Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE)

Seth Schwartz?
Classical sources are more than adequate already. Why add empty speculation from 1 obscure historian? Everything referenced by Seth Schwartz in this article detracts from the overall quality of the entry; and I am at a loss trying the understand why this additional content has been added.

Perhaps he added it himself? Terrible idea. Revamping population estimates 2,000 years after the fact? Rambling about "despair" and Christianity? They add nothing to the entry and should be removed just for the sake of clarity if not credibility. 46.19.85.107 (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Analysis and synthesis of the works of ancient historians is prohibited by website policy WP:OR.
 * Schwartz has a named chair at an Ivy League university. He is surely competent for the claim made.
 * If there are any doubts, Wikipedia sides with modern mainstream historians. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

"Up until this parading, these items had only ever been seen by the High Priest of the Temple. "
Obviously inaccurate. The items were seen and used by all of the Cohanim that served in the Temple, and considering the structure of the sanctum, may have been visible to others from beyond (at least the Menorah). (And certainly, technically, they were visible to others during maintenance of the Temple, and during construction, relocation with the previous Tabernacle etc...) Drsruli (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2023
Change "ensalved" to "enslaved". 93.72.49.123 (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  17:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2023
Please make a few changes to the "Bar Kokhba revolt" section. See this edit and replace the old content with the new. (1) The date ought to be given at the start of the sentence, not the end. (2) There should be a link. (3) "short lived" is unneeded since the dates are given. (4) No need for "CE" since the era is clear; you couldn't start in 132 CE and end in 132 BCE. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. Implemented. 2. The link is already given with the More Information template. 3. Implemented, though it can be reverted if it is necessary. 4. I'll keep the era to maintain consistency with the rest of the article. Deauthorized. (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

HELP: Found "Dead" Link, But Cannot Find It To Edit!
Under the Section "Destruction," I found the footnotes "43" and "44" (at this time) were dead links. Thought, OK, I can either fix that, or delete them. Happily, I not only found a working link at:

https://pace.webhosting.rug.nl/york/york/showText?book=7&chapter=1&textChunk=whistonSection&chunkId=1&up.x=&up.y=&text=wars&version=&direction=&tab=&layout=english

But further up in the article itself, there is a different source which could also be used with this link:

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148%3Abook%3D7%3Asection%3D1

HOWEVER, the editing features of WIKIPEDIA only show:

Cite Josephus|PACEJ=1|text=bj|bookno=7|chap=1|sec=1|show-translator=yes|abbr=yes and:

Cite Josephus|PACEJ=1|text=bj|bookno=6|chap=1|sec=1|show-translator=yes|abbr=yes

Even when selecting to edit the whole page, I still cannot find the actual URL to the dead page!

WHERE is the actual source for "PACEJ"? If I look at the code served to my browser from Wikipedia servers, that "PACEJ" is filled-in with the appropriate URL. Where does this mysterious "PACEJ" exist at Wikipedia?

YES, I could simply replace "PACEJ" with some working links; which I may do, but I'm concerned there may be some kind of footnotes elsewhere on Wikipedia that need to be corrected as well. Daniel B. Sedory (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Answered (not solved yet) at Help desk. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)