Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE)/Archive 1

586:

sort, yet have also expressed views that there will be a large salvation in the future of ethnic Jews, based on Romans 11. So there is not unity among Preterists on this issue by any means. Even if there was, that's not necessarily the main point of Preterism; Preterism is not exclusively concerned with talking about ethnic Israel. Replacement theology is a better term, but it is not synonymous with Preterism. And Premillenialism, though overall tending to favor a future place for ethnic Israel, is not synonymous with that either. So called "Dispensational Premillenialism" may be more concerned with that, but there are other "non-dispensational" or sometimes called "historical" Premillenialists who reject many of the "Dispensational" assumptions. Then again, any discussion of Dispensationalism is an involved one. I propose eliminating the terms "Premillenialism" and "Preterism" from the discussion. Rather, there are several positions evangelical Christians (who actually study and discuss the issue; certainly there are plenty for whom it isn't even on their radar) take on the issue.

2072:

quite odd to keep giving the era repeatedly when there's absolutely no chance of confusion during a short span of years referred to in that section, and when the rest of the article doesn't need to have the era given even once. This article got along quite well without any era specified in the text until last month, and for nearly all of its existence the only era was "AD". The fact that someone got away with slipping "CE" into the infobox last year doesn't suddenly make the era necessary in the body, nor does it make the title wrong. What looks suspicious here is hammering away at something that wasn't even at issue until last month, by repeating it over and over again, then insisting that the article title be changed in conformity with that opinion. This discussion isn't about whether you prefer BC/AD or BCE/CE. It's about a Knowledge policy that's been disregarded in this article.

434:"Therefore, when YOU catch sight of the disgusting thing that causes desolation, as spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in a holy place, (let the reader use discernment,) then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains. Let the man on the housetop not come down to take the goods out of his house; and let the man in the field not return to the house to pick up his outer garment. Woe to the pregnant women and those suckling a baby in those days! Keep praying that YOUR flight may not occur in wintertime, nor on the sabbath day; for then there will be great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world’s beginning until now, no, nor will occur again. In fact, unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved; but on account of the chosen ones those days will be cut short." 590:

People" collectively, but their historical place has not been forgotten by God, and there is still special significance to the salvation of ethnic Jews, albeit along more individualistic lines. 3. What happened in A.D. 70 for a time eliminates Israel's place as God's chosen people, but in the future they will mount a massive comeback, albeit through salvation through the Church (Romans 11:26). 4. What happened in A.D. 70 reflects the institution of the "Church Age", where for a time, though not exclusively, a non-Jewish led church serves the purpose of being the people of God, but that time will come to an end (Romans 11:25), and the Jewish people will reestablish themselves as "God's people" in line with (Romans 11:26).

2771:

foundation focuses on continuing educational opportunities..." I think my point remains. With all the experts on Jewish history why would you rely on this guy for an encyclopedia article. Another problem with dating in this article is a previous footnote citing William Whiston for the beginning of the siege. Whiston is a figure from the early 18th century. The date given 14 April is probably based on the fact that Passover falls on the evening of 14 Nisan. He would also know that Passover falls in our calendar most often in April. This date is thus a reasonable approximation for the 18th century but hardly up-to-date information for an encyclopedia article.

2451:

using "AD" doesn't actually imply belief, merely use of a dating convention. Even though I'm Jewish myself, I prefer BC/AD to BCE/CE, which seem like pointless euphemisms at best, since they're still based on the birth of Christ. BC/AD just don't bother me, and they're universally understood. Besides which, this isn't a "Jewish" topic any more than it's a "Roman" topic. I suppose if I had my druthers, as a claccisist, we'd all use AUC, but that's never gonna happen, so BC/AD are my preference.

881:. Policy does not prefer one over the other, and you need an actual consensus one way or the other before switching an article from one to the other; if you go against that, you get reverted. Project-wide, votes at variance with policy and similar community standards get rejected, and because the discussion goes against WP:ERA's standards for moving and because the votes presume that policy favors CE over AD, there's not a single vote here that can be accepted. 3373:. So, this is a granular article about a single siege within the first war, and you are giving prominence in the lead to details not only not from the relevant war, but which are only relevant to an article two branches higher in the content tree. Knowledge entries are not supposed to include every scrap of information that is even tangentially relevant to a subject. They are supposed to be concise and informative about discretely scoped topics. 31: 2068:

entitled to no more deference than any others. I also see no point in all the weight that's being put on whether some editor or other is a sockpuppet of a banned user. Sockpuppets are capable of good edits as well as bad ones. If the argument is that some participants in this debate are really one person masquerading as different editors, then that would be an issue. But that still doesn't make any and all of the opinions expressed wrong.

1918:

my point of view they mean the same thing and are equally based on religious mythology, but one is honest about it and the other pretends to be something it's not. I may be in the minority on this, and as editors more invested in the topic may have strong feelings, I'm withholding my vote for now. But this topic doesn't just belong to one project or one perspective, so I don't think it's at all cut and dried.

1988:

preceding day. And yet you are characterizing my edits as nothing more than drive-by POV pushing? I don't think that's fair nor is it accurate, and I would request that you strike it. I would hope that with the socks at bay, we can have an honest discussion, without casting aspersions at other editors. Getting back to the current discussion (I'll formulate my opinion more fully later), this is about the

2736:

author page: "For the last twenty years, Dr. Matthew E. Bunson has been active in the area of Catholic Social Communications, including writing, editing and lecturing on a variety of topics related to Church history, the papacy and Catholic culture." It then goes on to note he doesn't have a Ph.D. even though it calls him Dr. I really think we need an academic reference by an acknowledged scholar here.

3365:: I think there is some confusion about the nature of scope here. Articles should contain on the information directly pertinent to the topic and not stray needlessly off topic. While details about events in 130 AD may merit mention in passing towards the end of the article, they are are 100% off-topic in the lead here, and by expanding the lead to cover such details, you are duplicating the scope of 354:

he treated as the equivalent of the Hebrew calendar. In AD 70, the date he gives for the destruction, 10 Loos (381 AS), fell on Sunday August 5. This tallies with the description that it was the day following the Sabbath. It is interesting to note that this is the same date given by Jules Oppert in the 19th century after a meticulous reconstruction of the Hebrew calendar of the period. -- Unsigned

1958:, in apparent violation of WP:ERA. It looks like nobody caught it at the time, as multiple attempts to return it to "AD" were reverted under the same policy after that. The only era references other than the title were in the infobox until February 6, 2018, when Mojoworker inserted "CE" four times in the lead paragraph. So it looks as if this is POV pushing, and I hereby change my vote to 3188: 2833:

this as the same as the Hebrew calendar. They then try translating these Hebrew dates into the contemporary Roman (Julian) calendar. The major uncertainty here is when the Hebrew year began in 69 AD, September or October. This gives us a terminal uncertainty about what was the month the siege ended and the Temple as burnt, August or September. Can anybody get closer to which is correct?

659:

realized the defense had been compromised and they advanced to support the cavalrymen. With the Romans inside AF and the Judeans panicking, the assault on AF was at that point more of mopping up operation; however, during this fighting a fire broke out. It's not clear if this fire spread to Temple Quarter and was the fire which ultimately consumed the Temple.

413:

essentially Jewish. Really early Christians only had the Torah as their Bible, since nothing of what we know of as the "New Testament" existed yet. So, outside of the Talmud commentary, I'm not sure what's the difference between a Christian and a Jewish prophecy as concerns the destruction of Jerusalem. Most of the first "Christians" were Jews in fact.

1128: 798: 2378:. "AD" is not selectively problematic. (Nor does it necessarily imply that Jesus is in fact lord any more than the name "Wednesday" implies that the middle of the week belongs to Woden. What, for that matter, makes the common ear so common?) The alternative suggested—Siege of Jerusalem (70)—while a bit awkward is an acceptable compromise. 2653:, but in one gospel he says that they should destroy and he will rebuild it in three days, in another gospel that is an accusation from a false witness, and Jesus reportedly predicted that no stone of the Temple will remain upon another of its stones. Oh, yes, he disturbed the sellers from the Temple. 2849:

under the paragraph "Destruction" gives two possible dates for the destruction. One is August 4th and the second is August 30th. The first date is based on a retrocalulation of the Jewish calendar based on rules documented centuries later. The second date comes from our learned friend Dr. Bunson. I

2450:

I believe that would only point us to the most common name, which probably isn't something we can ascertain in an instance where it's a matter of personal preference. I understand the perspective of not wanting to seemingly acknowledge a god you don't believe in, but I also agree with Srnec's point;

1046:

Reading through the above comments, I read a series of biased opinions by users who are opposed to one system and who are providing oft-repeated red herrings to support their POV favouring the other. Personal preferences are not satisfactory reasons for changing era settings. Knowledge does not exist

353:

The date of the final destruction of the Temple has been established with a reasonable degree of accuracy. It is definitely not September 7th. Josephus was writing for a Roman audience and used a calendar that had wide usage at the time. He habitually used the Syro-Macedonian lunisolar calendar that

3447:

Tisha B'Av is a day of mourning, which is considered inappropriate for the joyful atmosphere of the Sabbath. Thus, if its date falls on a Sabbath, it is observed on the 10th of Av instead. If this modern Jewish practice was followed in the Second Temple period, Tisha B'Av would have fallen on Sunday

2735:

The Date for the burning of the Temple given here does seem well supported. The citation is by a book by Matthew Bunson entitled Dictionary of the Roman Empire. When I looked up Bunson, I found that he doesn't have a Ph.D and is employed as a Catholic apologist. Here is the beginning of his Amazon

2634:

The article says that some believe that Jesus was anti-temple. The gospels do not say that, and I have never heard that said. I have been a believer for 40 years, and I have been to many different churches and read many books on the gospels and Christianity in general. Jesus came to fulfill the law,

1661:

AD 70 is Super because it refers to after the advent of the Christ in the flesh on planet earth. Ironically, the AD 70 destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem happened because Judaism Jews rejected their Messiah Christ Jesus (Lk 21:20-24). People want to erase anything and everything that reminds

647:

The Roman response was to begin construction of new towers and begin undermining the walls of AF. The Judeans attempted to destroy these towers too but were unsuccessful. In an attempt to foil the Roman mining operations the Judeans began to undermine the Roman mining operation. The Judean commander

589:

1. What happened in A.D. 70 essentially eliminates any special concern by God for ethnic Israel today or in the future whatsoever. Though ethnic Jews may become Christians, there is no special significance to that. 2. What happened in A.D. 70 eliminates a special concern for Israel as "God's Chosen

266:

It also says some - what was it - 97,000 were captured? This matter seems like it needs additional research. It might be counting those who died or were captured in the final part of the war. Or perhaps the area surrounding Jerusalem had a large increase in population due to the first Roman campaing

113:

and found that this article didn't yet exist, so I just assumed it needed doing and wasn't under another name. Still, since this one is more about the events of the siege, rather than the destruction afterwards, and follows a more standard format for a battle/siege article, I think it's cool to keep

2832:

Yea, it is a mess. Looks like nobody has critically examined this recently. Books that bear on this are often religiously oriented or pot-boilers by journalists. The issue as I understand it is that relevant dates in Josephus are in a Macedonian calendar. On what basis I don't know, people treat

2071:

It's correct to say that WP:ERA says that two-digit years may look odd. But it doesn't follow from that, A) that choosing an era that's inconsistent with the article title is an improvement, or B) that you need to repeat the era with each occurrence of a year in a single section. In fact it looks

1917:

was unaware of this debate until it showed up on CGR alerts. I'm aware of the trend to use "CE" and "BCE" on Jewish topics, but I'm Jewish (although rather secular) and prefer the old-fashioned "BC" and "AD" (although I note that AD normally precedes the year; it should be AD 70, not 70 AD). From

662:

The Roman assault on the Temple Quarter was robustly opposed by the Judeans, as expected, but with the fire and waning morale to contend with the Judeans were eventually driven out of the Temple Quarter. At this point the Romans had essentially won the battle, although the assault on Herod's Palace

412:

Interesting, I was not aware that there were Talmudic "prophecies" on the matter of the destruction of Jerusalem. If someone could site those, that would be great. Anyway, Jesus being himself a Jew, and connecting Daniel's abomination of desolation (part of the Torah), would make these prophecies

282:

Where do the strength and casulty figures come from? Josephus' 1.1M sounds implausible (and ancient writers seem to have a habit of exagerating numbers in battles), but the 60k given in the info box is completely unsourced. Furthermore, "60k strength in three factions" and "60k casulties" implies

127:

In the destruction section, this page refers to the Solomonic temple and Jospehus' contention that the temple had stood for 1,000 years. While the article mentions the Herodian construction, it misses the fact that A) this is the post-golah temple, the Second Temple, not the Solomonic temple which

3519:

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

2067:

how long something was overlooked if it's a problem. Whether it's a week, fourteen months, or four years, it's still an issue. And it's utterly irrelevant whether the IP of the anonymous editor who violated policy was from Yale, Harvard, or Joe's Coffee Shop. Edits made from a Yale computer are

1027:

Knowledge has been using BCE/CE for many years; at least 10/15 years I would guess! Academic arguments favor Knowledge's adoption of the BCE/CE policy. However, the general public has an entrenched predilection for the customary BC/AD style, at least in Subject Titles. With this in mind, I suggest

643:

The first phase of the assault on AF went badly for the Romans. In preparation for the assault the Romans constructed a number of armored towers. Fully appreciating what these towers could accomplish, the towers had inherent rams, the Judeans conducted a ground attack against the newly constructed

585:

The above discussion is very problematic, because, particularly on the Preterism side, not all Preterists would reject the role of ethnic Jews in future Christian theology. Jay Adams and RC Sproul, two relatively big hitters in Reformed Christian circles have both expressed preterist views of some

2816:

There's also a footnote in the source below which says (about the capture of the city) "17 BJ 6. 435 gives the exact date as 8 Gorpiaeus: the Julian equivalent has not been established with certainty (HJP i. 587—601). Hence the discrepancy in CAH2 11, where the date of the capture of Jerusalem is

2079:

there's an argument to be made for why BCE/CE would be better for this article, then make it on the talk page without relying on the page history to justify the move. It's fine to change the era by consensus, but that's not the process that's been followed here. What's happened here is that the

1987:

guideline "two-digit years may look more natural with an era marker", for the changes to the lede at that time. My edits were in response to the "destruction date" conversation (currently at the top of this talk page) and I was making a number of other edits to improve the article on that and the

1899:

personally I'd probably expect to see CE related to a Jewish history subject, despite AD being the WP:COMMONNAME. However doing this as a technical request, unless it is restoring an earlier longstanding consensus was a problem. Establish page history, clearly mark out which socks are banned, and

1418:

It is just that the last two posts in the old discussion were not favouring the move and no one answered the final objection that moving the article was serving one POV over another. I see that there is a disconnection between the title and the text's era style but that was caused by past editors

2770:

Thanks for the clarification. However, it says he got his degree from The Graduate Theological Foundation "a nonprofit interreligious institution of higher learning, originally founded in Indiana but now centered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Unlike traditional residential theological schools, the

3219:

There is a duplicate the in the opening, specifically in the phrase 'The the loss of mother-city and temple necessitated a reshaping of Judaean culture to ensure its survival, which resulted in the emergence of Rabbinic Judaism.' If this could be corrected to 'The loss of mother-city and temple

3322: 658:

One account has a group of ambitious cavalrymen (dismounted, of course) accompanied by a cornicen secretively scaling the makeshift wall at night, Titus was unaware of this operation. This raid caught much of the garrison sleeping, a panic ensued. The cornicen blew an alert to the Romans, who

3118:, while a historian, was a first-century historian, and a primary source to the events he observed. For both of these reasons, we have to be very careful in using him as a source. This requirement is reinforced because the referenced translation appears to be based on the 1732 translation by 613:

I agree the terms preterism and premillennialism should be removed. Not only is the argument for/against the terms not NPOV, its too reductionistic (as you have already observed). Your 4 categories concerning the implications of the event are good. It shows all Christians perceive the event

3461:

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.

397:

Sorry, is it just me, or is there something EXTREMELY WRONG about having a section on Christian prophecies of the destruction, and nothing on JEWISH prophecies of the destruction? Prophecies that, if one reads the Jewish scriptures, make the above references look like a discussion on the

1876:

this remark "Multiple socks seem to be the only ones against it" in the official proposal statement is grossly biased and not neutral. This RM is definitely not done "mostly correctly." Furthermore, it is false. I am opposed to the move and I am not a sock. It is quite outrageous.

2098:

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'll again assert that MOS:ERA's "two-digit years may look more natural with an era marker" applies to both August 30, 70, and September 8, 70, and it is common for the first use of such a year in the lede to have an era marker, as in

2395:

although the RM got of to a good faith shaky start, this is clearly a legitimate proposal from the standpoint of an encyclopaedia. Serious historical and also even Christian sources such as SBL level papers and commentaries would not be using BC/AD for Jewish history subjects.

3067:(ch. 11 h. 16) Maimonides writes "this present year, which is the seventeenth year of cycle two hundred and sixty; equal to the year 4938 of Creation, which is the year 1489 of the Era of Contracts, or the year 1109 after the destruction of the Second Temple." (Translation by 2715: 644:

towers and destroyed them. While the loss of the towers was a terrible blow for the Roman assault, it seems Roman morale was affected even more. This morale setback was on top of the difficulties endured in breaching the Second Wall, which surrounded the Tyropean City.

2282:, but generally doesn't in better English. The older tradition places "BC" before the year as well, but between 1880 and 1920 this seems to have shifted to almost exclusively after. The Latin version, "AC", still goes before, but is hardly used in English nowadays. 1500:

I read the discussion in the archive, I also do not see a consensus to change to CE. There was reasoned opposition. That is not consensus. IOW "no consensus" results in status quo which is AD. The body of the article should be changed to AD to conform with the title.–

654:

Despite this turn in events Roman morale was at its breaking point, so much it seems Titus had to make dramatic appeals to his legionnaires to continue the assault. Subsequent events would prove these appeals to have been somewhat effective, although not universally.

2107:. Are there any other edits you'd like me to defend? I think those are improvements to the article. You can disagree, maintain your suspicions of my motives and cast aspersions toward me, and I can lament your failure to abide by the fundamental principle of WP:AGF. 1992:

of the article. That there are drive-by MOS:ERA warriors is, unfortunately, the current state of things at enwiki. Yes, an IP from Yale University changed the ERA style more than 14 months ago without discussion, and the sock that was active here on this page made

1372:

I had difficulty searching for the discussion as it was in the archive but I have read it and I wouldn't have said that there was a consensus from that for the move last month - rather the opposite and there was some strong opposition too. That was why I made my

2062:

you ignore all of the caveats on that page, but not to edits that people weren't aware of. Silence doesn't imply consensus for things you don't know about. But WP:SILENT isn't about policy violations in article text, and it's not a policy itself. It doesn't

1320:, and certainly not a "personal or categorical preference for one era style over the other". Both Runwayrollr and CouncilConnect are neophytes with only 38, and 191 edits respectively, so I'm willing to cut them some slack, but neither of these users has made 1277:: "When reopening a discussion is desired, links to archived discussions can be provided in the new discussion thread". Then CouncilConnect botched things up further (without, apparently, bothering to read the discussion in the archive). And I can't blame you 1028:

that the use of AD be retained in the title, because this would be the most recognisable label for the general enquirer/researcher. But in the article, the (expert?) editorial content can then use the more appropriate and universal BCE/CE style throughout. --

180:

The 1.1 million casualty doesn't seem realistic IMHO, despite the influx for religious observance. I would add some accounts have Titus ordering the Romans not to kill anyone who did not resist during the operations in the southern districts of the city.

964:

of era style since the beginning of the year. And since this article's topic is Second Temple era Judaic history, the choice of era style is not arbitrary, but rather the appropriate era style (BCE/CE) is specific to its content, as required by WP:ERA.

1512:

I moved it from AD to CE, then noticed that I'm reverting an admin so I self-reverted. My impression is that the long-standing version is CE, so as long there is no consensus to move to AD, it should be CE. Content of the article matches this theory.

3465:

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.

2905:, Maimonides writes that the present time (the year he authored said introduction) is the year anno mundi 4937, and 1108 years after the destruction of the Temple. 4937 minus 1108 gives 3829 (69 CE) as the date of the second Temple's destruction. 3058:

in Hyamson's translation (1981, page 4b) reads "the present date which is the eighth year of the eleventh century after the destruction of the Second Temple. Corresponding to 4937 A.M. (1177 C.E.)." Cf. Tauber translation of the same words which

128:

was destroyed in the exile, and B) while the Herodian addition/rebuilding project did demolish and reconstruct the temple, as well as enhancing the structure of the mount, it still is considered the Second Temple because the worship continued.

1854:

Don't worry, you did it mostly correctly – except for the 'technical move" part, which was contested. Now we have 7+ days to present policy based rationale for and against the move. I'll try to formulate my thoughts on the matter here soon.

685:

This article includes next to nothing on the background event and wider context of Roman imperial control which led up to the Siege, the circumstances in Roman Palestine, or the events immediately leading up to the revolt and suppression.

911:

Handbook of Style, which is BCE/CE. The article has been using BCE/CE era style for close to a year until today. I'm reverting to that style, and will move the article shortly if there is no discussion citing a policy based reason not to.

1471:

Obvious to you perhaps, but that is just your one-sided opinion. Just facts please, otherwise we might have a slanging match of different personal preferences, which I think is how some editors have been treating this article in the

1272:

tried to revert the move (but botched it by not actually doing a move), and pulled the old discussion out of the archive, and restarted the debate. I reverted, and invited them to start a new discussion on the talk page, pointing to

614:

eschatologically, even in different ways. I would also add comments concerning the Olivet discourse, since (from the Christian perspective) that is the starting point for the prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

1419:

changing the era style in the text to suit their preferences (as is shown by some of the comments on this talk page and other articles about Jerusalem) which is a use of POV that causes the present confusing situation.--

3125:

Due to this, I have altered the text, attributing statements to Josephus rather than presenting them in wikivoice, and removing entirely extraordinary claims that we need would need a very strong evidence to include.

342:

Since it is possible to calculate all the transitions (including those you've mentioned above), and since there is no serious dispute about it, the historians may say that they know the date, so we should be fine.

1338:

In this case I suppose the correct move is to restore the standing consensus, that is the CE name. If someone wants to rename it they should achieve a new consensus, and once it has been achieved - move it again.

555:

I am a Christian and it is among many discussions, even look at the book of revelation. So many people try to interpret everything John wrote to be after 70AD, the fall of Jerusalem. So if I may beg a differ.

640:(AF was previously the fortress for the Roman garrison of Jerusalem. Prior to the siege the Judeans captured the fortress and were able to make good use of the weapons captured, especially the artillery.) 1268:. As a result of that discussion, I moved the article to the CE title on 6 February 2018‎, several months after the discussion petered out. Yesterday, 117 days after the last comment in the discussion, 398:

hydrodynamics of sugar-coated biscuits? There should of course be included reference to the plethora of Talmudic passages indicating the uselessness of the Temple and the necessity of its destruction.

331:

Is it possible to know this date for certain? Bear in mind that the jewish calendar is different from our current Gregorian calendar. And before the Gregorian calendar, we had also the Julian calendar.

2103:. I debated removing the 66 CE instance, but decided the inclusion of the era in "…since 66 CE, following the Jerusalem riots of 66…", makes it clear that "Jerusalem riots of 66" is nothing like the 2966:, The year 3830 is the first from the destruction, not 3829. The destruction was in 3830 and is the first year in the count because they started counting on Elul immediately after the destruction. 1324:

contributions to this article, other than their drive-by era change. If consensus can be overturned months later and archived debate reopened, what good is a consensus (or discussion at all)?

391:

Luke 19:44 And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

1669: 3075:

ch. 10 he writes "this year which is the 1107 year after the destruction, which is the 1487th year according to the reckoning of legal documents, which is 4936th year after the creation" (

3007:

Appreciate the quick response. I regret that I don't have the opportunity now to spend more time on the topic as appropriate. In the meanwhile I'll note a source for future consideration:

1555:

Inside the article CE is used almost everywhere, which makes sense if the article title also has CE. If long-standing title used AD, the use of CE inside the article doesn't make sense.

505:

The article says "Christians believe" and even "most Christians believe" several things. I'm a Christian, and the details of the destruction of the Temple are rarely if ever discussed.

1900:

then do a RM properly and without a red flag "socks are the only ones against it" in the nom. That immediately primes any regular of WP:RM to oppose what may well be a valid move.

716:. Ok, the idea of the word 'occupy' has altered somehow, but isn't it a bit misleading in this context, or is it a serious attempt at stating that the defenders of Jerusalem where 385:

Matthew 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

199:

The 1.1 million casualty figure is indeed hardly creditable, and unreferenced; I've removed it. Figures for casualties and strength of forces need citation to reliable sources.

3091:, writes that the present year anno mundi 5778 (2018 CE) is 2439 years since the destruction of the First Temple and 1949 years since the destruction of the Second Temple ( 2801:

The next step would be finding recognized experts on this topic. Can you or anyone suggest possible sources. I will scout around on the internet and see if anyone pops up.

651:

In what could be considered a stroke of luck for the Romans the Judean undermining operation was so successful the north wall of AF collapsed, exposing the makeshift wall.

2817:

inconsistently stated as Aug. 70 (664) and 8 Sept. (4, 1009)." I'm not sure I understand it, but it appears that the date is uncertain, which is not really a surprisel

1218:

It appears the Temple fell and Lower City was sacked on August 30, while the upper city fell on September 8. I've added some date references and clarified somewhat.

461:

This article doesn't discuss the aftermath of the siege, and the resulting dispersal of the Jewish people to other countries. A section about this should be added.

2432:

won't appropriate policy on the article name be covered by Naming Conventions and Disambiguation and not MOS:Era which refers to writing style within the article?

2983:, Maimonides says that the counting of the years of destruction began two months after the destruction and the destruction was in the year of Shemita but all the 1734: 432:

Kirkengaard, I don't see any obvious pointing to the scripture you mentioned having any symbolic signifigance. I would have gone with Matthew 24:15-22 which says

2714:

Looking for sources I found this which raises other issues perhaps not addressed in the article. The subject line above is the title of a chapter in an OUP book.

2255:

Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change.

2241: 152:

The strength of the Jewish army: 13,000 men... Jewish Casualties: 60,000 - 1.1M?.. .. Is this possible? Am I missing something? Are you including the civilians?

2075:

The proper thing to do, IMO, is to return the article to BC/AD, remove eras from instances where there's no risk of confusion, let it sit for a while, and then

904: 388:

Luke 21:6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

1051:

one. I would suggest that editors reflect more carefully over whether they are really partaking of this project for sharing knowledge and verifiable content.--

3220:

necessitated a reshaping of Judaean culture to ensure its survival, which resulted in the emergence of Rabbinic Judaism.' that would be greatly appreciated.

2253:

Huldra's proposal, as in line with practice on articles related to Jewish history. I think that WP:ERA had precisely this kind of case in mind when it said:

2850:

am inclined to edit the article noting a dating uncertainty and stating it is probable that the final destruction of the Temple occurred in August 70 CE.

2237: 1316:

Handbook of Style (which is certainly not binding upon Knowledge, however, neither is it irrelevant to the "reasons specific to its content" tenet of

3369:, even when there is specifically an entire separate article for this purpose. The dates you are covering do not even fall within the context of the 1570:

Dates were changed to CE a few months ago. Because there was "no consensus" at the time, the dates in the article need to be changed back to AD.–

402:

Thank you for removing this from the article. It looks like the user doen't conform to Knowledge standards and has caused borderline vandelism.

1244:, "Use either the BC–AD or the BCE–CE notation consistently within the same article". Within the article CE is used everywhere except in link to 3087:

night how many years it's been since the destruction of the First and Second Temples. In that context, Rabbi Avraham Ḥamami, a student of Rabbi

598:) 11:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC) I would also agree that a uniquely religious Jewish perspective (non-Christian) would be welcome in the article. 74:

Surely some mention is warranted especially given rising discussion of the impact on the rise of Pauline Christianity over the Jerusalem form.

1296:), and it's incongruous to have the title mismatching. I'll reiterate, from the discussion in the archive, it is not an arbitrary change, per 1052: 308: 2361:. Per ERA and consistency with the article, Jewish subjects in general, and date format conventions in sources relating to Jewish history. 2021:, if you agree, you may want to take In ictu oculi's advice to do a "Voluntary close, pause, rethink, relist properly in a week's time." 1718:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a

2511:– as proposed, or alternatively, Siege of Jerusalem (70), per my rationale earlier in this discussion, and elsewhere on this talk page. 1530: 1473: 693: 472: 442: 3448:

August 5 in 70 CE. Josephus gives the date of 10 Loos for the destruction, in a lunar calendar almost identical to the Hebrew calendar.

712:

I find it pretty strange that the second sentence of the article (per April 7th 2014 CE) in the end states that the Jerusalem has been

219:

I see the 1.1 million figure is attributed to Josephus. This still seems improbable, but I've put the figure back with its attribution.

3467: 960:

We don't necessarily need an RfC if we have consensus through discussion and based in policy. As I mentioned above, there has been an

566: 512: 3164: 1673: 2005:

discussion. However, it is incongruous to have the title and content mismatch. Perhaps there would be less drama with a change to

3060: 2413:

Per WarKosign, David Bena, Debresser, and In ictu oculi. One should asvoid Christocentric bias in dealing with Jewish topics esp.

2046: 1942: 1778: 1691: 1562: 1520: 1346: 1255: 47: 17: 3063:"the present date, 1108 years after the destruction of the Temple, 4937 years after the creation of the world." Likewise, in 1313: 908: 3318: 441:

I'd be very interested in seeing some of those Telmudic prophecies on the issue. I've never heard of that before myself. --

3102:, second edition, Jerusalem, 2018, p. 94); in footnote 218 he elaborates with sources, including the sources quoted above. 2213: 2147: 648:

in the vicinity, John I believe, also began construction on a makeshift wall should the Roman mining operations succeed.

1289:

misnamed and doesn't match the talk page. The article has been stable using using BCE/CE for more than a year (with even

1165: 299: 3076: 2877: 1786: 1245: 745:

I thought it was common practise to use CE (common era) on Knowledge, and not AD? Should not this article be moved to

3370: 1761:– for all the reasons given on the talk page, and in the archive. Multiple socks seem to be the only ones against it 1399:

Funny, I found the opposite consensus. Also, I have absolutely no idea as to what User:WarKosign is up to: he argues

1093: 2667:"I have been a believer for 40 years" In what specifically? And I am not certain whether Jesus' relationship to the 1583:(and has been actively maintained that way despite many sockpuppets and drive-by edits trying to change the style). 3198: 1758: 1754: 1077: 984: 980: 38: 93:

I'm not sure if this counts as a duplicate or if the articles can exist separately, but I notice we have also had

2561: 2257:

On a sidenote, P Aculeius is wrong about AD preceding the year, as per that same WP:ERA which says specifically:

1709: 365: 272: 988: 746: 153: 3016: 2954: 2942: 2910: 1424: 1378: 1056: 115: 94: 312: 2987:

disagree with him and say that the destruction was in the year after Shemita as it is written in the Gemara (

697: 491: 3471: 3194: 2640: 2529: 2437: 2401: 2199: 2169: 2006: 1998: 1905: 1743: 1534: 1477: 1156: 1085: 961: 772: 671: 516: 476: 446: 186: 170: 2876:

was always 12 months. So Tisha B'Av was on July 8 on the Julian calendar, which corresponds to the 10th of

486:

Because if discussed we will find out that the dispersed are so called negros in the Atlantic Slave Trade.

421: 135: 3131: 1994: 1782: 1646:

is probably the next step and may take less time. All the sockpuppets could be back before an RfC closes.

1293: 844: 570: 283:

either civilians are being counted as combatants, or ignored as casulties. 11:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

3366: 857:

Indeed, the move by Nyttend was in violation of this consensus, achieved on 2014 and having no objection.

3378: 3256: 2823: 2722: 2620: 2571: 2545: 2173: 2010: 1719: 1140:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

866: 813: 784: 667: 487: 392: 182: 3127: 2636: 1084:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 307:

While we're at it, how many men per legion was Titus sporting in his 4 legions that he had 75,000 men?

3504: 3225: 2700: 2658: 2516: 2456: 2287: 2185: 2177: 2112: 2089: 2026: 2014: 1967: 1923: 1860: 1665: 1651: 1588: 1545: 1488: 1435: 1389: 1329: 1223: 1118: 1010: 970: 917: 689: 562: 508: 361: 287: 268: 241:

Josephus's figures are no longer believed. I've cited a modern source that explicitly disputes them.

3529: 3508: 3475: 3412: 3382: 3348: 3334: 3307: 3244: 3229: 3135: 3038: 3020: 3000: 2975: 2958: 2931: 2914: 2889: 2859: 2842: 2826: 2810: 2795: 2780: 2764: 2745: 2725: 2704: 2684: 2662: 2644: 2623: 2597: 2551: 2520: 2503: 2484: 2460: 2441: 2422: 2405: 2387: 2370: 2353: 2324: 2291: 2270: 2245: 2218: 2189: 2152: 2116: 2093: 2049: 2030: 1971: 1945: 1927: 1909: 1885: 1864: 1842: 1812: 1790: 1770: 1747: 1694: 1684:

Very good point. Another good reason to go with CE - this is an encyclopedia, not a religious text.

1677: 1655: 1629: 1592: 1574: 1565: 1549: 1523: 1505: 1492: 1465: 1439: 1412: 1393: 1366: 1349: 1333: 1258: 1227: 1213: 1189: 1170: 1060: 1037: 1014: 1000: 974: 951: 921: 890: 872: 848: 819: 790: 758: 735: 701: 675: 623: 607: 599: 591: 574: 538: 520: 495: 480: 465: 450: 425: 406: 369: 347: 336: 316: 276: 255: 228: 208: 190: 173: 156: 139: 83: 3026: 3012: 2980: 2963: 2950: 2938: 2919: 2906: 2477: 2418: 2349: 2266: 2040: 1936: 1807: 1685: 1556: 1514: 1420: 1374: 1340: 1249: 1033: 839:

did not give a rationale, but it was discussed here on the talk page. The reason seems fine to me.

603: 595: 530: 2495: 1935:- the article content already uses CE everywhere, so for consistency the title should match that. 3408: 2680: 2650: 2585: 2433: 2397: 1901: 1739: 1456:

is used trying to get a more, well, neutral name. What is so difficult to understand about that?

1207: 534: 344: 250: 166: 163: 110: 79: 3515:"Up until this parading, these items had only ever been seen by the High Priest of the Temple. " 3160:. Translated by William Whiston. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications. p. xi (Foreword). 1248:, so it seems to me the article name should also use CE. Does anyone have a reason to object ? 1181: 1047:

to reflect personal POV, especially people who wrongly believe that their own preference is the

1141: 3525: 3314: 3279: 3271: 3267: 3161: 2791: 2760: 2695:

Some of the reverted edits were truly vandalism, i.e. they broke off templates and/or images.

2499: 2366: 2208: 2142: 2001:

established? Should they both be undone? I don't know the answer, but that's not the topic of

1287:

orphaned, so the previous discussion is no longer obvious (hopefully this was not intentional)

1274: 886: 840: 619: 1180:

Why the final date is indicated as 3rd of August in the infobox rather than September 25th ?

979:

Ok, now all AD has been changed to CE in the article text....but the article itself is named

3374: 3344: 3330: 3303: 3295: 3291: 3240: 3034: 2996: 2971: 2927: 2922:, This is because the last two months of 3830 are considered the first year of destruction. 2885: 2855: 2838: 2818: 2806: 2776: 2741: 2717: 2615: 2593: 2537: 2036: 1838: 1766: 1625: 1461: 1408: 1362: 1309: 1269: 996: 947: 858: 832: 805: 776: 754: 529:

Yes, we do believe that, because in the Gospels He DOES Prophesy the Temple's Destruction.--

417: 295: 224: 204: 131: 98: 2332:. Historically, it seems far more accurate to record dates by using CE = "according to our 1148: 382:

Jesus made the prophecy himself to his disciples. The prophecy was fulfilled not "alleged"

3500: 3481:

Analysis and synthesis of the works of ancient historians is prohibited by website policy

3221: 3119: 3094: 2696: 2654: 2533: 2512: 2452: 2383: 2283: 2181: 2108: 2085: 2022: 1978: 1963: 1919: 1856: 1833:. However, I frankly see no argument for keeping the AD title on a mainly Jewish subject. 1647: 1584: 1541: 1484: 1431: 1385: 1325: 1305: 1219: 1185: 1006: 966: 913: 722: 3029:, He says what you say so the allegations I make against you are also true against him. 2180:, the name styles used on some other articles of the Jewish–Roman War, would be better. 3275: 2752: 2414: 2345: 2312: 2262: 2100: 2043: 1939: 1825:, as I was asked to do that (see above.) I readily admit I have little experience with 1802: 1688: 1559: 1517: 1354: 1343: 1278: 1252: 1029: 731: 462: 403: 121: 1147:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

907:, are generally, whether by secular or religious academic authors, made following the 3404: 3122:, which supposedly was based on a copy of Josephus' work that contained many errors. 3080: 3068: 2902: 2676: 2320: 2233: 1830: 1617: 1301: 1199: 900: 878: 333: 242: 75: 3521: 3482: 2787: 2756: 2668: 2611: 2362: 2203: 2163: 2137: 2080:

consensus process has been bypassed, and then a change is demanded on the basis of

1882: 1826: 1822: 1643: 1571: 1502: 1282: 882: 828: 720:

of their own holy city, addressing the Roman authority in much the same way as the

615: 162:

The casualties included civilians as it was customary at the time (unfortunately).

3430: 1094:

https://web.archive.org/web/20050601073725/http://askelm.com:80/temple/t980504.htm

3520:

Temple, and during construction, relocation with the previous Tabernacle etc...)

3397: 3098: 3084: 2311:

here then I'm not sure where you're "supposed" to use it. Change title to CE for

2136:

per the findings of P Aculeius, which make the move directly contrary to WP:ERA.

3489: 3362: 3340: 3326: 3299: 3236: 3088: 3030: 2992: 2967: 2923: 2881: 2869: 2851: 2834: 2802: 2772: 2737: 2605: 2589: 2337: 2018: 1849: 1834: 1762: 1637: 1621: 1457: 1445: 1404: 1358: 1290: 992: 943: 766: 750: 291: 220: 200: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3008: 1662:

them of their Savior. AD 70 reminds us of the Savior and so must be retained.

3493: 2898: 2894: 2570:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a

2379: 2333: 1453: 2988: 2865: 1285:, for being confused, since, as a result of the botching, the archive is now 3499:

If there are any doubts, Knowledge sides with modern mainstream historians.

3287: 2672: 2104: 1005:

I would think so, but it's probably best to wait a bit for further comment.

727: 1896:

Suggest : Voluntary close, pause, rethink, relist properly in a week's time

471:

I agree. I was looking for that very topic when I came to this article. --

3153: 3115: 2984: 2316: 637:

It seems the battle for Antonia Fortress (AF) was the key to the siege.

3283: 1195:

Furthermore, the introduction says the city was destroyed on August 30.

2847:

More confusion. The Knowledge article on the <<Second Temple: -->

2017:, the name styles used on some other articles of the Jewish–Roman War. 1984: 1317: 1297: 1241: 1097: 1135:

An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

581:

Eliminate the terms "Preterism" and "Premillenialism" from discussion?

109:

Thanks for pointing that out. I'd gone to the disambiguation page for

2873: 1997:

drive-by era change almost 10 months ago to another article. When is

327:

The city was completely under Roman control by the 7th of September.

1384:

Reverting blocked sock. So much for my AGF of them as a neophyte.

2671:

is specified, outside from his supposed conversations with the

1266:

Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE)/Archive 1#Title of this article

3182: 2340:, since the later implies that Jesus was the undisputed lord ( 771:

I perfectly agree with you, though we don't even need CE here

663:

and the mopping up of the city's southern districts remained.

25: 1956:

an anonymous IP editor changed the infobox to read CE in 2017

1879:

This RM needs to be closed and re-posted in a neutral manner.

1620:

on this, but such a RfC seems overdue. Does anyone disagree?

2035:

January 2017. Nobody reverted it for over 14 months, so per

1801:- this is directly counter to policy if I recall correctly. 1103:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

3071:

in the Yale Judaica Series Vol. XI p. 46.) And likewise in

2868:) says that the temple was burned on Sunday. Other Talmud ( 1088:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

3392:

Editors, I have removed the following original research:

2897:

writes that the Second Temple's destruction was the year

1529:

Apologies, but how does the content match the theory? --

2084:, which is the opposite of how it's supposed to work. 1955: 1357:, huh?? Why did you just move this from CE to AD then? 1081: 378:

Biblical source for prophecy, moved from article space.

3496:

university. He is surely competent for the claim made.

3321:, discovered in the Christian Quarter, Jerusalem, and 2560:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

831:: you moved the article back to AD and remarked that 2945:) 06:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC) * The last months of 38 1722:. No further edits should be made to this section. 1312:, BCE/CE is the norm and is also proscribed by the 3065:Laws Concerning the Sanctification of the New Moon 2574:. No further edits should be made to this section. 2344:) of all, which, historically speaking, is untrue. 1300:"there are reasons specific to its content", as a 2494:- per appropriate policy and the above comments. 1579:Nope, it's been that way since the beginning of 416:(^^^ Nobody signed this stuff -- whose comment? 938:...how come? Do we need a RfC for this? Can we 2786:- I agree, we could do with better sourcing - 2710:The Sack of the Temple in Josephus and Tacitus 1403:the CE title...and moves it to the AD title?! 2054:Lot of irrelevant arguments here. WP:SILENT 1448:is obviously favouring one view...namely the 1264:The relevant discussion is in the archive at 8: 3009:https://www.jdn.co.il/beit_hamidrash/725825/ 2610:That's just a discussion, not a source. See 2476:was created exactly for cases like this. — 3179:Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2022 2872:) says that in those years the year after 2303:For a subject matter that is historically 1708:The following is a closed discussion of a 1663: 1265: 1076:I have just modified one external link on 118:link to one another though. Thanks again. 2901:3829 (69 CE). In his introduction to the 899:reasons specific to its content. It is a 2307:divisive, if you're not supposed to use 634:Can't claim to be an eyewitness, but... 3422: 3145: 3093:Pamphlet concerning the Laws of Fasts, 3048: 1777:This is a contested technical request ( 714:"occupied by Jewish forces since 66 AD" 2751:According to the Knowledge article on 1954:Actually, the article used "AD" until 942:move this article to a neutral title? 905:WP:WikiProject Judaism/Manual of Style 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1616:AFAIK, there has never been a proper 1115:to let others know (documentation at 436:Which seems like a direct referrence. 360:This needs to be explored further. -- 7: 2259:AD may appear before or after a year 1727:The result of the move request was: 1670:2C0F:F8F0:BA48:0:21B5:3788:F12C:96EB 1098:http://askelm.com/temple/t980504.htm 3400:, 4 August 70 CE or 30 August 70 CE 2755:he has a Ph.D. in Church History - 934:Sigh, and we are back to the title 1829:, my first thought was to start a 1731:per the lengthy discussion below. 24: 3255:At presently, we have red-linked 2731:Date of the Burning of the Temple 2614:. We go by what the sources say. 1080:. Please take a moment to review 3186: 2528:- as proposed, or alternatively 1126: 841:Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) 796: 29: 1304:era Judaic history topic, like 726:of Wall Street, for instant? -- 18:Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE) 1314:Society of Biblical Literature 909:Society of Biblical Literature 891:12:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC) 873:11:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC) 849:09:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC) 229:06:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC) 209:05:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC) 1: 2860:01:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC) 2843:21:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC) 2827:12:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC) 2811:23:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC) 2796:21:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC) 2781:20:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC) 2765:05:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC) 2746:04:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC) 2726:12:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC) 2058:apply to talk page comments, 1214:03:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC) 1190:22:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC) 1171:08:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC) 1061:12:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC) 791:13:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC) 575:14:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC) 539:05:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC) 337:16:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 70:Christian Church of Jerusalem 3509:18:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC) 3476:16:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC) 3083:synagogues they announce on 1701:Requested move 23 March 2018 1537:) 10:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC) 1480:) 10:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC) 1427:) 23:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC) 1381:) 22:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC) 1228:19:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC) 1038:17:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC) 1015:00:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC) 1001:20:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC) 975:06:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC) 952:20:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC) 922:19:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC) 820:20:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC) 496:17:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC) 466:07:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC) 407:01:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC) 256:19:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC) 105:Re: Destruction of Jerusalem 3413:22:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC) 3213:to reactivate your request. 3201:has been answered. Set the 3136:02:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC) 2937:Of course, that's obvious. 1246:Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC) 759:22:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC) 624:02:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC) 608:11:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC) 549:Yes Christians do believe** 481:19:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC) 451:19:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC) 370:19:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC) 277:19:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC) 3545: 3199:Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE) 2645:00:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC) 2552:14:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC) 2521:18:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC) 2504:03:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC) 2485:02:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC) 2461:20:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC) 2442:11:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC) 2423:10:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC) 2406:08:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC) 2388:04:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC) 2371:20:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC) 2354:10:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC) 2325:10:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC) 2292:00:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC) 2271:22:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC) 2246:18:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC) 2219:18:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC) 2190:18:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC) 2153:17:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC) 2117:20:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC) 2094:20:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC) 2050:19:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC) 2031:18:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC) 1972:13:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC) 1946:12:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC) 1928:11:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC) 1910:08:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC) 1886:02:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC) 1865:00:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC) 1843:23:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC) 1813:23:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC) 1791:23:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC) 1771:20:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC) 1759:Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE) 1755:Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70 AD) 1748:23:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC) 1695:21:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC) 1678:17:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC) 1656:18:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC) 1630:23:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC) 1593:22:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC) 1575:22:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC) 1566:11:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC) 1550:22:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC) 1524:06:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC) 1506:02:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC) 1493:22:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC) 1466:23:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC) 1440:22:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC) 1413:22:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC) 1394:22:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC) 1367:20:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC) 1350:18:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC) 1334:18:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC) 1259:12:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC) 1078:Siege of Jerusalem (AD 70) 1073:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 989:Siege of Jerusalem (CE 70) 985:Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE) 981:Siege of Jerusalem (AD 70) 936:Siege of Jerusalem (AD 70) 747:Siege of Jerusalem (CE 70) 426:21:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC) 140:20:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC) 3388:Removed original research 3298:fame?) Comments, please, 3251:Which Roman Tenth Legion? 3073:Laws of Shemita and Yovel 3039:15:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC) 3021:21:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC) 3001:09:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC) 2976:07:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC) 2959:06:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC) 2932:06:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC) 2915:05:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC) 2890:17:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC) 2685:19:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC) 983:! Should it not be named 736:20:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC) 676:18:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC) 521:04:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 317:22:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC) 191:18:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC) 124:11:43, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC) 101:05:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC) 3530:16:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC) 3383:15:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC) 3349:22:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC) 3335:22:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC) 3308:23:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC) 3245:22:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC) 3230:22:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC) 2705:12:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 2663:17:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC) 2624:11:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC) 2598:11:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC) 2567:Please do not modify it. 2336:," than by writing AD = 2172:, to be consistent with 2009:, to be consistent with 1715:Please do not modify it. 1540:Reverting blocked sock. 1483:Reverting blocked sock. 1430:Reverting blocked sock. 702:15:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 348:01:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC) 174:06:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC) 157:05:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC) 116:Destruction of Jerusalem 95:Destruction of Jerusalem 89:Destruction of Jerusalem 84:00:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC) 3357:Scope creep in the lead 3158:Josephus Complete Works 3011:(Hebrew, Rabbi Mazuz). 2530:Siege of Jerusalem (70) 2200:Siege of Jerusalem (70) 2170:Siege of Jerusalem (70) 2007:Siege of Jerusalem (70) 1821:Comment, I requested a 1069:External links modified 773:Siege of Jerusalem (70) 708:Curious second sentence 3371:First Jewish–Roman War 2870:Tractate Sanhedrin 12a 2039:CE has the consensus. 3056:The Book of Knowledge 2174:Jerusalem riots of 66 2011:Jerusalem riots of 66 1294:reverting era changes 741:Title of this article 114:it. I'll have it and 97:for quite some time. 42:of past discussions. 3263:Roman Tenth Legion? 2178:Alexandria riot (66) 2015:Alexandria riot (66) 1735:closed by page mover 501:Christians believe?? 3259:; the question is: 2989:Tractate Taanit 29a 2866:Tractate Taanit 29a 1236:Era in article name 1107:parameter below to 903:era topic, and per 3257:Roman Tenth Legion 3077:Tauger translation 2630:Siege of Jerusalem 1159:InternetArchiveBot 895:Per WP:ERA, there 393:User:64.193.70.148 111:Siege of Jerusalem 3431:"Hebrew Calendar" 3367:Jewish–Roman wars 3325:), fixed. Thanks 3315:Legio X Fretensis 3280:Legio X Fretensis 3272:Legio X Fretensis 3268:Legio X Equestris 3217: 3216: 2888:, 19 Sivan 5780. 2635:not destroy it. 2472:. The euphemism 1793: 1783:Anthony Appleyard 1738: 1680: 1668:comment added by 1552: 1495: 1442: 1396: 1211: 692:comment added by 565:comment added by 523: 511:comment added by 457:Dispersal of Jews 322:7th of September? 304: 290:comment added by 267:against Judea. -- 254: 246: 67: 66: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3536: 3449: 3445: 3439: 3438: 3427: 3319:this inscription 3292:Legio VI Ferrata 3208: 3204: 3190: 3189: 3183: 3171: 3170: 3150: 3103: 3095:Bein ha-Metzarim 3053: 2821: 2720: 2618: 2609: 2596:, 27 Iyar 5779. 2569: 2482: 2216: 2211: 2206: 2167: 2150: 2145: 2140: 1999:WP:EDITCONSENSUS 1983:And I cited the 1982: 1853: 1805: 1776: 1732: 1717: 1641: 1539: 1482: 1429: 1383: 1310:Dead Sea Scrolls 1270:User:Runwayrollr 1212: 1205: 1202: 1176:Destruction date 1169: 1160: 1133: 1130: 1129: 1122: 962:WP:EDITCONSENSUS 804: 800: 799: 770: 704: 630:Antonia Fortress 577: 506: 303: 284: 248: 244: 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3544: 3543: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3517: 3488:Schwartz has a 3459: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3446: 3442: 3429: 3428: 3424: 3390: 3359: 3296:Solomon's Pools 3253: 3206: 3202: 3187: 3181: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3167: 3152: 3151: 3147: 3120:William Whiston 3113: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3081:Jewish Yemenite 3079:). Notably, in 3054: 3050: 3031:yoisef yitzchok 2993:yoisef yitzchok 2968:yoisef yitzchok 2924:yoisef yitzchok 2882:yoisef yitzchok 2819: 2733: 2718: 2712: 2693: 2632: 2616: 2603: 2590:yoisef yitzchok 2583: 2578: 2565: 2534:User:Mojoworker 2478: 2214: 2209: 2204: 2161: 2148: 2143: 2138: 1976: 1847: 1803: 1713: 1703: 1635: 1306:Siege of Masada 1238: 1200: 1196: 1178: 1163: 1158: 1131: 1127: 1116: 1086:this simple FaQ 1071: 1053:135.196.181.173 797: 795: 764: 743: 710: 687: 683: 632: 583: 560: 503: 459: 380: 362:IronMaidenRocks 324: 285: 269:IronMaidenRocks 150: 107: 91: 72: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3542: 3540: 3516: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3497: 3486: 3458: 3457:Seth Schwartz? 3455: 3451: 3450: 3440: 3421: 3420: 3416: 3402: 3401: 3389: 3386: 3358: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3286:after them in 3278:. Could it be 3276:Legio X Gemina 3252: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3215: 3214: 3191: 3180: 3177: 3173: 3172: 3165: 3144: 3143: 3139: 3112: 3111:Flavius Joseph 3109: 3105: 3104: 3047: 3046: 3042: 3037:, 10 Av 5780. 3027:Contributor613 3024: 3023: 3013:Contributor613 3005: 3004: 3003: 2981:Contributor613 2978: 2964:Contributor613 2951:Contributor613 2939:Contributor613 2920:Contributor613 2907:Contributor613 2830: 2829: 2799: 2798: 2768: 2767: 2753:Matthew Bunson 2732: 2729: 2711: 2708: 2692: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2665: 2631: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2582: 2579: 2577: 2576: 2562:requested move 2556: 2555: 2554: 2523: 2506: 2488: 2487: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2445: 2444: 2426: 2425: 2408: 2390: 2373: 2356: 2327: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2274: 2273: 2248: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2156: 2155: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2101:Flavian Palace 2073: 2069: 1949: 1948: 1930: 1912: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1816: 1815: 1795: 1794: 1753: 1751: 1725: 1724: 1710:requested move 1704: 1702: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1659: 1658: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1421:CouncilConnect 1375:CouncilConnect 1355:User:WarKosign 1279:User:WarKosign 1237: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1177: 1174: 1153: 1152: 1145: 1101: 1100: 1092:Added archive 1070: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1041: 1040: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 955: 954: 931: 930: 929: 928: 927: 926: 925: 924: 852: 851: 825: 824: 823: 822: 742: 739: 709: 706: 682: 679: 631: 628: 627: 626: 582: 579: 553: 552: 551: 550: 544: 543: 542: 541: 502: 499: 484: 483: 458: 455: 454: 453: 438: 437: 410: 409: 379: 376: 375: 374: 373: 372: 351: 350: 323: 320: 309:98.225.182.131 280: 279: 263: 262: 261: 260: 259: 258: 234: 233: 232: 231: 214: 213: 212: 211: 194: 193: 177: 176: 154:Unissakävelijä 149: 146: 144: 106: 103: 90: 87: 71: 68: 65: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3541: 3532: 3531: 3527: 3523: 3514: 3510: 3506: 3502: 3498: 3495: 3491: 3487: 3484: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3473: 3469: 3463: 3456: 3444: 3441: 3436: 3432: 3426: 3423: 3419: 3415: 3414: 3410: 3406: 3399: 3395: 3394: 3393: 3387: 3385: 3384: 3380: 3376: 3372: 3368: 3364: 3356: 3350: 3346: 3342: 3339:Ok, thanks, 3338: 3337: 3336: 3332: 3328: 3324: 3320: 3316: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3305: 3301: 3297: 3293: 3289: 3285: 3281: 3277: 3273: 3269: 3264: 3262: 3258: 3250: 3246: 3242: 3238: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3227: 3223: 3212: 3209:parameter to 3200: 3196: 3192: 3185: 3184: 3178: 3168: 3166:0-8254-2951-X 3163: 3159: 3155: 3149: 3146: 3142: 3138: 3137: 3133: 3129: 3123: 3121: 3117: 3110: 3101: 3100: 3096: 3090: 3086: 3082: 3078: 3074: 3070: 3069:Solomon Gandz 3066: 3062: 3057: 3052: 3049: 3045: 3041: 3040: 3036: 3032: 3028: 3022: 3018: 3014: 3010: 3006: 3002: 2999:, 5 Av 5780. 2998: 2994: 2990: 2986: 2982: 2979: 2977: 2974:, 5 Av 5780. 2973: 2969: 2965: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2956: 2952: 2948: 2944: 2940: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2930:, 5 Av 5780. 2929: 2925: 2921: 2917: 2916: 2912: 2908: 2904: 2903:Mishneh Torah 2900: 2896: 2892: 2891: 2887: 2883: 2879: 2875: 2871: 2867: 2862: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2845: 2844: 2840: 2836: 2828: 2825: 2822: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2808: 2804: 2797: 2793: 2789: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2778: 2774: 2766: 2762: 2758: 2754: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2743: 2739: 2730: 2728: 2727: 2724: 2721: 2716: 2709: 2707: 2706: 2702: 2698: 2691:3RR exemption 2690: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2652: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2629: 2625: 2622: 2619: 2613: 2607: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2580: 2575: 2573: 2568: 2563: 2558: 2557: 2553: 2549: 2548: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2535: 2531: 2527: 2524: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2507: 2505: 2501: 2497: 2493: 2490: 2489: 2486: 2483: 2481: 2475: 2471: 2468: 2467: 2462: 2458: 2454: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2443: 2439: 2435: 2434:GraemeLeggett 2431: 2428: 2427: 2424: 2420: 2416: 2412: 2409: 2407: 2403: 2399: 2398:In ictu oculi 2394: 2391: 2389: 2385: 2381: 2377: 2374: 2372: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2357: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2328: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2310: 2306: 2302: 2299: 2298: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2272: 2268: 2264: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2249: 2247: 2243: 2239: 2235: 2231: 2228: 2227: 2220: 2217: 2212: 2207: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2187: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2168:Do you think 2165: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2154: 2151: 2146: 2141: 2135: 2132: 2131: 2118: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2091: 2087: 2083: 2078: 2074: 2070: 2066: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2048: 2045: 2042: 2038: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2028: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1991: 1986: 1980: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1961: 1957: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1947: 1944: 1941: 1938: 1934: 1931: 1929: 1925: 1921: 1916: 1913: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1902:In ictu oculi 1898: 1897: 1893: 1892: 1887: 1884: 1880: 1875: 1872: 1871: 1866: 1862: 1858: 1851: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1840: 1836: 1832: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1814: 1811: 1810: 1806: 1800: 1799:Speedy oppose 1797: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1756: 1750: 1749: 1745: 1741: 1740:GeoffreyT2000 1736: 1730: 1723: 1721: 1716: 1711: 1706: 1705: 1700: 1696: 1693: 1690: 1687: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1679: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1657: 1653: 1649: 1645: 1639: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1594: 1590: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1573: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1564: 1561: 1558: 1554: 1553: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1538: 1536: 1532: 1531:82.27.217.102 1527: 1526: 1525: 1522: 1519: 1516: 1511: 1507: 1504: 1499: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1481: 1479: 1475: 1474:82.27.217.102 1469: 1468: 1467: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1444: 1443: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1428: 1426: 1422: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1397: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1382: 1380: 1376: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1348: 1345: 1342: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1302:Second Temple 1299: 1295: 1292: 1288: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1257: 1254: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1235: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1209: 1204: 1203: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1175: 1173: 1172: 1167: 1162: 1161: 1150: 1146: 1143: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1124: 1120: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1074: 1068: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1039: 1035: 1031: 1026: 1025: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1003: 1002: 998: 994: 990: 986: 982: 978: 977: 976: 972: 968: 963: 959: 958: 957: 956: 953: 949: 945: 941: 937: 933: 932: 923: 919: 915: 910: 906: 902: 901:Second Temple 898: 894: 893: 892: 888: 884: 880: 876: 875: 874: 870: 869: 864: 863: 862: 856: 855: 854: 853: 850: 846: 842: 838: 837: 836: 830: 827: 826: 821: 817: 816: 811: 810: 809: 803: 794: 793: 792: 788: 787: 782: 781: 780: 774: 768: 763: 762: 761: 760: 756: 752: 748: 740: 738: 737: 733: 729: 725: 724: 719: 715: 707: 705: 703: 699: 695: 694:96.224.68.183 691: 680: 678: 677: 673: 669: 668:Kenneth Kloby 664: 660: 656: 652: 649: 645: 641: 638: 635: 629: 625: 621: 617: 612: 611: 610: 609: 605: 601: 597: 593: 587: 580: 578: 576: 572: 568: 564: 557: 548: 547: 546: 545: 540: 536: 532: 528: 527: 526: 525: 524: 522: 518: 514: 510: 500: 498: 497: 493: 489: 488:David Libbett 482: 478: 474: 473:67.172.13.176 470: 469: 468: 467: 464: 456: 452: 448: 444: 443:67.172.13.176 440: 439: 435: 431: 430: 429: 427: 423: 419: 414: 408: 405: 401: 400: 399: 395: 394: 389: 386: 383: 377: 371: 367: 363: 359: 358: 357: 356: 355: 349: 346: 345:Humus sapiens 341: 340: 339: 338: 335: 329: 328: 321: 319: 318: 314: 310: 305: 301: 297: 293: 289: 278: 274: 270: 265: 264: 257: 252: 247: 240: 239: 238: 237: 236: 235: 230: 226: 222: 218: 217: 216: 215: 210: 206: 202: 198: 197: 196: 195: 192: 188: 184: 183:Kenneth Kloby 179: 178: 175: 172: 168: 167:Humus sapiens 164: 161: 160: 159: 158: 155: 147: 145: 142: 141: 137: 133: 129: 125: 123: 119: 117: 112: 104: 102: 100: 96: 88: 86: 85: 81: 77: 69: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3518: 3468:46.19.85.107 3464: 3460: 3443: 3435:www.cgsf.org 3434: 3425: 3417: 3403: 3391: 3360: 3265: 3260: 3254: 3218: 3210: 3195:edit request 3157: 3148: 3140: 3128:BilledMammal 3124: 3114: 3092: 3072: 3064: 3055: 3051: 3043: 3025: 2946: 2918: 2893: 2864:The Talmud ( 2863: 2846: 2831: 2800: 2769: 2734: 2713: 2694: 2669:Law of Moses 2637:Ms.kimrose56 2633: 2584: 2581:End of siege 2566: 2559: 2546: 2539: 2538: 2525: 2508: 2491: 2479: 2473: 2469: 2429: 2410: 2392: 2375: 2358: 2341: 2329: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2279: 2258: 2254: 2250: 2229: 2195: 2133: 2081: 2076: 2064: 2059: 2055: 2002: 1989: 1959: 1932: 1914: 1895: 1894: 1878: 1873: 1808: 1798: 1752: 1728: 1726: 1714: 1707: 1664:— Preceding 1660: 1615: 1580: 1528: 1470: 1452:view. While 1449: 1417: 1400: 1371: 1321: 1286: 1283:User:Nyttend 1239: 1198: 1179: 1157: 1154: 1134: 1125: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1102: 1075: 1072: 1048: 939: 935: 896: 867: 860: 859: 834: 833: 814: 807: 806: 801: 785: 778: 777: 744: 721: 717: 713: 711: 684: 665: 661: 657: 653: 650: 646: 642: 639: 636: 633: 588: 584: 567:198.174.0.60 558: 554: 513:76.95.36.100 504: 485: 460: 433: 415: 411: 396: 390: 387: 384: 381: 352: 330: 326: 325: 306: 286:— Preceding 281: 151: 143: 130: 126: 120: 108: 92: 73: 60: 43: 37: 3490:named chair 3375:Iskandar323 3089:Yosef Qafih 2820:Doug Weller 2719:Doug Weller 2651:WP:NOTFORUM 2617:Doug Weller 2572:move review 2338:Anno Domini 2305:religiously 2210:Consermonor 2144:Consermonor 2082:consistency 2019:User:Huldra 1720:move review 1446:Anno Domini 1291:User:Drmies 1119:Sourcecheck 688:—Preceding 561:—Preceding 507:—Preceding 418:Kirkengaard 148:Casualties? 132:Kirkengaard 99:Adam Bishop 36:This is an 3501:tgeorgescu 3494:Ivy League 3418:References 3398:Tisha B'Av 3323:this paper 3313:Should be 3282:? We have 3222:ShyAndroid 3203:|answered= 3141:References 3099:Tisha B'Av 3085:Tisha B'Av 3044:References 2895:Maimonides 2697:Tgeorgescu 2655:Tgeorgescu 2513:Mojoworker 2453:P Aculeius 2334:Common Era 2315:purposes. 2284:P Aculeius 2238:יניב הורון 2198:a move to 2182:Mojoworker 2109:Mojoworker 2086:P Aculeius 2023:Mojoworker 1979:P Aculeius 1964:P Aculeius 1920:P Aculeius 1857:Mojoworker 1729:page moved 1648:Mojoworker 1585:Mojoworker 1542:Mojoworker 1485:Mojoworker 1454:Common Era 1432:Mojoworker 1386:Mojoworker 1326:Mojoworker 1275:WP:ARCHIVE 1220:Mojoworker 1166:Report bug 1007:Mojoworker 967:Mojoworker 914:Mojoworker 775:is enough. 681:Background 3288:Abu Ghosh 2673:Pharisees 2586:See there 2540:GreyShark 2480:AjaxSmack 2415:Nishidani 2346:Davidbena 2263:Debresser 2215:Opus meum 2149:Opus meum 2105:Chicago 7 2044:WarKosign 2037:WP:SILENT 1940:WarKosign 1779:permalink 1689:WarKosign 1581:last year 1560:WarKosign 1518:WarKosign 1450:Christian 1344:WarKosign 1253:WarKosign 1149:this tool 1142:this tool 1030:Observer6 861:GreyShark 835:GreyShark 808:GreyShark 779:GreyShark 723:occupyers 718:occupyers 600:John ISEM 592:John ISEM 463:Badagnani 404:ForestJay 122:LordAmeth 61:Archive 1 3405:Lightest 3266:We have 3156:(1981). 3154:Josephus 3116:Josephus 2985:Rishonim 2677:Dimadick 2411:Support. 1915:Comment: 1666:unsigned 1642:I think 1373:edits.-- 1201:howcheng 1155:Cheers.— 749:Cheers, 690:unsigned 563:unsigned 559:-Cappy 531:Splashen 509:unsigned 334:Pinnecco 300:contribs 288:unsigned 245:VVERTYVS 76:Wblakesx 3522:Drsruli 2788:Epinoia 2757:Epinoia 2526:Support 2509:Support 2496:RedUser 2492:Support 2470:Support 2430:Comment 2393:Support 2363:Icewhiz 2359:Support 2330:Support 2313:WP:NPOV 2301:Support 2251:Support 2230:Support 2205:Iazyges 2196:Support 2164:Iazyges 2139:Iazyges 1985:MOS:ERA 1933:Support 1874:Comment 1472:past.-- 1318:MOS:ERA 1298:MOS:ERA 1242:MOS:ERA 1105:checked 1082:my edit 1049:neutral 883:Nyttend 829:Nyttend 616:Lamorak 39:archive 3492:at an 3363:Tombah 3341:Huldra 3327:Tombah 3300:Huldra 3237:Tombah 3235:Done! 3097:, and 2874:Shmita 2852:Toroid 2835:Toroid 2803:Toroid 2773:Toroid 2738:Toroid 2606:Seyegd 2376:Oppose 2342:domini 2234:WP:ERA 2232:- per 2134:Oppose 2065:matter 1960:oppose 1883:Lionel 1850:Huldra 1835:Huldra 1831:WP:RfC 1763:Huldra 1638:Huldra 1622:Huldra 1618:WP:RfC 1572:Lionel 1503:Lionel 1458:Huldra 1405:Huldra 1359:Huldra 1281:, nor 1113:failed 993:Huldra 944:Huldra 940:please 879:WP:ERA 767:Huldra 751:Huldra 292:Wardog 221:MayerG 201:MayerG 3483:WP:OR 3317:(see 3290:. Or 3261:Which 3207:|ans= 3193:This 3061:reads 2878:Λώιος 2848:: --> 2612:WP:RS 2547:dibra 2380:Srnec 2202:. -- 2056:would 1990:title 1827:WP:RM 1823:WP:RM 1809:Slash 1644:WP:RM 1308:, or 1182:Pinea 987:, or 868:dibra 815:dibra 786:dibra 16:< 3526:talk 3505:talk 3472:talk 3409:talk 3379:talk 3345:talk 3331:talk 3304:talk 3294:(of 3284:this 3274:and 3241:talk 3226:talk 3162:ISBN 3132:talk 3035:talk 3017:talk 2997:talk 2972:talk 2955:talk 2943:talk 2928:talk 2911:talk 2886:talk 2856:talk 2839:talk 2824:talk 2807:talk 2792:talk 2777:talk 2761:talk 2742:talk 2723:talk 2701:talk 2681:talk 2659:talk 2641:talk 2621:talk 2594:talk 2532:per 2517:talk 2500:talk 2457:talk 2438:talk 2419:talk 2402:talk 2384:talk 2367:talk 2350:talk 2321:talk 2288:talk 2267:talk 2242:talk 2186:talk 2113:talk 2090:talk 2027:talk 2003:this 1995:this 1968:talk 1924:talk 1906:talk 1861:talk 1839:talk 1804:Red 1787:talk 1767:talk 1744:talk 1674:talk 1652:talk 1626:talk 1589:talk 1546:talk 1535:talk 1489:talk 1478:talk 1462:talk 1436:talk 1425:talk 1409:talk 1390:talk 1379:talk 1363:talk 1330:talk 1240:Per 1224:talk 1208:chat 1186:talk 1109:true 1057:talk 1034:talk 1011:talk 997:talk 971:talk 948:talk 918:talk 887:talk 877:See 845:talk 802:Done 755:talk 732:talk 728:Xact 698:talk 672:talk 620:talk 604:talk 596:talk 571:talk 535:talk 517:talk 492:talk 477:talk 447:talk 422:talk 366:talk 313:talk 296:talk 273:talk 225:talk 205:talk 187:talk 171:Talk 136:talk 80:talk 3507:) 3396:On 3205:or 3197:to 2991:). 2564:. 2317:DA1 2280:May 2236:.-- 2176:or 2013:or 1962:. 1781:). 1401:for 1322:any 1123:). 1111:or 1096:to 897:are 251:hm? 3528:) 3474:) 3433:. 3411:) 3381:) 3347:) 3333:) 3306:) 3270:, 3243:) 3228:) 3211:no 3134:) 3019:) 2957:) 2949:. 2947:29 2913:) 2899:AM 2880:. 2858:) 2841:) 2809:) 2794:) 2779:) 2763:) 2744:) 2703:) 2683:) 2675:. 2661:) 2643:) 2588:-- 2550:) 2519:) 2502:) 2474:CE 2459:) 2440:) 2421:) 2404:) 2386:) 2369:) 2352:) 2323:) 2309:CE 2290:) 2269:) 2261:. 2244:) 2194:I 2188:) 2115:) 2092:) 2077:if 2060:if 2029:) 1970:) 1926:) 1908:) 1881:– 1863:) 1841:) 1789:) 1769:) 1757:→ 1746:) 1712:. 1676:) 1654:) 1628:) 1591:) 1548:) 1491:) 1464:) 1438:) 1411:) 1392:) 1365:) 1332:) 1226:) 1188:) 1121:}} 1117:{{ 1059:) 1036:) 1013:) 999:) 991:? 973:) 950:) 920:) 889:) 871:) 847:) 818:) 789:) 757:) 734:) 700:) 674:) 666:-- 622:) 606:) 573:) 537:) 519:) 494:) 479:) 449:) 428:) 424:) 368:) 332:-- 315:) 302:) 298:• 275:) 227:) 207:) 189:) 181:-- 138:) 82:) 3524:( 3503:( 3485:. 3470:( 3437:. 3407:( 3377:( 3361:@ 3343:( 3329:( 3302:( 3239:( 3224:( 3169:. 3130:( 3033:- 3015:( 2995:- 2970:- 2953:( 2941:( 2926:- 2909:( 2884:- 2854:( 2837:( 2805:( 2790:( 2775:( 2759:( 2740:( 2699:( 2679:( 2657:( 2639:( 2608:: 2604:@ 2592:- 2544:( 2536:. 2515:( 2498:( 2455:( 2436:( 2417:( 2400:( 2382:( 2365:( 2348:( 2319:( 2286:( 2265:( 2240:( 2184:( 2166:: 2162:@ 2111:( 2088:( 2047:” 2041:“ 2025:( 1981:: 1977:@ 1966:( 1943:” 1937:“ 1922:( 1904:( 1859:( 1852:: 1848:@ 1837:( 1785:( 1765:( 1742:( 1737:) 1733:( 1692:” 1686:“ 1672:( 1650:( 1640:: 1636:@ 1624:( 1587:( 1563:” 1557:“ 1544:( 1533:( 1521:” 1515:“ 1487:( 1476:( 1460:( 1434:( 1423:( 1407:( 1388:( 1377:( 1361:( 1347:” 1341:“ 1328:( 1256:” 1250:“ 1222:( 1210:} 1206:{ 1197:— 1184:( 1168:) 1164:( 1151:. 1144:. 1132:Y 1055:( 1032:( 1009:( 995:( 969:( 946:( 916:( 885:( 865:( 843:( 812:( 783:( 769:: 765:@ 753:( 730:( 696:( 670:( 618:( 602:( 594:( 569:( 533:( 515:( 490:( 475:( 445:( 420:( 364:( 343:← 311:( 294:( 271:( 253:) 249:( 243:Q 223:( 203:( 185:( 169:← 165:← 134:( 78:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index