Talk:Roman roads in Judaea

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Launchballer talk 10:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that modern highways in Israel still follow some of the ancient Roman roads in Judaea? Source: Roman Roads Connected Gaza, Hebron, Jerusalem and Tiberias. What Is Left of Them Today? https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/travel/2024-03-08/ty-article-magazine/.premium/roman-roads-connected-gaza-hebron-jerusalem-and-tiberias-what-is-left-of-them-today/0000018e-18fe-d8fb-abff-5dfee1380000
  • Reviewed:

Created by Owenglyndur (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Owenglyndur (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems: - Many of the cited sources fail verification, see comments on the article's talk page.

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: This nomination still needs work. As it's your first nomination, I'm happy to give you time to improve this. But, at minimum, you need to settle on an interesting hook with a reliable source that you can clearly cite for it. Unsourced sections need to either be removed, or reliable sources cited inline with them. Grnrchst (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• Suggestion: if you find a source for current use of the same routes, that might be interesting (enough)? FortunateSons (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  • @Owenglyndur: Please respond to the above. Z1720 (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
    • Marking as rejected due to a lack of response from Owenglyndur. If they do not respond in the next few days, this can be closed as rejected. Z1720 (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
      • Z1720, it appears that Owenglyndur responded to your original post on their talk page on 5 May rather than here, and made a number of edits to the article that same day. Do issues remain? Also pinging original reviewer Grnrchst. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
        • I'd be ok with passing this review now, as the biggest issues with the article and hook have been sufficiently addressed. There's still some bits that lack inline citations, but some of them make clear what they're citing in the text and others are rather minor things in larger paragraphs that contain inline citations elsewhere. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
          • @Grnrchst and Owenglyndur: A hook cannot run at DYK with missing inline citations. This will need to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
            • Thanks for your comments i will work on them. I will let you know once its ready. So we will be able to publish the DYK then? Owenglyndur (talk) 07:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Hook should be a Monty Python reference imo. (t · c) buidhe 03:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe: absolutely :) i don't know the sketch well enough, but if you've got something in your back pocket, that'd be hilarious. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• @Owenglyndur: it looks like there are still some missing inline citations. (Also, this article could use a stiff copyedit.) The nomination can move forward when the issues are addressed (although it does take a while), but could the issues be addressed within a week? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • • • • • • Thanks for you comment, i did what i could to correct the article, If it is still not enough, you can remove it from DYK status Owenglyndur

@Grnrchst: As the original reviewer, have your concerns been resolved, and is this hook approved? If not, what else needs to be done? Z1720 (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720: Yes, my concerns have been resolved, as all of the paragraphs now have inline citations. I'm happy to approve this. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Grnrchst: If this is approved, please add the green tick below. Z1720 (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Grnrchst, Z1720, and Owenglyndur: I've noted some significant issues with verifiability on the article talk page, but they have not been addressed. I have not gone through the article with a fine-tooth comb so there may be other issues. Regrettably, as a Monty Python hook would have been fun, I do not think the article is ready to be approved. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Retracted my pending approval, per Richard's comments. Looking at the talk page, there's definitely some major issues with it that are keeping this from being approved. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Closing this per the article's talk page.--Launchballer 10:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Tracking down a quote

The article includes the quote "mathematical precision of 29 groups of millstones, which repeat and remind him of the titles of the great Roman emperors in the past and present - brainwashing - the embodiment of force of Roman power". It's a useful quote, but millstone stood out to me as perhaps a typo so I tried to track it down and check. I used a keyword search in the cited article but couldn't find the relevant quote. What page is it from? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Owenglyndur:. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Owenglyndur: If a source is not provided that verifies the quote it will be removed. Richard Nevell (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Done, added exact citation Owenglyndur (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm glad that we can keep an insightful quote. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Issues with sourcing

The article cites a book review 7 times. In some of those cases, the review does not support the cited text.

1. The Romans used the existing infrastructure for the empire's transportation needs in the province.

   To an extent borne out by the source but could imply that no new roads were built which would extrapolate beyond what the source says.

   Relevant text in the review: In pre-Roman times it was a section of the "way of the Sea", the via maris, along which flowed much of the diplomatic and commercial traffic of Egypt and Mesopotamia.

2. The purpose of constructing these roads in ancient Rome was to establish an extensive network of thoroughfares, similar to those found throughout the Roman Empire.

   Another source is also cited.

   That roads were intended to connect places is uncontroversial to the point of the source being redundant.

3. These roads primarily served the movement of Roman military units and also facilitated public transportation, including mail delivery and travel for central government officials. Additionally, the roads played an economic role in transporting goods and people.

   Another source is also cited.

   Not especially controversial, but this isn't really addressed by the review.

4. From the headquarters of the Legio VI Ferrata, which camped at Legio, a strategic location on the Caesarea–Beit She'an road in the southern foothills of the Jezreel Valley near the modern Megiddo junction, roads were constructed in the year 120 CE to the provincial capital Caesarea, to Beit She'an, to Sepphoris, and to Acre. (specifically the part about Beit She'an; I've added bolding to indicate that part)

   This contradicts the source.

   Relevant text in the review: These texts form the basis of the detailed history of the road from A.D. 69 (when it appears to have been first constructed by Vespasian's army) to A.D. 326 (the date of the latest surviving inscription),

5. (Matching to today's Highway 4 and Highway 2)

   The review does not mention Highways 2 and 4.

6. The southern road, from Jerusalem to Ashkelon through Beit Guvrin. On this road, many milestones have were found, as it continues to Gaza as well as connecting to the long road that reaches Beersheba and Mampsis.

   Another source is also cited.

   The stretch of road that is the focus of the book is north of Jerusalem; the review mentions that milestones were found along the Legio to Scythopolis route, but that's irrelevant to the point here.

7. They were placed at a consistent distances of about 2000 paces (about 1.5 km) from each other. The milestones were usually made of limestone and were 150 on 250 centimeters high.

   Another source is also cited.

   The review does not mention the spacing of milestones, their size, or material.

The review itself is a useful summary of the book, but does not include many of the details here. Some of this may be addressed by the book that was under review. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

After the above message, the same source was added as a reference for the following statement:

8.Archaeologist Israel Roll, who specialized in researching the issue, emphasizes the propaganda role. He demonstrates it this way: when a man traveled from Jerusalem to Beit Gubrin, he sees on his way: "mathematical precision of 29 groups of millstones, which repeat and remind him of the titles of the great Roman emperors in the past and present - brainwashing - the embodiment of force of Roman power."

The quote is not present in the book review. Richard Nevell (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

As there has been no move to address how this source is used in the article I have removed it. Where an alternative source was presented to support information, I have left that intact. However, given how this source was used it raises concerns as to how the other sources are represented. @Owenglyndur: your input on this issue would be greatly appreciated. Richard Nevell (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Original research

The section titled 'Latitudinal' currently contains the following statement:

The road that started at Amman (Philadelphia), passed through the Jordan Valley, Nablus, Sebastia to Caesarea. (Parallel to Highway 57) Part of it runs between Gesher Adam and Nablus along Nahal Tirzah. It is possible that this is the biblical "way of the sun" mentioned in the book of Deuteronomy.

The only source given for that is a passage from the Book of Deuteronomy. At the very least the link between this road and the "way of the sun" mentioned in the book is original research. It is also worth noting that the preceding two sentences are not supported by the reference. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Now removed, though of course it can be readded if an appropriate source is included. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

A different issue with sourcing

The entry for Hugh Chisholm in the 2007 edition of Who Was Who is currently used five times in the article. The 200-word biographical summary of Chisholm does not mention Romans, roads, or the region, let alone any of the specifics that the source is ostensibly used for. Clearly there has been some mistake. Was some other source intended? Richard Nevell (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It's been two weeks with no sign of change or acknowledgement of the issue from User:Owenglyndur so I have removed the text which used Who Was Who as a reference. If an appropriate source is forthcoming, the text can of course be restored. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Please remove this article from DYK, thanks Owenglyndur (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Contradicting a source

I have removed the statement below from the article as it contradicts the source it was meant to be based on.

Michael Avi-Yonah believes that the road was paved in the days of Hadrian.

This could refer to the whole of the Banias (Caesarea Philippi) to Nablus (Neapolis) through the Jordan Valley, or segment between Beit She'an (Scythopolis) and Jericho. Either way, it runs counter to what Michael Avi-Yonah actually says on page 60:

At the death of Hadrian the main road system was therefore practically complete. Later additions include ... the short-cut Neapolis-Scythopolis dating to the reign of Septimius Severus. .... No data are available as regards the date of the Scythopolis-Jericho road along the Jordan, or the roads south of Beersheba.

Given the source was published more than 70 years ago it is entirely possible that more information has come to light since which is why I am removing the statement altogether rather than swapping Hadrian for Septimus Severus. Most importantly, as it stood the text was not an accurate reflection of the source. I note that the 1950 article in the Israel Exploration Journal was not cited in the original Hebrew version of this page. @Owenglyndur: since you introduced the source, perhaps you could indicate the text which you believe supports the statement? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)