, the article had consistently used BC, without exception, for seven years. Aside from that singe instance of BCE in the article, the only other mention of BCE in the pre-December version of the article was an arbitrary change from BC to BCE and per WP:ERA should have been reverted. Because of this I think that between the two, BC is the more logical choice for use in the article. - SudoGhost 05:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this at EncycloPetey's talk page but, since this discussion has been started it seems appropriate to post it here instead. Prior to EncycloPetey's December 5 edits at Book of Habakkuk, the article contained 3 occurrences of BC and 2 of BCE.[1] Two occurrences of "BC" were links to 7th century BC and 598 BC. The first version of the article used "B.C.", not BCE. By the time EncycloPetey first edited the article in April 2006, the article contained 2 BC references and no mentions of BCE.[2] Using the same criteria we use for determining date formats and English variants, "BC" was clearly the established form, especially given the links to 7th century BC and 598 BC. However, in a string of 107 edits in December 2011 that was interrupted only once by a reversion of the "BC" to "BCE" changes,[3] EncycloPetey added 4 BCEs and replaced 1 "BC" with "BCE".[4] I can see how WP Editor 2011 thought this was a breach of WP:ERA as BC was the established format and EncycloPetey had sought no consensus to change that, as is required by WP:ERA. EncycloPetey's arguments (made on his talk page) that his changes were made because "the article was a mix of BC and BCE before my edit"[5] and saying "The change that I performed made the internal dating fora=mat[sic] consistent, which is what WP:ERA states should be done"[6] falls flat, because the article is still a mix of BC and BCE, due to the existence of 7th century BC and 598 BC. For consistency, as required by WP:ERA, the article should really be changed to use one format, and that format should be the established "BC". --AussieLegend (talk) 06:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the point that I was trying to make until I was blocked; thankyou. I didn't initially notice the article was inconsistent before 12 December; I just saw that EncycloPetey changed BCE to BC in the opening paragraph and assumed that was the only instance. However, the older instances of BCE obviously were never meant to be there anyway, since the article originally said BC. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The initial article said BC. Unless there is a reason to BCE, it should be BC, per policy. Hipocrite (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"BC" is explicitly "before Christ". As this article concerns a Jewish prophet, the members of Wikiproject:Judaism should be consulted. I believe that it would be more sensitive and polite to use a religiously neutral dating system. I would also note that, as I own copies of the reliable sources used for this article, the Christian ones tend to use BC, but the Jewish ones (such as the Jewish Study Bible) and cross-religious ones (such as The Anchor Bible, which is a project consisting of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim writers) use BCE. Using BC would thus compromise WP:NPOV, as it favors one religious tradition over the others. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wouldn't. That isn't what WP:NPOV states, nor is it what WP:ERA says. - SudoGhost 13:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you did notice that your earlier statement about the sources was incorrect? --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't. The sources that I could use, used BC. That other sources use BCE do not chance anything, and do not make it a WP:NPOV violation under any circumstances. - SudoGhost 14:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but are you saying the fact that your earlier statement about the sources is inaccurate does not change anything? You said the reliable sources use BC, which is inaccurate since some of them use BC, and some use BCE. When the "facts" upon which a conclusion is based are found to be in error, the conclusions drawn from those "facts" are no longer supported by them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but no. I said the sources that I could see used BC. That "some" use BCE doesn't change this, and doesn't change the fact that the WP:ERA dating has been arbitrarily changed from the original version. - SudoGhost 14:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you using your administrative tools on this article to enforce policies? Should you really be commenting here? Hipocrite (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Commenting requires no administrative tools. Should I be commenting on an article to which I am the primary contributor, and for which I have access to the sources being discussed? Yes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should you be using your administrative tools on such an article to enforce your preferred dating system? Hipocrite (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the topic of this discussion thread, nor within the purpose of an article talk page. A talk page for an article is used to discuss the article. Please stay on topic. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Let's discuss the block elsewhere, not here. This thread should be about deciding whether to use AD/BC or CE/BCE. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think EncycloPetey's point is that there's a difference between using "BC" on say Alexander the Great and using "BC" on a Hebrew prophet. Which is a fair point isn't it? Even if it isn't on WP:ERA, yet. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BC as per SudoGhost's comments, use in the sources (that I have seen), subject matter, and original version. Satisfies all of the criteria for ERA and then some. And, for objections... "BCE" is not religiously neutral either. It's still based on Dionysius Exiguus' incorrect dating of Jesus' birth, and Christians read it as "Before Christian Era" anyway. For religiously neutral, I suppose we could use Ab urbe condita? Or Anno mundi, since it's a Jewish prophet? </sarcasm> St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 05:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't someone change the article back to the correct state in the meantime, since EncycloPetey has yet to convince anyone to change it to BCE? He's just stalling discussion to keep his illegal version of the article in place. I'd rather not do it myself since I don't want to be falsely accused of breaking the rules again. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]
There appears to be a consensus building for BC, but there's no deadline for the article or anything, so I'd personally wait at least another day or two to let others comment on this. However, just to clarify something, illegal isn't the best word to use, and although I know you didn't mean it in this sense, people on Wikipedia are pretty touchy about legal matters, often reading into things that aren't actually meant. Neither version is "illegal" in a legal sense, or even in a technical incompatibility sense, as guidelines such as WP:ERA are not hard and fast rules. - SudoGhost 03:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Based on sources "BC" is the appropriate designation. Article was originally BC. WP:ERA satisfied--so am I. – Lionel (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, BC should be the convention used here. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 01:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Book of Habakkuk. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Habakkuk the only prophet to question God?[edit]

In the 'Themes' section of this article is the sentence: "Habakkuk is unique among the prophets in that he openly questions the wisdom of God." I'm thinking of downgrading this claim to something more like "Habakkuk openly questions the wisdom of God" in light of other examples of questioning by prophets, like Jeremiah 12:1 and Jonah's argument with God about Nineveh. And the claim about Habakkuk being 'unique' is, as far as I can tell, unsourced anyhow. Any objections? Alephb (talk) 07:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Book of Habakkuk. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Book_of_Habakkuk&oldid=1195691678"