This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject North East England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North East England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North East EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject North East EnglandTemplate:WikiProject North East EnglandNorth East England articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city of Rome and ancient Roman history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomeWikipedia:WikiProject RomeTemplate:WikiProject RomeRome articles
I propose this wording for the final paragraph of the lead, based on Dudley Miles' version but including some details in a footnote:
Hadrian’s Wall marked the boundary between Roman Britannia and unconquered Caledonia to the north.[a] The wall lies entirely within England and has never formed the Anglo-Scottish border.[1][2] While it is less than 0.6 mi (1.0 km) south of the border with Scotland in the west at Bowness-on-Solway, in the east at Wallsend it is as much as 68 miles (109 km) away.
^The Roman province of Britannia included the territory of what later became Wales and almost all of England. The territory of Caledonia was later to become Scotland and parts of the English counties of Northumberland and Cumbria.
This looks fine to me except that I would delete "modern". "never" rightly implies that it was also not one of the earlier medieval borders. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both your points and will delete "modern".Tammbecktalk 16:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Addition to "In Popular Culture / Poetry" section[edit]
Alex Harvey set the WH Auden poem 'Roman Wall Blues" to music and recorded it at least twice.
It was title track on his 1969 debut solo record (and the B side of the 1969 single Midnight Moses).
He re-recorded it for his last album, 1983's 'The Soldier On The Wall'.
Might be worth a mention in the Auden para.
146.198.47.244 (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rjdeadly has made many extensive edits since 19 February, some of which change referenced text, presumably distorting the sources, and others are unreferenced. Doug Weller has reverted some which have been re-reverted. Some of the edits may be valuble but it would require a lot of work to find which ones and I would like to hear other editors' views. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: I’ve got two hospital appointments tomorrow about my cancer surgery but if I have time I’ll look at them. Meanwhile it might be worth mentioning at the archaeology Wikiproject. Doug Wellertalk 21:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest reverting wholesale to before Rjdeadly started, then letting him make the case for individual bits here. His user talk makes rather alarming reading. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but I’ve reverted twice. Doug Wellertalk 14:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support the revert, and the suggestion that Rjdeadly should gain consensus here for individual comments before making any more bold edits on this subject. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The page as it stands is of poor quality, with naive text, poor diagrams and poor pictures, and is unworthy of Britain's most important Roman monument. At least one person seems to recognise this, but it seems most are happy to leave it poor. If so then do so. I've tried to improve it without any constructive assistance, just negative comments. It does not surprise me that so many these pages will remain irrelevant to serious readers if this is the support to be expected.Rjdeadly (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rjdeadly: and you can't be bothered to discuss the changes you'd like to see. If there are better photos on Commons we can use them, but I wonder if you've even checked. Doug Wellertalk 09:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lead says a “significant portion” of the wall remains. Smithsonian Magazine quotes History Hits here saying “Only 10% of the original wall is now visible.” How does one rectify “significant” with 10%? A reliable number of miles of stones still visible, not simply the word “significant”, would be useful in understanding what remains. I understand that the path of the wall has been surveyed and the Walk is maintained along that original path, so I grasp that England does know where the wall existed. 10% jolted me, sounding so short, 7.3 of the 73 miles of wall and forts. - - Prairieplant (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While it is short, it is in the part that is wild open hill country and the most interesting part to walk, so it is significant. In the lower areas, the bricks of the wall were removed to build farm walls. --Bduke (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At this edit I have put in a reference for the modern re-use of stone from the Wall. We will not find a reference for the wall still standing to its original height, it doesn't do that anywhere (except in the modern reconstruction segment in Vindolanda, which isn't on the route of the original Wall). I don't find any figure for the proportion that is visible above ground, or high enough to trip over, or for the proportion of that that is original as opposed to modern reconstruction, so I suggest that the phrasing "walkers can see much of the footings and a few partially-rebuilt segments" is useful and an improvement, though doubtless there are better ways of putting it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These comments may be correct, but I do not see how the sources support them. The first source says "A significant portion of the wall survives to the present day, particularly in the mid-section, although whole sections of it were demolished in the eighteenth century for road making. For much of its length the wall can be traversed by the visitor on foot and many of the fascinating excavated forts are open to the public." This does not support the dismissive statement "Almost all of the standing masonry of the Wall was removed in early modern times and used for local roads and farmhouses" I also do not see where the second source supports "walkers can see much of the footings and a few partially-rebuilt segments". Dudley Miles (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, thanks. It seems to be difficult to find specific references to the present state of the Wall. The guidebooks mention it in passing, it's apparent from their photos, and I recall a few information boards along the path that mention the rebuilding. Would you agree that WP:SKYBLUE may reasonably apply here? We do need to have some comment, but we don't want to give the world-wide impression that any of the Wall still stands to its original height, or indeed that most of it currently stands very high at all.
I didn't intend anything to be "dismissive", but I have inserted "Many of the excavated forts on or near the Wall are open to the public, and various nearby museums present its history." Again I feel that this is not sufficiently controversial to need a reference. I look forward to your thoughts. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that SKYBLUE applies to any statement about the wall. That applies to facts which are known to everyone. When I walked along the wall, I got the impression that significant sections still stand to their orignal height, and I do not remember the archeologist accompanying us saying anything about rebuilding. If I am wrong, then it needs a reliable reference to say so. Comparing the first source with your wording, both quoted above, it does seem to me dismissive POV. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“significant remains" might be better than “significant portion”, & less questionable. And something about the lower parts being all that is left. I don't actually think that "significant sections still stand to their orignal height" is at all true - if it's true anywhere, which I rather doubt, it would be on the remote sections on top of a steep ridge (Whin Sill), where it was too far to carry stone away. What the not-very-RS "History Hits" actually says is "In fact, it’s estimated that – for various reasons – around 90 per cent of it is no longer visible." Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote, I may be wrong. We need reliable sources. I have a book on the wall, which does not cover its modern survival, but does say that the most authoritative book on its visible and buried remains is D.J. Breeze, J. Collingwood Bruce's Handbook to the Roman Wall, 14th edition, 2006. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see this costs £15 from Amazon. Does anyone fancy getting a copy? Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A public library will get it through inter-library loan - if you live in Britain and if you are patient. I don't know whether it will cover the specific questions we are discussing. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do live in GB but I'm not that patient. Meanwhile I paste OCRd text from a deeply reliable source, the Ordnance Survey historical map of
Roman Britain: THE NORTHERN FRONTIERS
...Hadrian's Wall, running seventy-six miles from sea to sea, from the Tyne in the east to the Solway in the west. The Wall was ordered by the emperor Hadrian who visited Britain in AD 122, and was more or-less complete at his death in AD 138. The original plan was for a continuous curtain with gates and watchtowers, built by the legions but garrisoned by auxiliary forces in the forts along the Roman road (the Stanegate) from Corbridge to Carlisle, a couple of miles to the rear. The eastern half of the Wall was built in stone from the outset, but the western part was originally built in turf and timber and was only later replaced in stone. Nowhere does the Wall itself survive intact, so its height and whether it had crenellations and a wall-walk are uncertain... I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So at least we now have a reliable source for saying that the wall survives nowhere intact, contrary to my impression. The UNESCO world heritage site designation at [1] is a reliable source. It is vague on current survival, but has a list of useful links. I do not think that any of the current sources on this aspect are RSs. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
