Talk:Siege of Jerusalem

Why not a list article?

Why is this not a list article? Dimadick (talk) 10:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Not all of the entries are actually sieges on Jerusalem, some being other types of attack, and some being literary references to sieges. It is therefore more accurately a disambiguation page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Suggest "Battles for Jerusalem" as a more inclusive and thus accurate title

... or "Battles and sieges of Jerusalem". In 1917, 1967 there were no sieges; there were also several "falls of Jerusalem" (long established terms) that have to be covered, two total destructions, so we need a more inclusive title, not an inaccurate Procrustean bed. Arminden (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

This page is a disambiguation page intended to help people who search for "siege of Jerusalem" to find the more specific article that they may be looking for. Since "siege of Jerusalem" is a fairly common search term in the scope of the given context, changing it to "battles for Jerusalem" would make this page less useful. (As a rough guide, "siege of Jerusalem" yields almost 10 times the number of results on a Google search than "battles for Jerusalem".) If there were sufficient ambiguity regarding articles about battles of/for Jerusalem, it might be suitable to create a separate disambiguation page for those, however that does not seem to be the case, and Battle for Jerusalem and Battle of Jerusalem both appear to be terms that each commonly refer to a specific event. Both pages already have hatnotes directing to this disambiguation page if readers are searching for other events. I would have no objection for the creation of Battles for Jerusalem as a redirect to this disambiguation page. However, this should be discussed further with other editors.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Two articles, Jerusalem and History of Jerusalem, repeat like parrots at prominent positions in the lead, the old adage that "Jerusalem has been attacked 52 times, captured and recaptured 44 times, besieged 23 times, and destroyed twice." The best purpose of this page here is to answer the question: which were those? The current title focusing on sieges only is a Procustean bed, maybe a meritorious working title, but needs fixing, in order to make the page more useful and relevant. I can see no merit in restricting the page to sieges only. Am I overlooking something? Thanks. Arminden (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

If you dispute the number of sieges indicated at those articles, you should start a section at the Talk pages of those articles querying the validity of the sources there. This disambiguation page is not intended as an exhaustive list to match the number of sieges that might be asserted at those articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

PS: I couldn't find the original source of the figures. Both our WP pages are quoting one of the many tertiary, "parrot" sources. Was it Martin Gilbert? I believe to remember him reciting the list in a pompous tone in a much-broadcast documentary. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Given that you have not been able to confirm the veracity of the figures, it is odd that you would insist that this page provide that exact number of sieges. Even if the same number of sieges were listed here (which is not the purpose of this disambiguation page), it still would only be coincidental if you cannot corroborate that the specific sieges listed correspond to the sieges meant by the figures—which could be incorrect—in the other articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

We need an article as comprehensive as possible

@Jeffro77, Doug Weller, Zero0000, Nishidani, Debresser, and Huldra: If that means restructuring it as something else than a disamb. page, then so be it. I arrived here looking for a complete list of battles for Jeruselem (sieges, falls, sacks...). The lead of the Jerusalem / Hist. of J'lem articles mention exact numbers (23 sieges, 44 conquests, 52 and attacks, etc.), and makes legitimately curious. I am sure lots of students of J'lem history of a zillion different types as well as others are as interested as I am in the topic. Our work here has only one raison d'être: to offer as much well-organised information to the USER as possible. And the Wikipedia (you can replace with "encyclopedia") user is a very varied creature indeed. No one editor can grasp the range of the user's different types of curiosity. Also, WP rules are not god-given; WE create and change them. Provided we keep a page tidy and offer good, useful info for the user, the PRINCIPLE of WP is followed. To sum it up, removing good, relevant info on strictly formal grounds is going against the interest of the user and therefore of Wikipedia itself. Removing substantial parts of the material, which correspond both in terms of topic and format to the article/page, is mannerism, pedantry, corona boredom, gamer ego - and strictly counterproductive. In the case of a red link, the user is certainly happy to retrieve the existing info and research further elsewhere (if a relevant wikilink is provided, on WP; if not, elsewhere - so what?), and editors get an impulse & motivation to create new articles or paragraphs. Leave it in, and everybody wins. Remove it, and everybody loses.

If somebody gets a rush if a well-written page does not 100% correspond to some obscure WP definition, then change the page type, don't remove good material leaving a formally "perfect" rump page with significantly less encyclopedic value behind. Here, concretely: redefine the page as some kind of article instead of disamb. page. Who cares.

I have been wondering for years which "23 sieges" so many sources are talking about. They just copy-and-paste the numbers. Encyclopedias have the purpose of replacing this with good info. Now, that we almost got there (21 out of 23), pls don't go into reverse mode and start destroying the list. Some of the listed sieges recently removed HAD ALREADY BEEN INCLUDED SEVERAL YEARS AGO. Once taken out on formal grounds, NOBODY discovered them for YEARS, buried as they were on the edit history page. Without corona, that's where they die :) And not because they're not relevant. I am firmly convinced that removing good, relevant info w/o any equivalent replacement within the article is counterproductive and poor practice, damaging the information value of the page. Also, rhetorically saying "then create a new page yourself" is - rhetorical and not helpful, as many can edit an existing page and contribute greatly, but far fewer know or have the time to create new pages or do similar more sophisticated things. We have the choice: make WP more useful and relevant; or keep one's inner bureaucrat happy. Thanks. Arminden (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

That's quite a rant. But this page is a disambiguation page, and re-purposing it for something else would require further discussion beyond your insistence that it become something else. As such, I will restore per the guidelines for disambiguation pages as they relate to redlinks. Do not restore them until their is further discussion from other editors and an established consensus regarding your roundabout suggestion that the disambiguation page be made into some kind of list article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

"Do not restore"? Aye, aye, sir! Heil 77!
I'm out of here, you can keep your toys.Arminden (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Arminden; I am not very familiar with this subject (I had never edited it before today), but from what I understand, you want to include 4 (presently) red-linked articles, while Jeffro77 does not want to include them? The solution, to me, seems that you should make those 4 articles (they don't need to be large, just a short summary)? Huldra (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Somebody please put an end to this

@Doug Weller, Debresser, Samhuddy, LightandDark2000, and HaeB: Same as above. Rampage by Jeffro77, who is removing good info at will.
Changes need to improve, not harm the article. If they do neither, they're superfluous and also not supported by Wiki rules. Check out his last edit for instance, plus some of the preceding ones:
- As a rule, AD stands before the figure, not after.
- Commas are good for you. Especially between different complex elements of a long list.
- "For instance" is in no way worse than "e.g.", and to repeat "e.g." within the same sentence is once too many (style!).
- "Sack of Jerusalem" is frequently used for the 925 BC and 1099 CE events. There is no good reason to remove them, even if one of the two has been - quite arbitrarily - removed from the list; for now.
- Arbitrary removal of 1967 encirclement. 1917 was arguably even less of a "classical" siege than 1967. And no, I don't support the removal of the 1917 battle!
- The Sack of Jerusalem (925 BC) wikilink exists, there is a plausible historical campaign to back up parts of this biblical story (see discussion of Bubastos Gate inscription, including theories for why Jerusalem isn't mentioned), which is more than can be said about David's Siege of Jebus. And no, I don't support the removal of the Siege of Jebus! Arminden (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
PS: even before turning this page into a list-article, as a disamb. page it is created in order to offer an overview of related items. Those that do exist, i.e. have their own article or linked paragraph, MUST be listed here. We can discuss about yet missing ones (red links), or sub-topics w/o a full article/paragraph of their own of the type [double bracket]John#His sons|Nick, son of John[double bracket], and we should; but not about existing ones. Arminden (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation page or historical list article

I've edited the page to be a disambiguation page (see WP:MOSDAB). If reverting, please remove the {{disambiguation}} template to make it a list article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Missing

• 162 BCE, Jerusalem under siege by Lysias
• 134 BCE, Jerusalem under siege by Antiochus VII Sidetes

--Rataube (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done[1] -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

To editor JHunterJ: hi, and thank you very much for intervening (also thanks To editor Rataube: for bringing it up again). We had a very assertive editor who would not admit sieges/battles that don't have an article of their own (see discussions above and edit summaries). Now you offered this format, which is close to what we used to have, but more austere, probably in step with all imaginable Wiki rules, decrees, ukases and firmans, which I hope will help with keeping the list unchallenged from now on. Thanks again, your naive colleague Arminden (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, and you're very welcome. Glad to collaborate! If needed in the future, the shortcut WP:WTAF for "write the article first" (just an essay, not a policy or guideline) can help point similar approaches in the right direction. Maybe. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and for the other way, MOS:DABMENTION covers including topics that don't have articles of their own, but are covered by other articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Third reply: note that if there's an encyclopedic need for a fuller list article, instead of a disambiguation navigation page, that can be created, either here or at List of sieges of Jerusalem; entries there could have their own reliable-source citations and fuller information, since it would be an encyclopedic list article and not a navigation page. I only pared this down to its navigational essentials because it is presented as a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

siege of jerusalem

The Siege of Jerusalem was a siege on the city of Jerusalem that lasted from September 20 to October 2, 1187, when Balian of Ibelin surrendered the city to Saladin. Though Jerusalem fell, it was not the end of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, as the capital shifted first to Tyre and later to Acre after the Third Crusade. Latin Christians responded in 1189 by launching the Third Crusade led by Richard the Lionheart, Philip Augustus, and Frederick Barbarossa separately.[1] Zoonvtp (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

CE/BCE versus BC/AD era dating

I realize this slow-moving disagreement has been going on for years, but I would like to solicit consensus in part because some of the articles are quite relevant to Jewish history (especially between 600 BCE and 200 CE). I've opened a related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Jewish_history#Changing_Christian_era_dating_on_Jewish_history_articles_to_more_Jewish-friendly_era_dating. It is clear that both non-Jewish mainstream scholarship and Jewish scholarship (secular or otherwise) prefer CE/BCE dating per a survey of the current literature. Consider that Tisha B'Av uses BCE/CE era dating. I propose that the era dating conventions on relevant articles concerning a "siege of Jerusalem" when relating to Jewish history should be both made consistent and in line with scholarship and current literature -- that is, BCE/CE. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I second this proposal, for the same reasons. Debresser (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

One way to partially avoid this discussion, or at least to eliminate the motive for moving articles back and forth, is to simply not include dates in the article title (admittedly, I don't think this will be a popular suggestion). More often than not, dates are only used as a last-resort device to disambiguate article titles, and might be avoided altogether if another method of disambiguation is available. It's very common to define a siege in terms of who's commanding the besieging force instead of the year it was undertaken. Thus, the siege of 63 BC is often referred to as Pompey's siege, that of 37 as Herod's siege, and that of 70 AD as the siege of Titus. There are articles currently called Assyrian siege of Jerusalem and Sasanian conquest of Jerusalem, and so I see no problem in moving the article of the siege of (say) 63 to Pompey's siege of Jerusalem or Siege of Jerusalem by Pompey.

The dates 63, 37 and 70 may not even be all correct (they're almost wholly attested by a single primary source, Josephus). For example, while (probably) most historians date the siege undertaken by Herod against Antigonus to 37, there's a respectable scholarly argument for dating it to 36 instead. Moving the article to *Siege of Jerusalem by Herod* or *Herod's siege of Jerusalem* (which is, incidentally, how the subject of the article is introduced in the lead as of now) may be preferable to using a questionable date in the article title. Of course, a dating style will still have to be chosen for the article text itself. Avilich (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Usage of (BCE/CE) seems straightforward to me. I'm surprised this is even an issue. What is the objection to it? Walrasiad (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

It takes a significant amount of procedure to change date styles in wikipedia; this seeks to partly avoid the issue. Avilich (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

3 years later and still unsolved, and almost all current "BC"s refer to ancient Judah and episodes with no direct Christian relevance (other than in very twisted interpretations based on "divine punishment" viewed in light of replacement theology), which makes it even more ridiculous. Arminden (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

One only captures, or also conquers a city?

Dear native speakers, is there please a binding rule on what word to use when referring to seizing a city? I think to remember that I've been corrected once: one captures a city, but conquers a country. Is that so, and how imperative is this rule? See the art. re. 614. Thanks! Arminden (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)