# Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE)

4 citation 6 ads ISBN 9781780961859. 45.49.246.117 (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done Remsense ‥ 论 00:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Between citations [78] and [79] there is some odd grammar or missing or extra words and bad capitalization.
It currently reads:

Titus' main force After resting at Gophna, Titus' force camped in the "Valley of Thorns" near Gibeah, three miles from Jerusalem.
I think it should read:

After resting at Gophna, Titus' force camped in the "Valley of Thorns" near Gibeah, three miles from Jerusalem.

Possibly it should still include "main"? I don't know what the "Titus' main force" was there for originally? 90.247.115.117 (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Please change [[Jerusalem]], [[Judaea (Roman province)|Judaea]] to [[Jerusalem]], Judaea in the infobox per MOS:GEOLINK. 2600:1700:6180:6290:E8C6:83FC:3353:1AB0 (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

 Partly done: Because Jerusalem still exists but Judaea does not, I opted instead to space out the links like this: [[Jerusalem]], then part of [[Judaea (Roman province)|Judaea]]. This matches the example given at MOS:GEOLINK. Day Creature (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

... that during the triumphal procession celebrating the fall of Jerusalem, items from the Second Jewish Temple, including the menorah, were paraded through Rome, as depicted on the Arch of Titus?

ALT1: ... that the Roman army that besieged Jerusalem during the First Jewish–Roman war was larger than the force used in the Roman invasion of Britain in 41 CE? Source: "Last Year in Jerusalem: Monuments of the Jewish War in Rome" (2005). In Edmondson, Jonathan; Mason, Steve; Rives, James (eds.). Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome. Vol. 3. Oxford University Press. pp. 101–128. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199262120.003.0006. ISBN 978-0-199-26212-0. p. 101: "To put these figures in perspective, the forces committed to the siege were significantly larger than those which had been deployed for the invasion of Britain in 43"
ALT2: ... that the triumphal procession celebrated by Vespasian and Titus after their conquest of Jerusalem during the First Jewish–Roman War is the most fully documented triumph of the Imperial period? Source: "Last Year in Jerusalem: Monuments of the Jewish War in Rome" (2005). In Edmondson, Jonathan; Mason, Steve; Rives, James (eds.). Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome. Vol. 3. Oxford University Press. pp. 101–128. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199262120.003.0006. ISBN 978-0-199-26212-0. p. 101: "Readers of Josephus' Jewish War will be familiar with the magnificent description in Book 7 of the triumph which Vespasian and Titus celebrated in Rome in 71 CE, a year after the capture of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple. Not all readers, however, will realize that this is the fullest description which survives of any triumph held in the Imperial period."
ALT3: ... that during the siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the future Roman emperor Titus led a reconnaissance mission that almost turned deadly when he narrowly escaped a Jewish ambush? Source: Rogers, Guy MacLean (2022). For the Freedom of Zion: The Great Revolt of Jews against Romans, 66–74 CE. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-24813-5. p. 305: "After Titus’s peace offer was left unanswered he took a reconnaissance team of 600 handpicked cavalrymen along the road ... The Jews broke through the cavalry still advancing along the high road and cut Titus and his companions off from the main scouting force ... Wearing neither a helmet nor a breastplate, Titus was fortunate to make it safely, using his sword to protect himself, as a multitude of arrows whistled by. Two of the cavalrymen who rode with him were not so lucky."
ALT4: .. that during the siege of Jerusalem in the First Jewish Revolt, the Romans crucified prisoners in various positions to intimidate the defenders into surrender? Source: Rogers, Guy MacLean (2022). For the Freedom of Zion: The Great Revolt of Jews against Romans, 66–74 CE. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-24813-5. p. 327: "Those who were caught and resisted were beaten, tortured, and crucified by the Romans in front of the walls of the city. Five hundred or more perished daily by such executions. Josephus tells us that Titus hoped that the spectacle of these crucifixions might persuade those still within the city to surrender. The soldiers, meanwhile, amused themselves by nailing their victims to crosses in different positions. There were so many victims that the Romans ran out of space to put up the crosses and even crosses to nail prisoners to."
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Sursock bronze

Mariamnei (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2025 (UTC).

 Long enough and recently improved to GA. It's a long article, but as far as I can see it's fully cited: there are a few ancient texts used, but as far as I can tell they're all supported by a reliable secondary source, so WP:PRIMARY does not cause us a problem. QPQ has been started and seems earnest enough to count, even though it's not concluded yet.The hooks are all cited but some are a bit long or otherwise might fall foul of WP:DYKINT. I think ALT3 is good to go as is (though perhaps amend "future emperor" for "Roman commander"), and ALT4 could be shortened to ... that during the siege of Jerusalem in the First Jewish Revolt, the Romans crucified prisoners in various positions to intimidate the defenders into surrender? ALT0 is a little meandering and may not be particularly interesting; ALT1 might pass the bar but requires a bit of contextual knowledge (how many readers will know how big the army that invaded Britain was, or how far apart these events were?); even as a classicist I struggle to get excited about ALT2.There are a few issues with the media that should have been picked up at GA review:
I cannot find a citation to a reliable source anywhere in the geneaology of File:Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE)-en.svg: it would be good to cite something on the Commons page that shows that this isn't completely made up.
I've removed the map from the article. Besides the missing source, it appears inaccurate: the map shows the Third Wall following today's Old City walls, whereas most scholars place the original Third Wall further north, based on excavations north of the Old City. Until a map based on a reliable source is available, I think it would be best to omit it. Mariamnei (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
File:19 Shrine of the Book 005.jpg seems to be a work of digital reconstruction by a Wikimedian -- what reason do we have to believe it's reliable? Information conveyed in image form is covered by WP:V just as much as text.
That is not a digital reconstruction, but a picture of the Holyland Model of Jerusalem in the Israel Museum. The model was originally created by Michael Avi-Yonah, a renowned archaeologist, based on archaeological evidence and ancient texts, and has been updated over time to reflect the latest discoveries. Mariamnei (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
OK, that needs to be reflected on the Commons page. Unless Michael Avi-Yonah is the Wikimedian who uploaded the picture, the licence there is at least incomplete. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
The description has been updated to clarify that this is a photograph of a scale model originally designed by Michael Avi-Yonah. Since the uploader is the photographer, the existing public-domain licence appears to be valid. Mariamnei (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
The Commons page says that it is now housed at the Israel Museum. Can we show that it was there in 2007? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
@UndercoverClassicist: Here's a 2006 article reporting its transfer from the Holyland Hotel to the Israel Museum that same year. 12:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Italy does not have freedom of panorama, so File:Arch of Titus Menorah.png needs a tag for the original work. Italian law on publishing images of archaeological remains is complicated and restrictive, but my understanding is that Wikimedia only requires that the remains themselves are old enough to be PD in Italy and the US.
This is not a photo of the original relief, as the Wikimedia Commons caption suggests, but an image of a replica created for the ANU – Museum of the Jewish People in Tel Aviv (presumably made with Italian permission). How can we make sure that its use complies with the requirements? Mariamnei (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
At minimum, we need full information about the object on the Commons page, with an explanation of why it's PD (the object as well as the photograph) in both the US and the source country. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
I've added more detail to the file page. It now says that this is a photo of a modern replica of the Arch of Titus menorah relief, displayed at the ANU Museum of the Jewish People, and so on. The original relief in Rome is of course ancient and I guess supposed to be public domain everywhere. The replica seems to be a faithful reproduction rather than a creative reinterpretation, so it likely doesn't create new copyright. As for the photo, it was taken by the uploader and released under a free license, so it should be fine under both US and Israeli copyright law. Mariamnei (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
No: I'm afraid a faithful reproduction of a 3D work of art does create a new copyright. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
How? If the replica was one-to-one, then there would be no room for the creativity required to create a new copyright. It is obviously hard work, but Israel seems to reject the sweat of the brow doctrine. Based5290 :3 (talk) 10:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
The threshold for creating a new copyright on the replica (not the original work) is very low indeed -- a photograph of an ancient coin, in the view of the WMF, is eligible for copyright. Electrotypes, casts and so on are always considered a new copyright, as are paintings of paintings (see this example). Israeli standards are one thing, but everything on Wikipedia needs to be PD in the United States, as that's where the WMF's servers are located. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:31, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
File:Roma Arco di Titus10.jpg: as above.
I've just removed this image. The required copyright here isn't completely clear to me. Let me know if you have any thoughts.  Mariamnei (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
File:Siege and destruction of Jerusalem (f. 155v) Cropped.jpg needs a tag for the original work.
Can I handle this, and if so, how? Mariamnei (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
As above: that depends on how much information you have access to. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
I've added a PD tag for the original illumination (early 16th century) and updated the description to make that clearer. The CC0 release from the National Library of Wales already covers the digital image, so I guess this should now be fine, but please let me know if anything still looks incomplete. Mariamnei (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello @UndercoverClassicist:, thanks for taking on this review! I'll make the suggested adjustments to the hooks. For the rest, please see my replies inline above. Mariamnei (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Great: now just needs a US tag for the original work. There's a PD-two template that might be useful for this. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
@UndercoverClassicist: Just added a PD-US tag to the Arch image. Do we need anything else? Mariamnei (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
@UndercoverClassicist: just added a few new comments, would love your thoughts when you get a chance. Mariamnei (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2025 (UTC)