Talk:Seventeenth of Tammuz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Israel (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Background: cessation of the tamid offering[edit]

The article, prior to my edit, claimed that the offering ceased during the siege of Jerusalem due to the unavailability of sacrificial animals. While this is logical, no source was given.

Rashi (to Taanit 26b) explains that the tamid offering was outlawed by imperial decree.

--Hanina 16:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Im a hasidic Jew and i read a page that said that we worship a g-d named Yawea well It is not trou And on the ninth of av only people that are 12 and over fas —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The Five Calamaties[edit]

Was there a pressing reason to change the numbered list into a long, prosaic sentence? It is now less easy to read; and it is less apparent to a casual reader that there are indeed five calamaties listed. חנינא (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Bulleted lists are discouraged on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Embedded list. In any case, lists of calamities associated with a certain date are based on midrashim, so further explanation and context would be helpful.--Gilabrand (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a bulleted list, it was an enumerated list, and in this instance number is significant. The context is already given in the body of the article: The source is no less than the Mishna, which itself explicitly introduces the list with the number "five." As an article about what is today a Rabbinic observance (and was never more than midivre sofrim), even nondescript midrashim should be fair game, but certainly a text as authoritative as a mishna should given Due Weight. חנינא (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The material is exactly the same. The number five appears. Numbered lists are not encyclopedic and not WP policy. What is your problem? Are you saying that readers of Wikipedia are stupid and cannot understand a prose sentence???--Gilabrand (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I see. Well, so many separate points have been raised against my view that, without intending to be contrary, I will respond with a bulleted list. (This is not an article anyhow, so I guess it should be OK.)
  • The material is exactly the same. Yes, except the style has changed, which is what we're discussing. If it doesn't matter because it's "exactly the same," then restoring the enumerated list should be no more objectionable than removing it.
  • The number five appears. —which is why an enumerated list is appropriate. Even the most brilliant "readers of Wikipedia," especially those unfamiliar with the fast and/or the mishna, can benefit from the five calamities being presented in list form, breaking up a long sentence.
  • Numbered lists are not encyclopedic... Why not? One wikipedia editor's confidence in the notion that lists are never encyclopedic doesn't make the notion factual.
  • ''Numbered lists are not. . . WP policy. Actually, numbered lists are not against WP policy. The above referenced "Wikipedia:Embedded list" mostly deals with lists of links and doesn't even mention numbered lists. Nevertheless, that guideline does note that "in some cases, a list style may be preferable to a long sequence within a sentence." In any case, "Wikipedia:Embedded list" is not a policy, but a guideline, which should be followed "except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article."
  • What is your problem? I don't know, I was unaware that I have a problem.
  • Are you saying that readers of Wikipedia are stupid and cannot understand a prose sentence??? No, that doesn't at all sound like anything I have said. But these sharply worded rhetorical questions make a grave accusation that might be mistaken for a personal attack. I think I'll ignore them. חנינא (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian/Jerusalem Talmud[edit]

I made a couple of minor changes to the article: somebody referred to the passage in Jeremiah 52 as indicating the breaching of the walls as being on the 9th of Tammuz. Jeremiah makes the same claim in 39:2, and I added that. It's important because, as I also made clear, it's the verse in 39:2 that the Yerushalmi is quoting. The only other change I made was to the Yerushalmi reference. Somebody wrote IV,4, but it's actually IV,5 -- (talk) 07:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't "ti" be taken off the end of "Eikhah Rabbati"?[edit]

See subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Seventeenth of Tammuz/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs references and reference citations. Badbilltucker 17:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 17:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 05:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)