Template:Did you know nominations/Jisr Jindas and Yibna Bridge

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

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Jisr Jindas, Yibna Bridge

( Back to T:TDYK )

( Article history links:

)

Jisr Jindas inscription, dated 1273 C.E.

...that Mamluk Sultan Baibars built two bridges near the towns of Jindas and Yibna in the outskirts of Ramla, now in Israel?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Jieyang Prison and Template:Did you know nominations/Trinity Green (building)

Created/expanded by Huldra (talk) and Oncenawhile (talk). Nominated by Oncenawhile (talk) at 22:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC).

Unfortunately, this is a quick-fail. Neither article is new enough. They haven't been created or expanded 5x within the past year. ~ Rob^Talk 23:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

User:BU Rob13: Well, they have just been moved to article space? Huldra (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Huldra: Ah, thanks for the correction. Just so you know for the future, there's an option when you submit a nomination to mark it as moved to mainspace. I hadn't checked because it said "created/expanded" rather than moved. Review needed (I might get to this later, but have to hop off for now). ~ Rob^Talk 23:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile and Huldra: New enough, long enough, neutral, inline cites, and no copyvios detected. Assuming good faith on offline sources. The hook has some problems, however. First off, I'd recommend leaving out the reference to Israel. I don't think this is particularly non-neutral, but it's really best to sidestep any potential concern about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict entirely. It's an area under ArbCom sanctions, so it's best not to throw up a claim that could cause agitation on the main page, even though its well supported by sources. Beyond that, I don't find the hook interesting. Sometimes, the best facts are still fairly boring, but you have way better facts to work with here if you split these up into two nominations. For instance, Jisr Jindas was built using reclaimed masonry from the Church of Saint George and the Yibna Bridge was built with Crusader masonry. That bit of history seems much more interesting to me than just saying the bridges were built. What are your thoughts? ~ Rob^Talk 19:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

User:BU Rob13: I guess it is a matter of personal taste; I´m fine with leaving out "now in Israel", just stating that they are close to Ramla. As to what is interesting; I find that the inscription from 1273 is still intact on Jisr Jindas what is most noteworthy about that bridge (lots of those Mamluk-inscriptions have "gone missing" since 1948.) That the bridges were built with reused material; that happened all the time. (Look at Afula and Sepphoris, where the Crusaders reused Roman sarcophagi, etc.) Personally, I find that the two bridges have survived since 1273 most noteworthy, but I´m fine with another hook, if you find another more interesting, Huldra (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Huldra: I'm perfectly fine with the surviving aspect as well. I just think the current hook, which basically says "a bridge was built", is a tad dry. If you propose another hook, I'll review it. Please make sure it's sourced in-article that these are still standing today. ~ Rob^Talk 20:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rob, I thought it was interesting that Baibars had built infrastructure in the region, as one doesn't normally relate Mamluks with the history of Israel. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the biggest issue is that most people don't relate the Mamluks to anything, and so they're unlikely to get the significance. I have a higher educational attainment than our median reader and I certainly had no idea until you explained it. I agree it's interesting once explained, but I'm not sure it's interesting without the full explanation. ~ Rob^Talk 20:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Ok, perhaps I´m just so familiar with the subject, that I know that not *that* many Mamluk-perid bridges survives. But of course, many (most??) people reading will have no idea as to *when* the Mamluk-era was.... Perhaps we could write something about them surviving more than 700 years, or being built more than 700 years ago? And the last to examine them was Petersen, in the 1990s, but the pictures are from 2007-9. Huldra (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)How about the fact that two 743-year-old bridges are supporting modern road traffic in the outskirts of Ramla?

Alternatively we could split them into two: one about the inscription and the other about the "jumping bridge". Oncenawhile (talk)

(edit conflict) @Huldra: I would consider a hook that the bridges survived over seven centuries to be sourced and certainly interesting. "Currently" should probably be avoided as per WP:WORDS and the fact that it's never possible to source the present time. ~ Rob^Talk 20:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Adding to my comment after the edit conflict, the difficulty is sourcing that they still are vs. the sources of a few years ago. You'd have to be careful in how you worded the hook. Something to the effect of "were still supporting road traffic so many years later" with a cutoff at or before the last sourcing we have in the article would definitely work (with the usual caveats that the articles say that, sources support it, etc). ~ Rob^Talk 20:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I think we can be quite sure they are still standing, this is not 1948 anymore (when they used the only standing Roman mausoleum in Israel as target practice...see Mazor Mausoleum). So what about "...that Mamluk Sultan Baibars built two bridges near the towns of Jindas and Yibna in the outskirts of Ramla, that are still standing, more than seven centuries later?" or "...that Mamluk Sultan Baibars built two bridges near the towns of Jindas and Yibna in the outskirts of Ramla, that were still standing, more than seven centuries later?" I prefer the first of these two options; the second makes it sound as if they no longer exist. Huldra (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I have checked on google streetview - you can clearly see both bridges still standing and with cars on them. I like the road traffic statement because it's not everyday that one drives over medieval infrastructure. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Links: [1] and [2] Oncenawhile (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile: If I propose the exact wording of the hook, I can't also approve it. Could you suggest the wording for a hook involving traffic? ~ Rob^Talk 21:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I double checked and I was wrong about the Yibna bridge. See the links above. Yibna is now a park, but as you can see from [3] this picture, it used to carry the road.

So I vote for Huldra's version:

ALT1: "...that Mamluk Sultan Baibars built two bridges near the towns of Jindas and Yibna in the outskirts of Ramla, which have survived more than seven centuries?"

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Approved ALT1 with a slight copy-edit. "Still" is tricky to source to the present. Google Maps images aren't in real-time (usually several years old), and they aren't a reliable secondary source in any event. ~ Rob^Talk 23:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)