text:
Talk:Judaea (Roman province)

( . . . or in this case rather of "thirds")
This is not accurate as it ignores Herod's daughter, Salome, who received the cities of Azotis and Gaza. So -- yes -- it was a tetrarchy, or "fourths": Archelaus, Antipas, Philip, and Salome.Mwidunn (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

 * This entire article is suspect. There is no evidence whatsoever that "Jesus" even existed, yet he is mentioned as though he is clear and undisputed historical fact. 97.119.229.204 (talk) 10:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

 * You do not write WP:RS, so you do not make the call. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Untitled
Someone kindly asked why I moved "Iudaea (Roman province)" to "Iudaea Province".

I wanted to bring it inline with other provinces that use this scheme, namingly Aegyptus, Achaea, Africa, Asia where the last three use "X Province, Roman Empire" current use visible at: Category:Ancient Roman provinces.

Maybe I moved some of the others as well, but I think was not the only one using this format.

This format is also used for Category:Old provinces of Japan and Category:Provinces of the Ottoman Empire. Furthermore it is used for some of the other Category:Provinces. Nevertheless some people do not like this format, you might like to engage in discussion of Naming conventions (provinces). I will put Iudea on my watchlist so you also can reply here. best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that writing Iudaea (Roman province) or Africa (Roman province) is more comfortable and carries the same information than writing Africa Province, Roman empire or similar. You refer to Naming conventions (provinces); I read something in that page, and I must note that there is a difference between Iudaea province and, for example, Province of Rome (the Italian one): the name of the province of Rome is "Provincia di Roma", while the name of the Judean province in the Roman Empire was "Iudaea". I propose to change the name of the Roman provinces, where it is ambiguous, with sometingh like "X (Roman province)"--Panairjdde 16:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The Naming convention page is just under developement. More important then looking at the italian provinces would be to regard naming scheme of other historical provinces. Another issue, should it be "Iudea (province of the Roman Empire)" or "Iudea (Roman province)". The latter obviously is much shorter. I think Africa (Roman province) does carry a little bit less information as Africa Province, Roman Empire as the latter directly mentions the encompassing entity. That's the logic of the scheme, if there are two things X add the entity type e.g. X District, X Province, X County. If there are two "X Province" add an encompassing entity. --- Ups, I found none of the province seem to need the encompassing entity. I will go move them all from "X Province, Roman Empire" to "X Province", because now it gives the impression there would be more "X Province". Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * done. can you live with this solution for a while? I still did not reply to your point that the name was "Iudea" and not "provincae di Iudea". Well, that's right. A lot of things are out there that are called "wilaya X" or "X oblast". These entities have the province term inside them. So use of "X Province" / "X province" is fine. In articles about the Roman Empire I saw several times usage of the wording "X province". If it is ok in text maybe it can be ok in title? I am not sure about this text->title logic. I will address this all in the naming convention. Hopefully we find a good solution for all the maybe 2000 provinces and the million of other subdivisions. If done I post a comment on Talk:Roman province. maybe you can wait with move for let's say 30 days? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * "Iudea Province" is not good English. It needs to be something different.
 * It's perfectly good English.
 * Also, why "Iudea"? The Romans themselves Latinised the Greek "Ioudaia" into "Judaea" (which would be fine) with an alternative spelling "Iudaea".  Classical historians tend to use "Judaea": why don't we here?
 * The J wasn't invented till the middle ages. It was used to distinquish consonantal i (y) from i the vowel. But it didn't exist prior to the middle ages. IUDAEA is the original spelling, Judaea and Judea are alternates. Also, Iudaea draws a distinction from earlier Judah and later Syria-Palestine.
 * And would it not make more sense to the reader to have a single article for the province from the Roman conquest to the Arab conquest, instead of dividing it into two, this one and Syria Palaestina?

Mark O'Sullivan 10:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, due to the length limit, it's better to divide. There are significant differences between Iudea and Syria-Palestine.

Why did Hadrian call it Aelia Capitolina?
The book on my lap is Historians History of the World (1926) is not the most writes "The founding of the new colony of Aelia Capitolina on the ruins of Jerusalem ... brought about a terrible Jewish revolt..." If it was the cause of the revolt it can't have been done as a punishment - or am I missing something. (The banning of Jews from the new city would have been a response to the revolt.) I'll check tomorrow for something more up to date but please expand as to why you think the name was hit upon as a result of the revolt rather than how it was planned before hand.Dejvid 22:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * It seems your question is closer related to Aelia Capitolina than this article. In short, in circa 130 CE Hadrian decided to establish a pagan temple on the ruins of the Jewish Temple, rebuild the holiest Jewish city as a pagan polis, then he ploughed up the Temple and prohibited brit milah. These religious offenses provoked Bar Kokhba's revolt. After quashing it, he followed up with his plans and much more.  ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

"This was one of the few governed by a knight of the equestrian order, not a former consul or praetor of senatorial rank, because its revenue was of little importance to the Roman treasury and the region was pacified."

This is incorrect, Iudaea was under direct rule by Rome because it was a critical connection to the bread basket of Egypt and against Parthia.

And obviously it wasn't pacified till later.

 * Hang on here. Until Hadrian's reorganization, Judaea was not a province in its own right, but a sub-province or prefecture of Syria.  Pilate etc. didn't report directly to Rome, but to Antioch. That's why Judaea's prefects (later procurators) were equestrians- they weren't gubernators at all, but 'district administrators.'

 * As for being pacified- well, up until the First Revolt there wasn't even a legion stationed in Judaea, just a vexillation (prob a reinforced cohort) at Caesarea, plus a small garrison at the Antonia and perhaps a few other large towns. Solicitr (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Queen Alexandra
Could someone please wikify that name? Thanks. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 23:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Iudaea Province → — Because "Iudaea Province" sounds utterly unnatural and because Iudaea currently redirects here anyway. Else, Iudaea (Roman province), as others in the same category. 189.136.163.28 (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

 * If there's a Wikipedia convention that has developed for titles of articles on Roman provinces, it may streamline things to follow the flow.--Wetman (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But it will also streamline things to spell the provincial name as Latin is normailly spelt in English: Judaea (Roman province), like Julius Caesar. The Latin Wikipedia is two doors down on the right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pmanderson, I find the use of I instead of J to be idiosyncratic, normal people write "Julius Caesar", "Jupiter" etc not "Iulius Caesar", "Iupiter", similarly normal people spell it "Judaea" and not "Iudaea". Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Pmanderson and Kuratowski. If we are going to use the most common English name we should use Judaea. Flamarande (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Support, it is a redirect to the same page. I see no fault here. Urgenine (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Modern historians use the term Iudaea, not Judaea, to distinguish between Roman Iudaea province and the territory of Judea proper
H.H. Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People, Harvard University Press, 1976, ISBN 0674397312, page 246: "When Archelaus was deposed from the ethnarchy in 6 CE, Judea proper, Samaria and Idumea were converted into a Roman province under the name Iudaea."

75.0.0.13 (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Judaea?
Why does this article use the spelling Judaea for the Roman province? That's not the spelling used by most modern historians. Instead, Iudaea is used, as distinct from Judea proper. Iudaea was not Judea, instead it was an amalgamation of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea. Judaea is ambiguous, it could stand for Judea proper or the Roman Iudaea province.

H.H. Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People, Harvard University Press, 1976, ISBN 0-674-39731-2, page 246: "When Archelaus was deposed from the ethnarchy in AD 6, Judea proper, Samaria and Idumea were converted into a Roman province under the name Iudaea."

75.15.193.145 (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You only mention a single book, written in 1976, to "prove" your point. That's poor evidence.

 * Adrian Goldsworthy, in his book 'the complete Roman Army', written in 2003, only uses 'Judaea'. He also uses 'Judaea' in 'In the name of Rome' written in 2003. 'The enemies of Rome' written in 2004 by Philip Matyszak uses 'Judaea'. 'The twelve Caesars', reprinted in 2000, uses 'Judaea'. Need I go on? Flamarande (talk) 10:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Judaea may be a common spelling, but modern historians use the spelling Iudaea to avoid confusion with Judea. 36,000 Google books results for "Iudaea". 75.14.217.143 (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL, your 36,000 (actualy 35,800) are a poor second to 453,000 results for Judaea (see here). Flamarande (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The most common name is what's important. The confusion is avoided by the disambiguator (Roman province). -- Ja Ga  talk 18:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is Judaea the most common spelling for the Roman province? 75.14.217.143 (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Flamarande (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * For example, the Persian province is called Yehud Medinata, not Judaea (Persian province). The biblical kingdom is called Kingdom of Judah, not Judaea (Biblical kingdom). Hasmonean kingdom, not Judaea (Hasmonean). Syria Palaestina, not Judaea (Roman province after 135). 75.14.217.143 (talk) 18:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if wikipedia keeps the special wikipedia construction "Judaea (Roman province)", you still need to explain the use of "Iudaea" in technical references. Or do as User:JaGa suggests and censor those references from wikipedia. Hey, if it's not in wikipedia, it doesn't exist, right? 75.14.217.143 (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

An attempted voice of calmness
Before the 17th-century, I J were were decorative variants of the same letter (the Roman alphabet ran ABCDEFGHIKLMNOPQRSTVXYZ), so Iudaea vs. Judaea is not too deeply meaningful (a mere matter of convention). "Yehud" is different, because it's a transcription of the Persian Imperial Aramaic name יהד directly into English (not going through Latin as an intermediary). AnonMoos (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Not to be pedantic, but G was invented by Spurius Carvilius Ruga as a modification of C, and X, Y and Z were borrowed from the Greek alphabet to transliterate Greek words into Latin. 75.0.0.42 (talk) 07:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

 * I was referring to the Roman alphabet during the period of the Roman province of Judaea (ca. 6 AD to 135 AD)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Era: Revert date format to BC/AD
Seems that this is another article where the date format was changed from BC/AD to BCE/CE without any discussion or substantial reason being discussed on the talk page thus violating WP:ERA. Thus I propose the reversion of the date formats to the former if there are no objections.(unsigned)
 * Check the history and you will see that this article was predominately BCE/CE from the start, and stable with BCE/CE for more than five years (except for brief lapses, soon reverted). There is no justification for changing it. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Personally it is a silly convention, worse than what it replaced. Granted no one knows if he ever existed but if he did the error of birth year is no more than seven years by the Gospel references to historical events. If one assumes "Christian Era" coincides with birth then it is no better. However if going by the Gospels the CE could not have started before the Resurrection. Going by real history it is not reasonable to date it prior to Constantine declaring it the official religion of the empire. TWIIWT (talk) 09:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Mythicist foolishness aside, please stop these foolish, intellectually dishonest "CE/BCE" euphemisms and return to AD/BC nomenclature: It's obvious that "CE/BCE" uses Dionysius's dating from the time of Christ. If you want to reject this dating system, then actually do so by picking a different dating point. To use CE/BCE, i.e. to date from the time of Christ yet refuse to mention Him, is dishonest, and dishonesty has no place in any serious encyclopedia. Not only is this "Common Era"/"Before Common Era" nomenclature dishonest, it is obviously false (at least without theological reference to the Incarnation): The world did not share a 'common era' until the advent of the world-wide web. Thus, the CE/BCE nomenclature degrades the quality of Wikipedia through its foolishness, dishonesty, falseness, and absurdity. Please stop using it. -- Newagelink (talk) 08:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

There has been another undiscussed date change, by Kakorot. I am reverting these edits, as per WP:ERA, until the matter can be put to discussion. Ibadibam (talk) 06:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So we can say that this has been discussed, leave it BCE/CE, per Hertz1888 and because we're not some bastion of cultural preservation. Also, TWIIWT, CE means "common era."  I don't know whether to point out that calling it the "Christian era" is ill-researched or dishonest, but your strawman argument is wrong from the start. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment above. This use of BCE/CE is absurd in all cases and should be stopped immediately. It is not only a matter of cultural preservation, although truth is important and should be preserved. It is also a matter of honesty, integrity, and accuracy. -- Newagelink (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This conversation was over years ago, and you've said nothing that addresses WP:ERA. Religious bias does not override the Manual of Style.  If you want every article to change to BC/AD, then you need to seek consensus to change the Manual of Style instead of posting in conversations that finished years ago. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia pages are apparently open-ended, lacking the real-time limitations that you suggest. Your accusation of religious bias likewise ignores essentially everything I said, e.g. how declaring anything prior to the world wide web (or World War 1, if you like) to be part of a 'common era' is simply false. Declaring I've "said nothing that addresses" that section is incoherent, as I'm clearly participating in the discussion that section recommends. I'm not sure your advice regarding the Manual of Style is applicable, given your misrepresentation of my arguments. Finally, it appears the discussion to improve this page is ongoing, not 'finished' from your single statement four years ago. I again recommend that the foolish BCE/CE euphemism for Dionysius's dating be immediately disregarded for this webpage with BC/AD restored. Newagelink (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh I think religious bias shows through in your earlier post above. The discussion ended in 2012, it hasn't been ongoing. WP:ERA applies here, not your personal analysis or your lack of good faith. You've given no guideline related argument as to why this particular article's era style should be changed, and I can't see a reason to change it. Doug Weller  talk 11:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you're the one lacking good faith here by accusing me of it, actually -- but perhaps you are unaware that not everyone is as familiar with Wikipedia or its editorial custom as you are (regarding 'the discussion has ended', i.e. assuming a limited timeframe for an indefinitely-editable talk page). Regarding WP:ERA, I actually have been following it, i.e. "Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. Open the discussion under a subhead that uses the word "era". Briefly state why the style is inappropriate for the article in question." That's what I've done. I've never suggested these guidelines didn't apply; to the contrary, they are the basis for my discussion. Newagelink (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

 * You said "This use of BCE/CE is absurd in all cases" -- that alone isn't religious bias, but in combination with "the truth is important and should be preserved," it is religious bias. The only truth contained in the use of BC/AD is that Jesus is Christ (Before Christ) and Lord (Anno Domini).  Even if I agree with that truth, that does not make it necessary to plaster it over dates that relate to matters besides Christianity. You have opened the discussion and it does not side with you.  Just opening the discussion is not a magic ritual that binds everyone else to agree with you and change all the dates to BC/AD.  You have made no further points beyond arguing for the preservation of some truth (by which you can only mean "Christ is Lord," unless you are just blathering uselessly and emptily about the word "truth" because you don't have a logical argument to support your desires).  Ian.thomson (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

How about finally getting rid of modern political dogma?
This statement is absurd from every context and every ancient source.

Following the suppression of Bar Kokhba's revolt, the emperor Hadrian changed the name of the province to Syria Palaestina and Jerusalem became Aelia Capitolina in order to humiliate the Jewish population by attempting to erase their historical ties to the region.[2]

He REVERTED the name to its original name as the wiki article on Syria-Palestine makes clear. The idea of humiliation is an invention without foundation. Historical ties to the region is modern Zionism.

In that time from the term "Jewish" meant only people of Judea as the historian Josephus says. It did not mean a religion nor have any particular connection to the mythology of the Septuagint. Jerusalem was only the capitol of the city state of Judea at that time. In those days the only loyalties found in the historical record are to cities not to land. It is an anachronism to talk about people in the past as though they had modern loyalties. TWIIWT (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, that's nonsense -- before ca. 135 A.D., the word Palaestina (Latin) / Παλαιστινη (Greek) often tended to refer to the coastal plain (i.e. old "Philistia"), and it seems to have been those who were remote from the area, or knew little about it who most often extended the meaning of the term to cover inland hilly areas such as Judea and Galilee. Pausanias refers to Judea as being "above" Palestine, not "in" it -- you can see the exact Greek words huper tês Palaistinês υπερ της Παλαιστινης "above Palaistine" for yourself at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0159%3Abook%3D10%3Achapter%3D12%3Asection%3D9  .  And you seem to be a little confused about the relationship between the Septuagint and the original Hebrew/Aramaic text... AnonMoos (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Who ruled Jerusalem?
not Jerusalem which had been the capital for King David, King Hezekiah, King Josiah,

These king legends are found only in the Septuagint and have no basis in either historical or archaeological evidence. Absent evidence or even footnote the mention is superfluous at best. Including them is only of modern religious and political interest.

"If Solomon existed [and there is no evidence he did exist] he was no more than a hilltop warlord." -- Prof. Israel Finkelstein

He did not even say which hilltop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TWIIWT (talk • contribs) 11:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Whatever -- this article is not the place to debate issues of Biblical Minimalism or Temple denialism, or to discuss what may or may not have happened 800 years or more before the Roman province of Judaea came into existence, and your claims about the Septuagint are rather nonsensical. Suffice it to say that religious Jews of Roman times (excluding Samaritans) unanimously believed that Jerusalem was the city of David... AnonMoos (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This entire article is a fraudulent fabrication
This entire article is a fraudulent fabrication of Israeli nationalist propaganda. What the article is calling the Roman Province of Judaea was the Roman Province of Palestine. The Roman puppet state of the Kingdom of Judaea was a small and varying territory within Roman Palestine. The map "Judaea Province in the First Century" is part of the fabrication, with a large, borderless "Judaea" label floating in the middle of Roman Palestine. This is why we have the word "Palestine". This is why it was the British Mandate in Palestine. It is shocking that this is up on Wikipedia. Though we note the famous Palestinian Talmud has also been renamed the "Jerusalem Talmud" in Wikipedia (despite being written in the Galilee region of Roman Palestine and not in Jerusalem.) -- 08:57, 27 December 2012 98.180.31.239

 * Whatever, dude -- it was known as Judaea until about 135 A.D., when Judaea was renamed Palaestina by the emperor Hadrian for the specific purpose of spiting the Jews in the aftermath of the Second Jewish revolt.  Before 135 A.D., the word Palaestina most often meant "Philistia" (i.e. the southern coastal plain or extended Gaza strip area).  You need to learn some real history... AnonMoos (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

 * I mean, if you look at Timeline of the name Palestine you'll see that there's evidence of various forms of "Palestine" being used to refer to the entire Levantine coastal region as early as 450 BCE. So it's not that the above comment is entirely without factual merit. The question is whether the Roman province as a political entity was ever called "Palestina" before it was called "Iudaea". Considering that Hasmonean Judah was the predecessor state, it makes sense that the province would have been called "Iudaea" from the beginning. But that doesn't mean that "Palestina" was an invention of the Romans. Ibadibam (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

 * If you look at Talk:Timeline of the name Palestine, I've been raising issues with some of the timeline. Herodotus is almost useless, since he appears to have gotten his information from coastal traders, and knew almost nothing about inland areas in that part of the world (he was certainly dismally ignorant about Jews).  Before 135 A.D., those who knew most about the area tended to use Palaistinē mainly to refer to "Philistia" (i.e. the southern coastal plain).  Pausanias certainly uses the word that way.  In any case, the name of the early Roman province was Judaea (or IVDAEA in the spelling of the time)... AnonMoos (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

 * P.S. The Romans didn't "invent" the term Palestine as such, but there was a certain element of arbitrariness in the emperor Hadrian seizing upon what until then had been a somewhat secondary (arguably loose and sloppy) meaning of Palaistine/Palaestina, and elevating it by imperial decree to be official Roman government administrative terminology.  Hadrian could have just as easily renamed the province of Judaea after Antinous, in which case we would be speaking of "Antinoia" today... AnonMoos (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

 * That makes sense. Herodotus and other Greeks would have had contact with Sea Peoples prior to any contact with the Hebrews in the interior, so they would have used a name for the region taught them by that population. Because of that misconception, the Greeks and Romans probably used the name "Palestine" quite frequently to refer to that region, and from there it's probably reasonable to assume that many Romans would have considered Judea a province within a broader, unofficial region they called "Palestine". The significance to the Roman people of the renaming of the province from "Judea" to "Palestine" is lost to us today. Although there are a number of plausible theories that it was politically motivated, we can't put ourselves in a second-century perspective with full certainty.

 * This reminds me of a number of other similar situations. Siberia was originally a khanate north of present-day Kazakhstan, but the Russians used this name to apply to regions to the east as they conquered them. California was originally the point at the southern end of the Baja California peninsula, but eventually came to refer to a vast region of western North America, in the minds of the Spaniards. No place owns a name, nor does a name own a place. A placename signifies no earthly boundaries, but boundaries in the mind of the one who uses it. So Palestine surely meant different things to different people, even then. I'd say it's neither true that the existence of a Roman province named Judea was a "fraudulent fabrication", as per the anon poster above, nor that the renaming of it was, from the Roman point of view, entirely arbitrary, as you suggest. Ibadibam (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

There is lots of evidence, but the Pilate Stone may be the most significant: "[...PO]NTIUS PILATUS [...PRAEF]ECTUS IUDA[EA]E". 75.0.0.42 (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Basic information missing
This article should include demographic information for the area and period. Should also have archeological findings or links to them. Wcmead3 (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Ratings surprising
First, the spread between Start, B, & C is surprisingly wide. Should these ratings be reviewed?

Second, it's surprising that the importance of this article is rated "Mid" by WikiProjects Christianity, Judaism, and Jewish history. Perhaps there are overlapping articles of greater importance? (I think the hyperlink format of Wikipedia, plus the fragmentation into short articles makes it clumsy to answer a question like this.) If not, I don't see how a rating less than "High" could be justified, based on its ties to the modern world. Wcmead3 (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

 * The province of Judaea is kind of a background administrative framework to events in the history of Christianity and Judaism, not really something religiously important in itself, so "Mid" makes more sense than "High". Maybe it should be "High" for the Jewish history project... AnonMoos (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Second Temple period is one competitor. It might attract some attention from a Jewish standpoint because thw concept shows cultural continuity within a political fragmentary landscape. trespassers william (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Previously unknown governor Gargilius Antiquus reported by Haaretz
Someone maintaining this page may find this source interesting.

An underwater survey conducted by divers off Tel Dor, on the Mediterranean Sea, yielded an astonishing find: a rare Roman inscription mentioning the province of Judea – and the name of a previously unknown Roman governor, who ruled the province shortly before the Bar-Kochba Revolt.

The newly found inscription, carved on the stone in Greek, is missing a part, but is thought to have originally read: “The City of Dor honors Marcus Paccius, son of Publius, Silvanus Quintus Coredius Gallus Gargilius Antiquus, governor of the province of Judea, as well as […] of the province of Syria, and patron of the city of Dor.” read more: http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/archaeology/1.756193

Geo8rge (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

 * See Quintus Coredius Gallus Gargilius Antiquus. -- llywrch (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

A problem with the list of administrators of Judea
According to Edward Dabrowa, Legio X Fretensis: A Prosopographical Study of its Officers (I-III c. A.D.) (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1993), from the end of the Jewish War until the time a second legion was assigned to the province (making it a consular province), the legate of Legio X Fretensis was also governor of the province. This is not unique: the legate of Legio III Augusta was also simultaneously governor of Numidia at this time. These were quite important positions for their rank, & a man who held one was guaranteed to hold the fasces. Anyway, so the list of commanders for X Fretensis in Dabrowa's book from c. 70 to, say c. 110 should be identical with the list of legates in this article. However, there are some important differences:

The first thing is that it would be a lot easier to reconcile these two versions if there was a source for the existing list. That way one would know if the discrepancy was due to recent discoveries, better analysis, etc. As it stands, the existing list really has no authority. That said, most of the names do agree (one column is simply more complete at times than the other), & the dates for those are fairly close. The differences primarily lie in three entries: (1) "M. Salvidenus" seems to have come from a Jewish Encyclopedia article. Since the JE was published about 100-110 years ago, it seems reasonable to me to wonder if more recent research may have either changed the date or identification of this individual. And it keeps me from adding a note, based on Dabrowa, that the legates of Legio X Fretensis were also legates of Judea, so I'd like to remove him if possible. (Further, Dabrowa does not mention him, so I am doubtful he was governor of Judea.) (2) L. Antoninus Saturninus was identified as a legionary commander/governor by Syme back in 1978, so he should be added to this table, & dates to either side adjusted accordingly. Maybe have him succeed Nonnius Bassus, & have either M. Salvidenus (if he is verified) or Pomponius Longinus succeed him. (3) Atticus/Tiberius Claudius Atticus Herodes is a problem. On the one hand, it would appear this is an easy identification; however, more recent research has found evidence that blocks the identification: the date of his consulship has been shown to have been in 133, which means he could not have been either commander of a legion or a governor 99-102. "The Atticus mentioned by Hegesippus remain an unknown character as hitherto," Dabrowa concludes. So what to do? Revise a section of the table -- c. 70 thru c. 110, to be precise -- adding citations, the note that the governor was also commander of the resident legion, as well as omitting M. Salvidenus as well as the Anonymous? (I don't see the point of listing people who are known to have existed, yet no name can be attached to them.) Or try to fit this sourced information into the table while keeping the otherwise faceless M. Salvidenus, & leave off this bit of important information about the administration? -- llywrch (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. I almost forgot: to this list needs to be added Quintus Coredius Gallus Gargilius Antiquus, legate of Judea sometime between 120 & 130. -- llywrch (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

THe list of governers does not represent any concrete historical evidence nor reality
The reference for most of these may simply be the Antiquities of the Jews which by itself is a horrible source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.57.144.205 (talk) 16:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Birth and Crucifixion of Jesus
Seems odd the infobox doesn't contain this informatoon as both events concerning Jesus are arguebally the most famous historical events to have happened in this province. But I guess they were probably discussed previously and removed/omitted from the list of events for good reason. Colliric (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC) Colliric (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

 * I checked history of page and there seems no reason that such important event was ignored expect that it was never added. So adding the events detail. JayB91 (talk) 08:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

"the most famous historical events to have happened in this province" That would be the First Jewish–Roman War (66-73), including the Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE). Jesus is not that important in comparison. Dimadick (talk) 11:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Good thing at wikipedia we add all major events in infobox. The Jewish-Roman war is important but so is Crucification event. Both can exist in the mentioned timeline independently.JayB91 (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Years
Historical topic, years are SIGNIFICANT. But not wuith CE, rather AD. Kapeter77 (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Shortened footnotes
Does anyone object to the use of shortened footnotes in this article? Im The IP (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 23 July 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Judea (Roman province) → Judaea (Roman province) – Was moved from the proposed to the current title in March 2012 with the rationale, "These are the same word, and it is no more than an editorial gimmick to spell them differently; the disambiguating "Roman province" suffices to mark the distinction". But "Judaea" is the original spelling of the province's name (ignoring the difference between 'i' and 'j'), and there is a precedent for this with Sicilia (Roman province) (not Sicily Roman province). A google scholar search shows "Judea" referring to the region broadly (or even the Jewish nation itself), whereas the results for "Judaea" are overwhelmingly about the province or other Roman-related stuff. There's also this discussion above, before the page was moved, which showed a preference for Judaea/Iudaea in modern sources, with little or no awareness of "Judea" for the province specifically. Avilich (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support, although I do not think that the use of historical orthography/spelling is such an important issue in many cases, it seems like it would be helpful in this case to differentiate this specific use of the place name, as you describe above. Dan Carkner (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 11 April 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Material  Works   (contribs)  00:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Judaea (Roman province) → Roman Judaea – Per WP:NCDAB, natural disambiguation is preferred over parentheses and a perfectly functional naturally disambiguated title exist for this page in "Roman Judaea" (already a redirect here), which is used frequently by historians in reference to the subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Note that usage is a little mixed, but the majority of Roman provinces are actually disambiguated by adding "Roman province". See Category:Ancient Roman provinces by region and its subcats. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's certainly mixed. There's Roman Syria as an example of what this would be consistent with, in addition to the likes of Arabia Petraea, Syria Palaestina (so Category:Roman provinces in the Levant is exactly 50:50 parentheses/no parentheses). Outside of the Levant, there's also Roman Egypt alongside a more general plethora of provinces with no parentheses, such as Bithynia and Pontus and Crete and Cyrenaica, alongside obvious Latin names that need little disambiguation, such as Mauretania Caesariensis, Byzacena, Thebaid, Arcadia Aegypti, Mauretania Tingitana and Hispania. Overall, doesn't look like a huge pattern to be followed. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It occurs to me that the Latin base name of "Judaea" could also simply be used alone, since this particular spelling, with the 'aea' at the end is a distinctly Latin and therefore pretty clearly Roman name, as with Arabia Petraea. This title is currently a redirect to Judea, but maybe the base name of this article shouldn't be allowed to be hogged by a redirect elsewhere. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources using "Judaea" to refer to the Roman province are 'legion', tee hee hee. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The spelling "Judaea" is used for both (I certainly would), so there's no good disambiguation there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, well on this note I would make a few points. So the problem starts with the page Judea actually being the page for the geographical region of "Judah" (Hebrew: Yehudaḥ), which is simply being hosted at "Judea" for the sake of disambiguation from the likes of Judah (son of Jacob). Judea is then the default natural disambiguation as the next most popular English language alt name based on the bastardized Greek and/or Latin for Judah, and in scholarly usage, a search for the term generally takes you to articles not about the Roman period - here we've got hits about Hellenization and the second temple period etc. Then we come onto "Judaea", which is much more strongly associated with the Roman period and often used more specifically the province (in English). A scholarly search for Judaea gives you Roman period papers, and if you, for the sake of argument, search for "Roman Judea" as a phrase, you get fairly fluffy stuff, whereas if you search for "Roman Judaea", you get highly specific stuff with "Roman Judaea" in the title, not just in the body. On our Wikipedia page for Judea, "Judaea" is mentioned as an alt name, but after that is only invoked when making specific reference to the Roman province. Likewise, on Judaea (Roman province), the term "Judea" is only invoked when referring to the specific area of Judea, a.k.a. the region of Judah, not the whole province. So these two terms are already being disambiguated on Wikipedia from a practical standpoint, and, as the sourcing shows, "Judaea" is very Roman leaning in its general usage. So, as it stands, "Judaea" is already disambiguated from "Judea" on a practical level on-wiki, while, from a page title perspective, the base name is being held hostage as a redirect to "Judea" despite only being the third most preferable name for the region in the sense used on Judea after "Judah" and "Judea". Iskandar323 (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We also have Africa (Roman province), Numidia (Roman province), Cilicia (Roman province), Asia (Roman province), Galatia (Roman province), Cappadocia (Roman province), Assyria (Roman province), Mesopotamia (Roman province), Epirus (Roman province), Dalmatia (Roman province), Illyricum (Roman province), Macedonia (Roman province), Germania (Roman province). I think this pattern has definitely been preferred. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Building on the above, all of the above (Roman province)-disambiguated page titles disambiguate from a name otherwise occupied by another term; none disambiguate from redirects, whereas in the case of "Judaea", we have a base name that is actually not being used directly, but only as a redirect for another page where it is a secondary alt name. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Another in a very recent series of largely pointless move requests supposedly justified on technical grounds.  Consistency with similar articles is not the primary determiner of a title's appropriateness; helping readers find a recognizable title is the first consideration.  As the history of this page above shows, "Judaea" alone was thought to be susceptible to confusion with "Judea" as a distinguishable topic.  Most of the articles about Roman provinces that don't use parenthetical disambiguation either have names that cannot be confused with modern geopolitical units (Noricum, Upper Moesia, Gallia Lugdunensis), or have the names they do because the name of the place today is the same used by Historians to discuss it in Roman times (Roman Britain, Roman Syria, Roman Egypt).  And most of these names were the product of substantial debate over the years.  The present title of this article has been relatively stable for several years, and does not need to be the subject of another weeks-long debate that will almost certainly not generate any consensus to move.  This is a solution in search of a problem.  P Aculeius (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if you could AGF. "Consistency with similar articles" was never the main point here, which is simply WP:NCDAB, given the completely viable, naturally disambiguated title option. It was Necrothesp that first brought up consistency with other titles. The discussion of "Judaea" alone was just an aside. But to your point about parenthetically disambiguated Roman provinces, for many that is the only option. "Roman Assyria", for instance, doesn't really work; it is all but dead in the water as a term in scholarship. The same is not true for "Roman Judaea/Judea", which has a prolific history of usage in scholarship. This is hardly left-field stuff. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You have misread my comments. I am not arguing against parenthetical disambiguation; I think the present title of this article is fine as it is, and do not see a compelling reason to change it.  I mentioned "Roman Syria", not "Roman Assyria", which may exist in the scholarly literature, but was not germane to my point (and I note that in the argument here about "Palestine", it looks as though nobody mentioned the fact that the post-revolt designation was "Syria Palaestina", Syria of the Philistines).  Either format may be appropriate for some articles, but the existence of article titles using different formats is not a strong argument for moving individual articles.  Extrapolating rules from subtleties of the current titles of many articles is simply not productive.
 * And I neglected to mention a separate rationale for titles such as "Roman Syria", which is that in some cases the boundaries of a Roman province do not correspond with those of a modern place sharing the same name. This has led to discussions distinguishing the topics of Roman provinces with a certain name, as opposed to the Roman history of place by its modern name, e.g. "Roman Syria" is not the same topic as "Syria in Roman times", although in some cases the topics may overlap sufficiently to be treated in a single article.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Jeez Louise. No, I didn't misread shit. I know you like the crappy brackets. But WP:NCDAB, a guideline, strongly discourages the use of crappy brackets where a natural disambiguation option exists. Necrothesp countered that crappy brackets have a consistency case in their favour in this instance. Fair enough. You then noted some of the circumstances in which crappy brackets are not used - to which I merely addended the point that, while your deductions may be broadly correct, another reason for provinces to have crappy brackets is that no natural disambiguation option exists at all, such as with Assyria, but not Judaea. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, it looks like you're getting confused between Assyria (Roman province) and Roman Syria - these are totally separate provinces, check their maps. I wasn't making a point about mixing up those two separate entities. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

 * Support - natural disambiguation is better, it's consistent, etc. Red   Slash  00:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It isn't consistent. That's the whole issue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's consistent with some things, not with others. It sits naturally alongside Roman Syria. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's my point. There is no consistency, so to say "rename for consistency" is inaccurate. If we're taking the majority view, then those named "Roman Foo" should actually be the ones that are renamed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What is lost in consistency is more than gained in naturalness and concision. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's about the Roman province called Judaea. It's not about Romans who were in a part of the world called Judea. There were lots of definitions of Judah/Jujea/Judaea/Iudimea over the ages. None of them coincided with the borders of the Roman province. Do not conflate a precise entity (in time and in geography) with a clutch of imprecise entities (in time and in geography). Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm lost here. The name doesn't change the topic and "Roman Judaea" would still be about the province ... ? And what are Jujea and Iudimea? Are they even names? The page is already Judaea; the Q here is just Rome before of after. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. My main reason for opposing the name change is because Judea is a word in antiquity used to describe the country so-called after the return of the Babylonian exiles, including, but not limited to the Persian period over Judea, frequently mentioned as such in Achaemenid documents from that period, as well as the name of the country so-called during the Macedonian rule over the country, besides the name used for the country during the Roman era. Since this article treats specifically on historical matters related to the Roman era, the name of the article should not be changed, since that would imply that the name "Judea" is only associated with Roman hegemony, and nothing more, which, obviously, is wrong. By the way, in the Aramaic Scroll of Antiochus, the country "Judea" is called "Yehud" .Davidbena (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel here or create a descriptive title that does not already exist; "Roman Judaea" is already in scholarly usage among the kind of reliable, secondary sources that are our touchstone, but I guess this is the idea that it is more confusing on some level right? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that might indeed be so, but - in my humble opinion - it is best to keep titles less likely to be misconstrued for what they are not. To say "Roman Judea" would imply that it belongs to the Roman empire, whereas the current title suggests that we're talking about Judea under Roman rule.21:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC) Davidbena (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Being a Roman province under Roman rule is belonging to the Roman empire, no? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * But the title "Roman Judea" can lead to some confusion, as if to say that Judea was only a Roman province, when it was not. Simply put, we wish to avoid the confusion.Davidbena (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It does that no more than saying "blue cheese" implies cheese is only blue. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * On the contrary. If you say, "Roman Judea" the emphasis is on Roman. If you say "Judea (Roman province)" the emphasis is on Judea. There's a BIG difference between the two!Davidbena (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose. "Roman Judaea" seems a bit too general, and would (in my expectation) include the period when Judaea was a Roman client state, rather than a province. Which is clearly not the case here.  A distinct article for the Roman province of Judaea is needed, and this is it. The proposal would make it more ambiguous. Walrasiad (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Pontius Pilate
The problem with what Josephus claims was that high-ranking officials usually did not discuss the fate of low-life criminals like Jesus. So, probably Pilate was not even informed about getting Jesus executed. And most certainly he did not hold a trial about Jesus. E.g. John the Baptist was famous, but Jesus wasn't famous. Jesus was an ordinary miracle worker: there were thousands like him in the Empire.

And the "Jewish authorities" could not even prosecute Essenes from Jerusalem, who were mocking them openly. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

 * The local "native" Jewish authorities were not allowed by the Romans to impose the death penalty, so if they wanted someone to be executed, then they had to request that the Roman authorities do so, at which time the Roman authorities would definitely be discussing the case. As an accused rebel, Jesus was not particularly a "low-life criminal". AnonMoos (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Antisemitism, Blood Libels, Tropes
The statement, "In 30–33 CE, Roman prefect Pontius Pilate, at the request of the Jewish authorities, had Jesus of Nazareth crucified on the charge of sedition, an act that led to the birth of Christianity" contains the antisemitic blood libel that the behest of "Jewish authorities" (Jews) had Jesus crucified. There is absolutely no verifiable, reliable historic proof this happened - that Jews had Jesus killed. The sited sources were not first-hand witness accounts, and they were sources just repeating the same contemporary libels of their time. This is the very blood libel that has been used to justify Christian persecution and genocide of Jews for hundreds of years.

The vast majority of mainstream contemporary Christians (today) reject that "Jews" had Pilate crucify Jesus; which is a view mainly retained only by fringe Evangelicals.

Regardless of religious, racial, or political views - statements that are not independently verifiable by provable, reliable, contemporary (first-hand) historical sources are opinion or editorial, and are not factual; it is simply the continuation of hearsay. Non-factual statements should be removed; and thusly I am removing the part of the statement that is in bold type. Bandlero (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * While the Gospels were responsible for spreading antisemitism through the centuries, the concept of the Jewish deicide should probably be covered here. Dimadick (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The Gospels are the sole primary source that Pontius Pilate had Jesus crucified. If the alleged incident is to be mentioned at all, it should be attributed to the Gospels. Bandlero's comment is nonsense. It is simply false (and more or less impossible) that Christian groups have decided to not believe something written in the Gospels, which they believe to be the word of God. What has changed is that almost all Christian groups have rejected the idea that the actions of a few Jews thousands of years ago cast a permanent stain on the Jewish people as a whole. Zerotalk 02:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Capital
I think this article fails to mention that the first provincial seat was Jerusalem and then (we don't know exactly when) it was moved to Caesarea. Barjimoa (talk) 06:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

 * Uh nevermind, I just realized it does and I have seen the source.Barjimoa (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Division into three Provinces
I do not have the expertise to correct the problems here, but they are multiple.

I am sure the division into provinces is broadly correct as is the date 135. But then this is contradicted by the claim that Diocletian did it 150 years later. Worse is to follow because clicking on the links takes us to a starting point "in the late 4th Century" well over 100 years later still.

This is a shambles and if the information to fill in these yawning gaps then at least the grammar should be altered to make the various pages cohere. Freuchie (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Judaea (Roman province)


text: Category:Mass media in Pakistan

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Category:Mass media in Pakistan


text:
User:KevinPlusPlus

I'm Kevin from the USA, and I'm 25 years old.

title: User:KevinPlusPlus


text:
Gauge fixing

In the physics of gauge theories, gauge fixing (also called choosing a gauge) denotes a mathematical procedure for coping with redundant degrees of freedom in field variables. By definition, a gauge theory represents each physically distinct configuration of the system as an equivalence class of detailed local field configurations. Any two detailed configurations in the same equivalence class are related by a certain transformation, equivalent to a shear along unphysical axes in configuration space. Most of the quantitative physical predictions of a gauge theory can only be obtained under a coherent prescription for suppressing or ignoring these unphysical degrees of freedom.

Although the unphysical axes in the space of detailed configurations are a fundamental property of the physical model, there is no special set of directions "perpendicular" to them. Hence there is an enormous amount of freedom involved in taking a "cross section" representing each physical configuration by a particular detailed configuration (or even a weighted distribution of them). Judicious gauge fixing can simplify calculations immensely, but becomes progressively harder as the physical model becomes more realistic; its application to quantum field theory is fraught with complications related to renormalization, especially when the computation is continued to higher orders. Historically, the search for logically consistent and computationally tractable gauge fixing procedures, and efforts to demonstrate their equivalence in the face of a bewildering variety of technical difficulties, has been a major driver of mathematical physics from the late nineteenth century to the present.

Gauge freedom
The archetypical gauge theory is the Heaviside–Gibbs formulation of continuum electrodynamics in terms of an electromagnetic four-potential, which is presented here in space/time asymmetric Heaviside notation. The electric field E and magnetic field B of Maxwell's equations contain only "physical" degrees of freedom, in the sense that every mathematical degree of freedom in an electromagnetic field configuration has a separately measurable effect on the motions of test charges in the vicinity. These "field strength" variables can be expressed in terms of the electric scalar potential $$\varphi$$ and the magnetic vector potential A through the relations: $${\mathbf E} = -\nabla\varphi - \frac{\partial{\mathbf A}}{\partial t}\,, \quad {\mathbf B} = \nabla\times{\mathbf A}.$$

If the transformation

is made, then B remains unchanged, since (with the identity $$\nabla \times \nabla \psi = 0$$) $${\mathbf B} = \nabla\times ({\mathbf A}+ \nabla \psi) = \nabla\times{\mathbf A}.$$

However, this transformation changes E according to $$\mathbf E = -\nabla\varphi - \frac{\partial{\mathbf A}}{\partial t} - \nabla \frac{\partial{\psi}}{\partial t} = -\nabla \left( \varphi + \frac{\partial{\psi}}{\partial t}\right) - \frac{\partial{\mathbf A}}{\partial t}. $$

If another change

is made then E also remains the same. Hence, the E and B fields are unchanged if one takes any function $ψ(r, t)$ and simultaneously transforms A and φ via the transformations ($$) and ($$).

A particular choice of the scalar and vector potentials is a gauge (more precisely, gauge potential) and a scalar function ψ used to change the gauge is called a gauge function. The existence of arbitrary numbers of gauge functions $ψ(r, t)$ corresponds to the U(1) gauge freedom of this theory. Gauge fixing can be done in many ways, some of which we exhibit below.

Although classical electromagnetism is now often spoken of as a gauge theory, it was not originally conceived in these terms. The motion of a classical point charge is affected only by the electric and magnetic field strengths at that point, and the potentials can be treated as a mere mathematical device for simplifying some proofs and calculations. Not until the advent of quantum field theory could it be said that the potentials themselves are part of the physical configuration of a system. The earliest consequence to be accurately predicted and experimentally verified was the Aharonov–Bohm effect, which has no classical counterpart. Nevertheless, gauge freedom is still true in these theories. For example, the Aharonov–Bohm effect depends on a line integral of A around a closed loop, and this integral is not changed by $$\mathbf{A} \rightarrow \mathbf{A} + \nabla \psi\,.$$

Gauge fixing in non-abelian gauge theories, such as Yang–Mills theory and general relativity, is a rather more complicated topic; for details see Gribov ambiguity, Faddeev–Popov ghost, and frame bundle.

An illustration

As an illustration of gauge fixing, one may look at a cylindrical rod and attempt to tell whether it is twisted. If the rod is perfectly cylindrical, then the circular symmetry of the cross section makes it impossible to tell whether or not it is twisted. However, if there were a straight line drawn along the length of the rod, then one could easily say whether or not there is a twist by looking at the state of the line. Drawing a line is gauge fixing. Drawing the line spoils the gauge symmetry, i.e., the circular symmetry U(1) of the cross section at each point of the rod. The line is the equivalent of a gauge function; it need not be straight. Almost any line is a valid gauge fixing, i.e., there is a large gauge freedom. In summary, to tell whether the rod is twisted, the gauge must be known. Physical quantities, such as the energy of the torsion, do not depend on the gauge, i.e., they are gauge invariant.

Coulomb gauge
The Coulomb gauge (also known as the transverse gauge) is used in quantum chemistry and condensed matter physics and is defined by the gauge condition (more precisely, gauge fixing condition) $$\nabla\cdot{\mathbf A}(\mathbf{r},t)=0\,.$$

It is particularly useful for "semi-classical" calculations in quantum mechanics, in which the vector potential is quantized but the Coulomb interaction is not.

The Coulomb gauge has a number of properties: 1. \mathbf{R}\right

2. $ (where r is any position vector in space and r′ is a point in the charge or current distribution), the $\nabla$ operates on r and d3r is the volume element at r.

The instantaneous nature of these potentials appears, at first sight, to violate causality, since motions of electric charge or magnetic field appear everywhere instantaneously as changes to the potentials. This is justified by noting that the scalar and vector potentials themselves do not affect the motions of charges, only the combinations of their derivatives that form the electromagnetic field strength. Although one can compute the field strengths explicitly in the Coulomb gauge and demonstrate that changes in them propagate at the speed of light, it is much simpler to observe that the field strengths are unchanged under gauge transformations and to demonstrate causality in the manifestly Lorentz covariant Lorenz gauge described below.

Another expression for the vector potential, in terms of the time-retarded electric current density $ρ(r, t)$, has been obtained to be: $ \mathbf{A}(\mathbf{r},t) = \frac{1}{4\pi \varepsilon_0} \, \nabla\times\int \left[ \int_0^{R/c} \tau\, \frac{ { \mathbf{J}(\mathbf{r}', t- \tau)} \times { \mathbf{R } } }{R^3}\, d\tau \right] d^3\mathbf{r}' .$

Lorenz gauge
The Lorenz gauge is given, in SI units, by: $$\nabla\cdot{\mathbf A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial\varphi}{\partial t}=0$$ and in Gaussian units by: $$\nabla\cdot{\mathbf A} + \frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial\varphi}{\partial t}=0.$$

This may be rewritten as: $$\partial_{\mu} A^{\mu} = 0.$$ where $$A^\mu = \left[\,\tfrac{1}{c}\varphi,\,\mathbf{A}\,\right]$$ is the electromagnetic four-potential, $J(r, t)$ the 4-gradient [using the metric signature (+, −, −, −)].

It is unique among the constraint gauges in retaining manifest Lorentz invariance. Note, however, that this gauge was originally named after the Danish physicist Ludvig Lorenz and not after Hendrik Lorentz; it is often misspelled "Lorentz gauge". (Neither was the first to use it in calculations; it was introduced in 1888 by George Francis FitzGerald.)

The Lorenz gauge leads to the following inhomogeneous wave equations for the potentials: $$\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\varphi}{\partial t^2} - \nabla^2{\varphi} = \frac{\rho}{\varepsilon_0}$$ $$\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf A}{\partial t^2} - \nabla^2{\mathbf A} = \mu_0 \mathbf{J}$$

It can be seen from these equations that, in the absence of current and charge, the solutions are potentials which propagate at the speed of light.

The Lorenz gauge is incomplete in some sense: there remains a subspace of gauge transformations which can also preserve the constraint. These remaining degrees of freedom correspond to gauge functions which satisfy the wave equation $$\frac{ \partial^2 \psi }{ \partial t^2 } = c^2 \nabla^2\psi $$

These remaining gauge degrees of freedom propagate at the speed of light. To obtain a fully fixed gauge, one must add boundary conditions along the light cone of the experimental region.

Maxwell's equations in the Lorenz gauge simplify to $$\partial_\mu \partial^\mu A^\nu = \mu_0 j^\nu$$ where $$j^\nu = \left[\,c\,\rho,\,\mathbf{j}\,\right]$$ is the four-current.

Two solutions of these equations for the same current configuration differ by a solution of the vacuum wave equation $$\partial_\mu \partial^\mu A^\nu = 0.$$ In this form it is clear that the components of the potential separately satisfy the Klein–Gordon equation, and hence that the Lorenz gauge condition allows transversely, longitudinally, and "time-like" polarized waves in the four-potential. The transverse polarizations correspond to classical radiation, i.e., transversely polarized waves in the field strength. To suppress the "unphysical" longitudinal and time-like polarization states, which are not observed in experiments at classical distance scales, one must also employ auxiliary constraints known as Ward identities. Classically, these identities are equivalent to the continuity equation $$\partial_\mu j^\mu = 0.$$

Many of the differences between classical and quantum electrodynamics can be accounted for by the role that the longitudinal and time-like polarizations play in interactions between charged particles at microscopic distances.

Rξ gauges
The Rξ gauges are a generalization of the Lorenz gauge applicable to theories expressed in terms of an action principle with Lagrangian density $$\mathcal{L}$$. Instead of fixing the gauge by constraining the gauge field a priori, via an auxiliary equation, one adds a gauge breaking term to the "physical" (gauge invariant) Lagrangian $$\delta \mathcal{L} = -\frac{\left(\partial_{\mu} A^{\mu}\right)^2}{2 \xi}$$

The choice of the parameter ξ determines the choice of gauge. The Rξ Landau gauge is classically equivalent to Lorenz gauge: it is obtained in the limit ξ → 0 but postpones taking that limit until after the theory has been quantized. It improves the rigor of certain existence and equivalence proofs. Most quantum field theory computations are simplest in the Feynman–'t Hooft gauge, in which $∇^{2}ψ = 0$; a few are more tractable in other Rξ gauges, such as the Yennie gauge $ψ(r, t) = 0$.

An equivalent formulation of Rξ gauge uses an auxiliary field, a scalar field B with no independent dynamics: $$\delta \mathcal{L} = B\,\partial_{\mu} A^{\mu} + \frac{\xi}{2} B^2$$

The auxiliary field, sometimes called a Nakanishi–Lautrup field, can be eliminated by "completing the square" to obtain the previous form. From a mathematical perspective the auxiliary field is a variety of Goldstone boson, and its use has advantages when identifying the asymptotic states of the theory, and especially when generalizing beyond QED.

Historically, the use of Rξ gauges was a significant technical advance in extending quantum electrodynamics computations beyond one-loop order. In addition to retaining manifest Lorentz invariance, the Rξ prescription breaks the symmetry under local gauge transformations while preserving the ratio of functional measures of any two physically distinct gauge configurations. This permits a change of variables in which infinitesimal perturbations along "physical" directions in configuration space are entirely uncoupled from those along "unphysical" directions, allowing the latter to be absorbed into the physically meaningless normalization of the functional integral. When ξ is finite, each physical configuration (orbit of the group of gauge transformations) is represented not by a single solution of a constraint equation but by a Gaussian distribution centered on the extremum of the gauge breaking term. In terms of the Feynman rules of the gauge-fixed theory, this appears as a contribution to the photon propagator for internal lines from virtual photons of unphysical polarization.

The photon propagator, which is the multiplicative factor corresponding to an internal photon in the Feynman diagram expansion of a QED calculation, contains a factor gμν corresponding to the Minkowski metric. An expansion of this factor as a sum over photon polarizations involves terms containing all four possible polarizations. Transversely polarized radiation can be expressed mathematically as a sum over either a linearly or circularly polarized basis. Similarly, one can combine the longitudinal and time-like gauge polarizations to obtain "forward" and "backward" polarizations; these are a form of light-cone coordinates in which the metric is off-diagonal. An expansion of the gμν factor in terms of circularly polarized (spin ±1) and light-cone coordinates is called a spin sum. Spin sums can be very helpful both in simplifying expressions and in obtaining a physical understanding of the experimental effects associated with different terms in a theoretical calculation.

Richard Feynman used arguments along approximately these lines largely to justify calculation procedures that produced consistent, finite, high precision results for important observable parameters such as the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. Although his arguments sometimes lacked mathematical rigor even by physicists' standards and glossed over details such as the derivation of Ward–Takahashi identities of the quantum theory, his calculations worked, and Freeman Dyson soon demonstrated that his method was substantially equivalent to those of Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, with whom Feynman shared the 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics.

Forward and backward polarized radiation can be omitted in the asymptotic states of a quantum field theory (see Ward–Takahashi identity). For this reason, and because their appearance in spin sums can be seen as a mere mathematical device in QED (much like the electromagnetic four-potential in classical electrodynamics), they are often spoken of as "unphysical". But unlike the constraint-based gauge fixing procedures above, the Rξ gauge generalizes well to non-abelian gauge groups such as the SU(3) of QCD. The couplings between physical and unphysical perturbation axes do not entirely disappear under the corresponding change of variables; to obtain correct results, one must account for the non-trivial Jacobian of the embedding of gauge freedom axes within the space of detailed configurations. This leads to the explicit appearance of forward and backward polarized gauge bosons in Feynman diagrams, along with Faddeev–Popov ghosts, which are even more "unphysical" in that they violate the spin–statistics theorem. The relationship between these entities, and the reasons why they do not appear as particles in the quantum mechanical sense, becomes more evident in the BRST formalism of quantization.

Maximal abelian gauge
In any non-abelian gauge theory, any maximal abelian gauge is an incomplete gauge which fixes the gauge freedom outside of the maximal abelian subgroup. Examples are
 * For SU(2) gauge theory in D dimensions, the maximal abelian subgroup is a U(1) subgroup. If this is chosen to be the one generated by the Pauli matrix σ3, then the maximal abelian gauge is that which maximizes the function $$\int d^Dx \left[\left(A_\mu^1\right)^2+\left(A_\mu^2\right)^2\right]\,,$$ where $${\mathbf A}_\mu = A_\mu^a \sigma_a\,.$$
 * For SU(3) gauge theory in D dimensions, the maximal abelian subgroup is a U(1)×U(1) subgroup. If this is chosen to be the one generated by the Gell-Mann matrices λ3 and λ8, then the maximal abelian gauge is that which maximizes the function $$\int d^Dx \left[\left(A_\mu^1\right)^2 + \left(A_\mu^2\right)^2 + \left(A_\mu^4\right)^2 + \left(A_\mu^5\right)^2 + \left(A_\mu^6\right)^2 + \left(A_\mu^7\right)^2\right]\,,$$ where $${\mathbf A}_\mu = A_\mu^a \lambda_a$$

This applies regularly in higher algebras (of groups in the algebras), for example the Clifford Algebra and as it is regularly.

Less commonly used gauges
Various other gauges, which can be beneficial in specific situations have appeared in the literature.

Weyl gauge
The Weyl gauge (also known as the Hamiltonian or temporal gauge) is an incomplete gauge obtained by the choice $$\varphi=0$$

It is named after Hermann Weyl. It eliminates the negative-norm ghost, lacks manifest Lorentz invariance, and requires longitudinal photons and a constraint on states.

Multipolar gauge
The gauge condition of the multipolar gauge (also known as the line gauge, point gauge or Poincaré gauge (named after Henri Poincaré)) is: $$\mathbf{r}\cdot\mathbf{A} = 0.$$

This is another gauge in which the potentials can be expressed in a simple way in terms of the instantaneous fields $$ \mathbf{A}(\mathbf{r},t) = -\mathbf{r} \times\int_0^1 \mathbf{B}(u \mathbf{r},t) u \, du$$ $$ \varphi(\mathbf{r},t) = -\mathbf{r} \cdot \int_0^1 \mathbf{E}(u \mathbf{r},t) du.$$

Fock–Schwinger gauge
The gauge condition of the Fock–Schwinger gauge (named after Vladimir Fock and Julian Schwinger; sometimes also called the relativistic Poincaré gauge) is: $$x^{\mu}A_{\mu}=0$$ where xμ is the position four-vector.

Dirac gauge
The nonlinear Dirac gauge condition (named after Paul Dirac) is: $$A_{\mu} A^{\mu} = k^2$$

title: Gauge fixing


text: Category:Mass media in Bhutan

title: Category:Mass media in Bhutan


text:
User:Sarg/Personal Notes

These are some personal notes I'm storing for a (possible) RfC against Namela if his actions continue. In the future, I'll probably use this as a repositary for Temp articles.

The following are sockpuppets of Namela: Maxiop, fight, wish, loo, clinggo, Popin, Kingionl, Fryuio, Tuop, Quin T

This is an article I'm working on at the moment:

Francesco Sabatini (Palermo, 1722 - Madrid, 1797), also known as Francisco Sabatini, was an Italian architect renowned for his many works in Madrid, Spain.

Sabatini was born in Palermo (Italy), and studied architecture in Rome. His first contacts with the Spanish monarchy started in 1752 while participating in the construction of the Palace of Caserta for the King of Naples and Sicily and Duke of Parma, Carlos VII, the future King Carlos III of Spain.

When Fernando VI died and Charles succeeded him as King in 1759, Sabatini was called to Madrid and risen to a higher position than the best Spanish architects of the time. He was appointed High Master of the Royal Works, with a rank of lieutenant colonel in the Engineer Corps, along with a Honorary Academic designation in the Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando.

All his works are classified as Neoclasicism. However, unlike some other neoclasic artists of his time, his works weren't mainly based in the style of ancient Greece and Rome, but in Renacentistic Italian architecture.

His talent as an architect and Su talento como arquitecto y el favor que le profesaba el rey le reportaron numerosos trabajos y encargos. Su trayectoria profesional se vio premiada en repetidas ocasiones. Fue ascendido a teniente general del Cuerpo de Ingenieros, se le otorgó hábito de caballero de la Orden de Santiago, y tuvo acceso directo al círculo de confianza del rey tras su designación como gentilhombre de cámara.

Entre sus numerosas obras destacan:

* Sustituye a Sachetti en las obras del Palacio Real hasta su conclusión (1760-1764). * Realiza las Instrucciones de alcantarillado, empedrado y limpieza de la corte (1761-1765) para el adecentamiento de la ciudad de Madrid. * Construye la Real Casa de la Aduana en la calle de Alcalá (1761-1769), actual sede del Ministerio de Hacienda. * Realiza junto con Francisco Gutiérrez los sepulcros de Fernando VI y Bárbara de Braganza, que se encuentran ubicados en la iglesia de las Salesas Reales. * Dirige las obras de remodelación de la Cuesta de San Vicente (1767-1777). * Comienza la prolongación del ala sureste del Palacio Real (1772). * Reedifica el monasterio de las Comendadoras de Santiago (1773). * Proyecta y construye la Puerta de Alcalá (1774-1778). * En 1774 se hace cargo de la dirección de las obras de la Basílica de San Francisco el Grande de Madrid hasta su conclusión en 1784. * Construye la Puerta de San Vicente (1775). * Construye la Casa de los Secretarios de Estado y del Despacho, también conocida como Palacio del Marqués de Grimaldi y Palacio de Godoy (1776). * Continúa las obras del Hospital General que había iniciado José de Hermosilla (1776-1781) durante el reinado de Fernando VI (en la actualidad Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofia) * Construye el convento de franciscanos de San Gil en el Prado de Leganitos (1786-1797), transformado poco tiempo después en cuartel por Manuel Martín Rodríguez. * Cambia la orientación de la escalera principal del Palacio Real por deseo de Carlos IV. * Participa en las obras de reconstrucción de la plaza Mayor tras el incendio de 1790, junto a Juan de Villanueva.

Como nota de interés, hay que decir que los Jardines de Sabatini (situados frente a la fachada norte del Palacio Real de Madrid, entre la calle Bailén y la cuesta de San Vicente) no fueron diseñados por él, sino que fueron creados en los años treinta del siglo XX en el lugar que ocupaban las caballerizas construidas por Sabatini para servicio del palacio.

Fuera de la corte construyó la Fábrica de Armas de Toledo, un cuartel para la Guarda Valona en la localidad madrileña de Leganés (actualmente parte de la Universidad Carlos III de Madrid), un convento en Valladolid (Santa Ana) y otro en Granada (Comendadoras de Santiago) y la conocida Capilla de la Inmaculada en la Catedral del Burgo de Osma, también llamada de Palafox.

title: User:Sarg/Personal Notes


text:
Talk:Weyl gauge

This page has been temporarily redirected. If the material on this topic grows, it can be brought back into this page. Bambaiah 14:25, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Weyl gauge


text:
Walney to Wear and Whitby Cycle Route

The Walney to Wear and Whitby Cycle Route (or W2W) is the name of a cross-country cycle route in Northern England. It runs from Walney Island in Cumbria to Sunderland on the River Wear or Whitby.

History
The route was launched on 1 June 2005 to complement the popular Sea to Sea Cycle Route (C2C) that runs from Whitehaven to Sunderland. It is designed to be slightly harder and longer than this other route, totalling either 149 or 151 mi. When launched the route used sections of NCN Routes 72, 68 and 71 west of the Pennines. From Tan Hill to Sunderland a new Regional Route was created and given the number 20, with a blue background. In 2012, after improvements to meet National Cycle Network standards, it was upgrade to National Route 70. Route signs were changed to the number 70 with a red background. Around the same time the sections on the route that had previously been Route 71 and 72 were re-signed as Route 70. In 2007 a southern branch from Barnard Castle to Whitby was added. Originally classified as regional route 52, it was upgraded to National Cycle Route 165 in 2012. The Walney to Whitby route is 179 mi.

Route
The W2W is a Y-shaped route with one western leg from Walney to Barnard Castle, and two eastern legs Barnard Castle to Sunderland (northern) and Barnard Castle to Whitby (Southern).

Western leg
103 mi Walney to Barnard Castle
 * From Walney Island in the Irish Sea (54.1026°N, -3.2627°W) it goes on to the industrial port of Barrow-in-Furness
 * It then runs through the Furness peninsula, passing towns such as Ulverston and the picturesque Grange-Over-Sands where the route follows the Promenade.
 * The route continues to skirt the Lake District national park towards the historical market town of Kendal
 * After this, the path continues northwards, before moving in an easterly direction towards Kirkby Stephen and through the Pennines to Barnard Castle in County Durham

North Eastern leg
49 mi Barnard Castle to Sunderland
 * The northerly spur passes through Hamsterley, to reach the beautiful cathedral city of Durham. National Route 715 between Barnard Castle and Willington is an alternative W2W route. It is 2 mi shorter and easier ride via Bishop Auckland.
 * The final 18 mi of the W2W follows the River Wear to the North Sea at Sunderland (54.9203°N, -1.3639°W).

South Eastern leg
76 mi Barnard Castle to Whitby
 * From Barnard Castle the route descends off the Durham Dales along the lower Teesdale for 20 mito Croft-on-Tees near Darlington.
 * Continuing on flat roads for 27 mi until it reaches the North York Moors at Great Ayton.
 * Following the Eskdale for the final 27 mi the route cross the River Esk five times before reaching Whitby. This section includes several steep climbs and descents, some of them are on off road tracks.

title: Walney to Wear and Whitby Cycle Route


text: Category:Mass media in Iraq

title: Category:Mass media in Iraq


text: Category:Polish traditions

title: Category:Polish traditions


text:
Justice Party of Denmark

The Justice Party (Retsforbundet) of Denmark was founded in 1919 as an association and transformed into a political party in 1922. The party's platform is based upon the principles of U.S. economist Henry George - who advocated a single tax on all land - and those of Danish moral philosopher Severin Christensen.

The party was elected to parliament for the first time in 1926, and they were moderately successful in the post-war period and managed to join a governing coalition with the Social Democrats and the Social Liberal Party from the years 1957–60. In 1960 they dropped out of the parliament. However in the 1973 Danish parliamentary election (the so-called Landslide Election) the party won 5 seats in Folketinget, because of their opposition to Danish membership of the European Economic Community. They lost their seats in the next election in 1975, but regained representation in 1977 and were represented until 1981. They also had a seat in the European Parliament 1978–79 (by Ib Christensen).

The 1970s were followed by a dropoff of party support, and the party ceased to run at a national level in 1990, but in 2005 the party ran together with Minoritetspartiet (the Minority Party): this wasn't with any success since the Minority Party only achieved 0.3% of the votes.

They also adopted a new communication strategy with four main policies: Danish exit from the EU, a better environmental policy, a humanitarian refugee and immigration policy and a tax reform with a 6% land tax financing a lower income tax and a reduction of the VAT on basic commodities from 25% to 12.5%. Their youth organization Retsforbundets Ungdom has been reinvigorated.

title: Justice Party of Denmark


text:
Talk:Hinton train collision

A TV program I watched once claimed the the crash had happened because Jack Hudson died at the controls while Mark Edwards slept. Any more info on this? GCarty 14:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * It's a possibility, especially considering Hudson's health problems. However, the coroner's inquest was not able to draw any conclusions because the bodies were so mangled.  So, I haven't introduced this idea in the article since I didn't have any hard evidence to back it up.  JYolkowski // talk 21:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * More recent investigation suggests you were partly right, but the brakeman at the other end of the train should have caught the error. It seems probable that the man in the caboose was asleep and not sitting in the watch position from which he would have seen the warning lights (three sets)and had time to set the breaks from his cab. The Canadian railway system at that time was inherently unsafe because single track was used for fast passsenger and freight trains running in contrary directions and used simple loops off the main line to park the freight trains to allow a passenger train to pass.This system was entirely reliant on the train crews applying the brakes when in a loop. Such an a system is inherently accident prone  would not have been allowed by that date in the USA where trains that did not stop jn the loop were run off into dead track. After the crash Canadian Railways radically altered their practices and track engineering.

Sun and glare
Were the tracks oriented east-west or north-south, and would this have made the signals susceptable to glare?

Does the conductor in the caboose have a speedometer, or does he have to rely on seat-of-the-pants guesswork to determine if an overspeed is occuring?

Signals goes back to red as the engine passes them, and the conductor 1866m behind would probably find it difficult to read these signals when still yellow or green (and apply the brakes if an overshoot is occurring). The relevant rule probably hasn't been altered since the time that trains were much shorter.

BTW, a reference to a red signal might actually means a red/red/red signal, while a reference to a green signal might mean a red/green/red signal.

Tabletop (talk) 10:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Similarity to Hinton, AB's page on the Crash
While conducting research into the crash, I noticed that the large sections of this article which lack references have actually been sourced (mainly copied), from the town of Hinton's website, a link to which I have included in the new External Links section. As of right now I have no time to spare to rewrite and re-cite those sections, but will try to complete that soon. Any help on this would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.110.39.2 (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears that Hinton copied from Wikipedia. Their page dates from 2011 (that I can find); this article was started in 2005. Mackensen (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Slight ambiguity
In this sentence "On the passenger train, one coach was crushed by a freight car after it was thrown into the air by the force of the collision, killing one of its occupants." the words "it" and "its" are ambiguous. I think "it" is the freight car and "its" is the coach but I'm not sure. If so, it could be reworded to remove the ambiguity, for example "On the passenger train, one coach was crushed, killing one of its occupants, by a freight car which had been thrown into the air by the force of the collision." ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

TV series 'Air Disasters' in 2021
@AGOLFR: Are you sure that the TV episode you described isn't just a repackaged version of the 2005 episode of Mayday? Air Disasters is one of the names Mayday goes under in some countries. Indefatigable (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

 * Yes, it is a possibility that this is a repackaged version. I am unable to confirm since I have not seen the 'Mayday' 2005 release version. 2601:182:B82:9170:0:0:0:7D42 (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hinton train collision