Talk:Siege of Masada

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Jewish history High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Israel High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Merge Nahal Rafiah (draft, heb) into Nahal as requested by Wikipedia authority Death: Suicide Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Suicide task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Military history: Fortifications / Technology / Middle East / Roman & Byzantine / Classical This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Fortifications task force Military science, technology, and theory task force Middle Eastern military history task force Roman and Byzantine military history task force Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD) Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Rome Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city of Rome and ancient Roman history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomeWikipedia:WikiProject RomeTemplate:WikiProject RomeRome articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Turns out there's an article by the name

Agree - I couldn't find any distinction. ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - Clearly an accidental duplication. Zero^talk 04:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I've merged the two articles, rewriting several sections of this one and dropping

WP:OR from the other. Poliocretes (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

"The siege of Masada was among the final accords of the Great Jewish Revolt, " Accords?? Midgley (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY: Accords as in a music piece. Seems rather obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.173.217.52 (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baatarsaikan reverted an edit - and insists that the sige is in current day Israel. I may be missing something in the meaning there, but the geological feature, the hill/mesa/top is where it used to be now, but what occurred on it is very past. The comment "this is correct" is not as enlightening as some comments, particularly when it is applied to something which manifestly is not correct. Except perhaps metaphysically. Further and better detail about why the introduction should say the sige occured in the present day and present state, please. My first language is English. Midgley (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might also ask why "a large hilltop" needs to occur twice in the introduction. Careful reading before reverting is desirable, don't you think? Midgley (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning seems perfectly clear to me: the siege occurred on a hill which is in modern day Israel. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where was it previously? The hill doesn't move. The location is specified as that of the siege, or not separated from it. The user was a sock-puppet, and has been blocked. Midgley (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the problem? The siege occurred on a hill. If one of our readers feels inclined to visit the location of the siege they will have to go to modern day Israel. The meaning of the first sentence is quite clear. What are you suggesting needs changing? and as for your sarky comment "Careful reading before reverting is desirable", please note that it was you who duplicated the phrase with your first edit of dec 14th. Thanks for pointing out the error, I will remove one instance. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Roman General, Lucius Flavius Silva, was supposed to have sent back the message to Rome, ""The victory? We have won a rock in the middle of a wasteland on the shore of a poison sea." This is a very famous, oft-repeated quote. If it is made up, or comes from the Masada TV series, or really is historical, it would be a great service to readers to give the correct attribution. All I could find is "quotes" in articles related to the TV series, which are not very reliable. Thanks, -BTP 71.198.184.44 (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Grand rolling prose but it sounds far more like Peter O'Toole than the real Flavius Silva. Roman generals just didn't express themselves in such terms if they wanted a Triumph back home. Josephus composed similar stirring sentiments for Eleazar, which covers several pages of The Jewish War but doesn't quote Silva at all. Buistr (talk) 06:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Siege of 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/20110927050109/http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/masadamyth1.htm to http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/masadamyth1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is obviously biased. It stresses only one side of a disputed subject, and conveys very strongly the usual anti-Zionist, anti-Israel leftist agenda to de-legitimise Jewish solidarity and Jewish claims to Judea/Israel. It presents the critical findings or rather claims of a few scholars as the evident truth behind the whole story, which is that the defenders of Masada were simply cruel extremist fanatics whose illegitimate and immoral resistance can only be justified by falsehoods, ignoring the extreme cruelty of the Romans themselves both at the time and before it, actually causing the conflict to begin with. No mention is made of that aspect of the Masada resistance, nor even of what fate awaited any left alive when the Romans overran the citadel. Mockery runs through the article, as in the supposedly erroneous admiring as Jewish victims the allegedly Roman soldiers who might have been captured and cruelly killed by the defenders. This hard leftist and strongly anti-Israel bent is shown in almost all articles on Israel topics in Wikipedia, just bearing out once again the result at that website of systematically hounding out of its editing all non-leftist editors on any current relevant topic. This is just one instance of a much more pervasive syndrome at Wikipedia, and makes it a highly dubious source for any contemporary topic with political relevance. Wikipedia cannot be trusted. 175.39.122.144 (talk) 09:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Scientific investigation must be banned and all articles must be purely based on nationalist myths. Zero^talk 10:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You must remember that the sources disputing Josephus are pure speculation - they are just alternate theories. HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox contains a set of "proposed dates" but there's no real explanation for them. Despite this, the introduction uses the proposed dates (73–74) but the article body still states that the fortress fell in 73, so this needs to be expanded/clarified. Thanks. —