Talk:Timeline of Jerusalem

message: I re-assessed WikiProject Military History because it did not recognise the class as being "List". So I changed it being a "Start" class. No bad intentions was made to cause conflict with the "Class" section, it simply did not appear as being assessed. Adamdaley (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military History 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:OttomanEmpireIn1683.png Nominated for Deletion

message: What do all these colors mean? Can we get a key?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.35.53 (talk) 07:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a key is necessary. --Philpill691 (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline key 

message: Is it intentional that the dates up to 350 BCE are marked "BCE" and then change to "BC" afterward?  It's also strange that some dates after 0 (apparently randomly) are marked "CE" and some are not. -LesPaul75talk 16:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a matter of different editors having used their own styles without regard to consistency. After the turn of the era, it is usual to only use CE (or AD for those following the Dionysian abbreviations) only for the first 100 years, or consistently when a chapter or section covers a period that spans both BCE and CE. The Manual of Style governing usage is intentionally a bit flexible, though it does want consistent use within an article. I've made some adjustments.  • Astynax talk 17:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: There is currently a request for comments open about the lead section of the Jerusalem article, and all editors are welcome to give their opinions. The dispute over the lead section is one of the oldest on Wikipedia, dating back to 2003, and focuses on whether or not it is neutral to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The discussion was mandated by the Arbitration Committee, and its result will be binding for three years. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, and will be open until 22 June 2013 (UTC). — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jerusalem lead RfC 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Timeline of Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070227151801/http://www.history.com:80/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Generic&content_type_id=50287&display_order=3&mini_id=1051 to http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Generic&content_type_id=50287&display_order=3&mini_id=1051
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101010120734/http://www.mishkenot.org.il:80/en/secmain.asp?secid=1 to http://www.mishkenot.org.il/en/secmain.asp?secid=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Regarding the 1054 time statement below
    "1054: Great Schism – the Patriarch of Jerusalem joined the Eastern Orthodox Church, under the jurisdiction of Constantinople. All Christians in the Holy Land came under the jurisdiction of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, setting in place a key cause of the Crusades"
   It seems confusing as stated in this brief statement and could be worded better to not give the illusion that the split set up 'a key' cause of the Crusades. The area was under attack and jurisdiction of Muslim invaders so the key cause was to 'take back and help the Byzantine's in their effort. I suggest leaving off the setting in place part or improve the wording. 
With a little research one can make the statement clearer to understand cause and effect.
 The Byzantine emperor asked the Christians in Europe to help protect his empire from the Turks. In 1095, Pope Urban II called for a crusade against the Muslims to regain control of Jerusalem.
 mrkash.com/activities/crusades.html 
AND
   Turks had been making constant advances in the East, and were now threatening Constantinople itself. The Greek emperor (Alexius Comnenus) sent urgent letters to the Pope, asking for aid against the infidels, representing that, unless assistance was extended immediately, the capital with all its holy relics must soon fall into the hands of the barbarians.
Cause of the Crusades - Pope Urban II & the Council of Clermont
Pope Urban II called a great council of the Church at Placentia, in Italy, to consider the appeal (1095), but nothing was effected. Later in the same year a new council was convened at Clermont, in France, Pope Urban  purposely fixing the place of meeting among the warm tempered and martial Franks. Pope Urban II himself was one of the chief speakers. He was naturally eloquent, so that the man, the cause, and the occasion all conspired to achieve one of the greatest triumphs of human oratory. Pope Urban II pictured the humiliation and misery of the provinces of Asia; the profanation of the places made sacred by the presence and footsteps of the Son of God. Pope Urban II then detailed the conquests of the Turks, until now, with all Asia Minor in their possession, they were threatening Europe from the shores of the Hellespont.
Cause of the Crusades 
The reason and cause of the crusades was a war between Christians and Moslems which centered around the city of Jerusalem and the Holy places of Palestine. The City of Jerusalem held a Holy significance to the Christian religion. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem commemorated the hill of crucifixion and the tomb of Christ's burial. Pilgrims throughout the Middle Ages made sacred pilgrimages to the Holy city of Jerusalem and the church. Although the city of Jerusalem was held by the Saracens the Christian pilgrims had been granted safe passage to visit the Holy city. In 1065 Jerusalem was taken by the Turks, who came from the kingdom of ancient Persia. 3000 Christians were massacred and the remaining Christians were treated so badly that throughout Christendom people were stirred to fight in crusades. These actions aroused a storm of indignation throughout Europe and awakened the desire to rescue the Holy Land from the grasp of the "infidel."
http://www.lordsandladies.org/cause-of-crusades.htm
    Therefore I do not see the split as a 'reason' or key cause for the crusades but a factor in facilitating the fight against the regaining of the disputed territory to the Christian (all) people ( and Jews ) where they we banned from Holy places. Again,  I suggest leaving off the setting in place part or improve the wording. 
204.14.99.46 (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference needed on statement "1054: Great Schism – the Patriarch of Jerusalem joined the Eastern Orthodox Church, ... Jerusalem, setting in place a key cause of the Crusades 

message: Before I start 3RRing, I thought I'd step in here for a moment.  This article is (was) formatted with CE/BCE style dates.  Per MOS:ERA, this is fine and should be left alone unless there's some compelling reason to change it.  User:Alex.boyd40 has already changed this to AD/BC a couple of times without explanation, though I suspect there's some POV issue there, so I'm looking to see whether there's any consensus on this issue.  My personal feeling is that CE/BCE is just fine.  PepperBeast (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date formats 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Timeline of Jerusalem. 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/20120708022748/http://www.pr-inside.com/armenians-of-jerusalem-launch-project-to-preserve-r779106.htm to http://www.pr-inside.com/armenians-of-jerusalem-launch-project-to-preserve-r779106.htm
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) 01:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The subject page contains following entries:
This needs rework: For example the ascension is no valid entry here. The cruxification certainly is an important event, and a fact, but what's with the date? In any case, references are needed.
Tomdo08 (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: Some of the lines above could simply be deleted, but what's with "Meeting with Nicodemus"? Is this confirmed by an independent source? Is it important? Tomdo08 (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Believe is not a valid reference 

message: This is a reference to the Nea Church. It used to be thought that it was built on the Temple Mount but that theory has long been discarded by archaeologists. As with all sexy theories, it keeps coming back in poor sources, though. See that article. Zerotalk 02:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basilica of St Mary of Justinian