Talk:Masada

message: Bryan Derkson notes that "The 'credibility of Josephus' article suggests that the mass suicide story was merely embellished, rather than fabricated outright."
: Absolutely; I didn't mean to imply otherwise, though I see how I gave that impression. RK
: No problem. I'm reading the other article some more now, and hopefully I'll be able to include more details on the differences between myth and reality shortly. But until then, anyone who's really interested in this should be reading the external links anyway, so it's all good. :) --BD
: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/ancient-battle-divides-israel-as-masada-myth-unravels-1275878.html This is incorperated in this wikipedia page for several other languages, and is a credible source in my opinion. I do not feel comfortable editing this page as it seems sensitive =/. [December 13 2012]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.241.116 (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: mass suicide

message: Although the Masada is the common transcript of מצדה, I think Metzada is more proper transcrupt. "Metzada" dervied from the root "Me-Tz-aD" = fortress. Where "Masada" - Me Sa D corresponds to מסדה which dervied from the root מסד which means foundation. MathKnight 22:32, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: I've just recently seen documentaries on both the History and Discovery channels challenging the traditional views on Masada. According to them the suicide rate was much lower than 900. They cite the lack of large graves near Masada as evidence. Some historians believe the suicide didn't happen at all. Please get back to me with infoIndieJones 04:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New info 

message: This article uses both AD and CE for era references. In addition, the AD references are incorrectly used. Is there some compelling reason to use one over the other? It needs to be consistent.
:In regards to changing the eras to AD and BC, the atricle predominately used AD and BC over BCE and CE. Since the article needs to be consistent, I went ahead and changed them all to AD and BC only to have them all changed to BCE and CE. It really doens't matter either way, but I would just like to make it clear that there was a reason for the switch and it wasn't just an attempt to push AD and BC over CE and BCE. — D. Wo. 21:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In addition, this article directly relates to Jewish identity and history, BCE/CE worked fine here for a long time, so switching to Christianity-centric Anno Domini looks tendentious here. BCE/CE is neutral and commonly acceptable notation. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has used BCE/CE since at least some time in 2004, and it is far more acceptable to use BCE/CE than BC/AD in an article on a very important event in Jewish history.  Since we must have consistency, it should be BCE/CE.  The recent attempt to remove all eras is of course a completely unacceptable compromise.  Dates like 31, 37, 66, 70 and 73 with no era noted simply cannot stand.  └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 19:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was born in 2002 with AD/BC. There is no reason for having a preference for BCE/CE (the fact that this is an important episode in Jewish history does not mean AD/BC is inappropriate). It is not allowed to edit an article to change between allowed styles.--Panarjedde 19:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oz is correct; I've reimplemented the non-Christian dating system. Dppowell 00:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much,  much better. Amoruso 00:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I suspect it will be reverted soon, but I'm happy to lend my voice to the consensus. Dppowell 00:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also because you did not provide any good reason for the revert...--Panarjedde 17:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I did, on your Talk page.  Since you reverted my comments there (you've been counseled before about censoring your Talk page, haven't you?), I'll post them here:  "Here's the relevant language in the guideline: "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." Amoruso is effectively arguing that the nature of the topic constitutes such a reason. Oz agrees with him, as do I. I'm sure the folks on Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history probably would, too, and this article is part of their project."  Dppowell 04:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not read your posts on my talk page, I delete them immediately, as you are not welcome there. As regards "counseling", you are free to add warnings and the like on the relevant section of my talk page, as that is was I was "counseled" about.--Panarjedde 12:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correct. In addition, Panarjedde is wrong saying "It is not allowed to edit an article to change between allowed styles." There is a consensus to keep a neutral notation in this Judaism-related article, and it has been used here for a few years now. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And you are still to show me it. Where is it?--Panarjedde 12:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where is what? I hope you realize that you are pushing POV against consensus. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I mis-read your post, I now read it better.--Panarjedde 13:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AD or CE? 

message: I hate to lose time on this trivial matter, but I hate even more stubborn people. Is there any place on this talk page in which it has been decided that it is not allowed to remove redundant era styles, as User:Amoruso claims?--RedMC 19:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A small number by itself can be confusing. RedMC, I understand that you think that having era notation there can be redundant. I hope you also understand that others do not think so. This is an encyclopedia, and we should strive to be unambiguous and clear. Other than perceived redundancy, is there a problem with erring on the safe side and including era notation? ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy 

message: I have asked for this page to be protected since it keeps being vandalised.--Shakujo 05:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: I'm not officially reviewing this but I thought I'd stick my head in just to say that you might want to put in some more inline citations, and possibly move the one piece of info in the trivia section into the main article, as a trivia section with one point is a little unnecessary. Also, perhaps trim the external links section down a little bit? I think these points but will help get the GA. SGGH 19:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA ideas

message: I think this article is very nearly at GA standards. A few comments:
*Josephus needs to be referenced - to a modern printed edition. The link to the full text at Gutenberg isn't enough.
*The third sentence of the history section is over-long and in bad English. You should probably put the 'reliability of Josephus' debate in its own paragraph.
*The Sicarii: Please wikilink the first mention in the 'History' section to aid comprehension. Also the accounts of the difference between 'zealots' and 'sicarii' in the first and the fourth paragraphs of the history section aren't entirely consistent: which historians "believe that the Romans may have used Jewish slaves" to build the ramps, and do those historians think the defenders of Masada were Zealots rather than Sicarii, or do they just gloss over the difference?
*The World Heritage Site infobox is over-wide for that position of the article; can it be reduced in width or moved down the page?
*Is there any history of Masada before its fortification? If there is significant knowledge then it should be included for the article to be a GA. If there is little then a sentence would suffice. 
If these can be addressed then happy to make it a GA. Regards, The Land 09:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After one week, none of these comments have been addressed, so I have removed the nomination and marked it as failed; however I think it's quite close to pass standard and if these comments are addressed a renomination would most likely succeed. The Land 20:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, it's pretty darned far from a GA.  No offense, but only four cites in the whole article?  Oy. Jewish-wargamer 20:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: I like most of what is here but it still lacks detail so i made a few edits. Still more to be done but I dont want to get too greedy.This site has some excellent pictures that would be a big plus for FA if added to the page. I'm especially impressed by the one at the top as it is a much clearer view of the ramp and fortress compared to the current picture. The site also has a lot that could be included in the article and especially construction details so have a read.I'm useless when it comes to adding pictures so could someone else have a go?  This is the copyright for them: "Pictures from this websitemay be used on another website, with the following restrictions.  You may not use more than 10 images, the size of the images must be not more than 400 pixels wide, and the images must include a credit link on each page they are used to BiblePlaces.com” Wayne 18:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: Hello,
There is some controversy concerning the praenomen of the Roman general Flavius Silva. Some sources claim it is Lucius, and others Cornelius. Could this article cite the reference for the correct name, please? Thank you.
Sincerely,
76.229.180.140 (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it Lucius or Cornelius? 

message: Why is there no mention about the myth? If the zionists have a problem with this then they need to look up WP guidelines.
Rodolfo Graziani (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Myth Section? 

message: Reading the article I realized a discrepancy in the number of casualties on the Jewish side. The infobox says 953 whereas the text claims only 936 inhabitants. Perhaps someone close to the topic could find the explanation for this possible contradiction and resolve it.  
149.217.1.6 (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of casualties 

message: I came to the page wanting to add what I thought was an interesting reference to the siege, in a Novel - but there is no section to add such references.
Objections to starting a section?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonstephens (talk • contribs) 06:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References/Popular Culture? 

message: Assuming the best of good faith - this article is biased.  Explanation:  It relies on one account - and raises that one account to the level of truth.  The author did not get it from even two sources.  It seems one-sided – showing an anti-jewish and pro-Roman bias.  
For example:  “After the destruction of the Temple, the Jewish rebels and their families fled Jerusalem and settled on the mountain top, using it as a base for raiding Roman settlements.“  Awwww, poor Romans.  Who, according to this, then spent vast amounts of time and resources and energy building to attack the citadel – never hampered by the rebel forces.  Does this make sense?   
No matter how well-intentioned the author may be, it sounds as if the author is not welcoming to other ideas.  To use another example from the Roman-era, the way this article is written it is easy to think that the author would accept the Church's old story of who killed Jesus as true (even though the Church has recanted) - and not investigate other possibilities, such as: the Romans bought off one of Jesus' followers, found the location of the Passover Seder, captured and killed Rabbi Jesus - and then used him as their own martyr.
--76.177.35.39 (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a Good Article - One Sided 

message: and that there is no archaeological evidence and the story comes from a single written source.
In fact this entire page is rubbish. for instance saying the jewish defenders numbered 960, comes from a single crappy source. Can anyone prove that number? Have that many corpses with appropriate wounds been dug up on the site? Have several writers mentioned that number?
And the page makes no mention of the political reasons for perpetuating the masada story, the page is one sided and from an encyclopdic viewpoint worthless.
There is as much or more evidence for jesus, father christmas, pixies, allah, the contents of the old and new testaments, and ghosts as there is the masada story. Doktordoris (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Plenty of events in ancinet history come from single sources. Entire episodes in the earlier history of Rome for instance, and seldom are events recorded by contemporary historians. The fact that there's only one source isn't extraordinary. Archaeology actually supports a great deal of the Masada story, even if not its entirety. There may be room for serious dicussion about the validity and reliability of Josephus, but I suspect you're not really looking for one. The crux, I see, is the political use made of the story. That's covered in the article and you're welcome to add to that. It does not however change the facts about the original story as told by an ancient historian that is widely quoted to this day. I'm reverting your changes to the lead. Poliocretes (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ive pointed out in the intro that the masada story is simply that, a story.

message: The Wikipedia article says that Masada fell in the spring of AD 73 - this information is followed by a reference to an article by Duncan Campbell. But this scholar believes that the fall must be dated to the spring of AD 74. It seems rather strange to give the date 73 and then cite an author who prefers the date 74.
For more information on this matter see the following books and articles:
* Hannah M. Cotton, "The Date of the Fall of Masada," Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, vol. 78 (1989) pages 157-162.
* Duncan Campbell, "Dating the siege of Masada," Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, vol. 73 (1988) pages 156-158, this article is available on the internet. 
 
* Maurice Sartre, The Middle East under Rome, 2005, page 428, note 204, with references to the modern debate about the date.
* Colin Wells, The Roman Empire, 1995, page 314, prefers the date 74, not the traditional date 73.
* Martin Goodman, Rome & Jerusalem, 2007, mentions the fall two times. It seems he cannot make up his mind. On page 257 he dates the fall to 73, but on page 458 he dates the fall to April 74. Goodman has no reference to the modern debate about the fall.
* Desmond Seward, Jerusalem's Traitor: Josephus, Masada, and the Fall of Judea, 2009, chapter 23, "Madasa and the Last Zealots." This author is not quite sure how to date the fall of Masada. On page 249 he says: "Lucilius Bassus died, apparently in the winter of 72 or early 73, so the Romans did not recommence their mopping-up operations until 74. When spring came that year and the campaigning season opened, Bassus' newly appointed successor, Lucius Flavius Silva, assembled all units..." So he seems to prefer the year 74. But on page 251 he says: "Arriving in early 73, Silva ordered the legionaries to build his headquarters camp on the inhospitable rock..." So now we are back in 73. On page 255 we hear about the suicide pact of April 15 and the Roman conquest the following day, and presumably we are still in 73. On page 257 there is a bit more about the date: "A handful of Zealots remained after the fall of Masada, although not in Judea." Later on the same page we hear about the Roman governor Lupus and his actions in Alexandria: "Lupus closed the temple down at once, and in August 73 his successor, Paulinus, removed the furnishings and forbade its priests to go near it." Given that the word MASADA appears in the title of this book, it is very strange that the author is not clear about the date. Was it in 73 or 74? Seward has no reference to the modern debate about the fall of Masada.
Torben Retboll
- Bangkok
- Thailand
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.71.198 (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating the fall of Masada 

message: I was trawling through the millitary history article when I came across this article and let me give me impression on it. Firstly the article is called Masada, is this refference to the Siege of Masada or the Ancient city of Masada, this is very confusing. The article features the siege yet also features Masada today and the History of Masada which are irrelevent to the topic. It is because of this I propose a split to "The Siege or Masada" covering just the siege and "Masada" covering the history of the city.If you do not wish to split the siege then rename the article as "The Siege of Masada" and split the section about History to "The City of Masada"
Tugrulirmak (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should split the topic of "Siege of Masada" into a separate historic article indeed, in addition to the geographic article Masada, which describes a famous archaelogical park and a tourist attraction. Are you still into this?Greyshark09 (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Split in to "The siege of Masada"  or Rename to...

message: According to the Ground warfare: an international encyclopedia by Stabley Sandler the siege was commited to by 15,000 soldiers. Now I know not if he means auxilaries of legionares or both but the numbers in the article should be cleared up to make it clear to the reader, how many slaves if any were involved and do auxilaries fall under soldiers.Tugrulirmak (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course they do, HOWEVER, your source is not correct.  Silva used a single legion for the reduction of Masada, with a small contingent of auxiliaries (probably archers) - no more than than 6,000 soldiers and more probably less than 5,000  -  the rest of the Roman legions in Judea were needed elsewhere to stem the possibility of revolt(s). HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Soldiers 

message: The history is incomplete and mixed up with the archaeology.  Also, information from the UNESCO web page should be replaced by serious history books (of which there are many to choose from).  Zerotalk 13:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but did you imply that the UNESCO web page is not serious? In what regard? Debresser (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots of cleanup needed 

message: Where is the RAMP to be shown!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.141.63 (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The ramp is visible in this shot of Masada: the pale line running from right centre to the plateau itself: I've not added it to the page as it probably belongs on the siege page, which already has one shot of this feature. cheers IdreamofJeanie (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Israel-2013-Aerial 21-Masada.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 14, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-12-14. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Israel-2013-Aerial 21-Masada.jpg]] to appear as POTD 

message: As the head says, a "Masada in popular culture" section is probably needed now, what with the 1981 miniseries, and now "The Dovekeepers" novel and miniseries, and I'm sure there are other books that use it as a setting as well. But it's probably advisable to add a section like this, as the article already contains the "Homage" section... --IJBall (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Masada in popular culture" section needed 

message: I'm a little puzzled that the small number of remains found last century is interpreted by so many to suggest that Josephus' account was wildly exaggerated. First, it seems reasonable to expect that about 28 people out of over 1,000 (980 plus families) may have died and been interred from natural causes during the conflict described by Josephus. Secondly, why wouldn't the remains of the Sicarii who committed suicide, and were necessarily above ground, have been removed - even if they were pitched over the cliffs - by the Romans? Isn't it possible also that they were taken away by the Romans to be paraded, even though they were dead, in Rome, as conquered peoples often were? Finally, if a Byzantine church was erected there, wouldn't you think that if remains were still present, they would have been taken away and buried elsewhere during the erection of the church? I'm a little puzzled that "Josephus was lying" seems to be the de facto conclusion here. 172.10.237.153 (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of remains: Why would it be assumed they would still be at Masada after nearly 2000 years?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Masada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151229085425/http://old.parks.org.il/BuildaGate5/general2/data_card.php?U=no to http://old.parks.org.il/BuildaGate5/general2/data_card.php?U=no&SiteName=parks&ItemID=546680273&ValuePage=Card12
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151229085425/http://old.parks.org.il/BuildaGate5/general2/data_card.php?U=no to http://old.parks.org.il/BuildaGate5/general2/data_card.php?U=no&SiteName=parks&ItemID=455458065&ValuePage=Card12
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Re: Roman-period palm seed
The article states that the 2000 year old palm seed germination from a seed from Masada was the oldest known germination until 2012.  The NY Times article referenced for this claim discusses a plant that was grown in 2012 from cells from the placenta of an Arctic flower.  This does not appear to conform to the definition of germination according to the NY Times article or according to the Wikipedia article on Germination.  Although this claim is followed by a disclaimer ("As of September 2016, it remains the oldest germination from a seed"), it is still not correct to say that the 2012 plant is the oldest known germination - it appears to be a clone.165.225.38.220 (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New record was set in 2012 ?

message: The complete legend I can see, also several picture captions that refer to it, but on my phone I can see no site plan/map! Arminden (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it on my phone in Android 7/Chrome 66.0.3359.158, but it's pretty small and looks much better in landscape. What OS & browser are you using? Mojoworker (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the plan/map? 

message: I'm no longer able to find the article where I read something about Herod having employed Jewish slaves to build the plateau by digging up the desert.  Perhaps I misunderstood and that what the article actually said was that the slaves built the fortress.
All I can find by googling stuff like "masada herod jewish slaves" are pages that mention the slaves building the ramp.
Help me out here, I'm begging you! 2601:1C2:4E02:3C3E:B023:9FDF:BB56:4924 (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm quite sure that the plateau is natural. Zerotalk 12:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Likely I remember incorrectly: was the plateau - not the ramp - built by Herod's Jewish slaves? 

message: The statement "Three narrow, winding paths led from below up to fortified gates.[citation needed]" may mislead some readers. 
I suggest it be replaced with: 
There was one path to the top of Masada during the Roman siege which was called the Snake by Josephus https://bible.org/book/export/html/21038. Now there are four paths https://www.hike-israel.com/nature-in-israel/masada/. 
Wikisigh (talk) 08:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masada - Three narrow, winding paths led from below up to fortified gates.[citation needed]