Talk:Parthenon
|
|
| Missing image Cscr-featured.png Featured article star | Parthenon is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute. |
I cut this:
- "but though modelled after a temple had no altar and was actually used as a treasury"
because Greek temples didn't have altars inside them, or only had altars for burning incense. The big altar for blood sacrifice was always under the open sky and thus, outside. The back room of the Parthenon was used as a treasury, but so was that of many other temples. --MichaelTinkler
I added a new reference to its role as a treasury, and a couple notes on history.
We also need an art history/architecture buff to add some commentary about construction. For instance, the Parthenon appears square because it's not. The architectes took perspective in to consideration and bowed it up a bit in the middle so that it would look perfectly square.
The Elgin affair gives rise to the expression "I've been Elginized" meaning that one has lost one's marbles... ;-) -- Tarquin 01:24 Aug 12, 2002 (PDT)
In the 17th century A.D. the Turks used it to house ammunition, and most of the structure was destroyed when it was hit by a Venetian cannonball.
- I read that it was a bullet, which is correct? Crusadeonilliteracy
| Contents |
images
it would be nice to have the images alternate floating right, left, right, left....or to have some variance rather than floating right, right, right, right. Kingturtle 19:57, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I would once have agreed, but every time I put an image on the left I get complaints from people who say their browsers can't cope with it. I have given up trying to "design" pages. Anyway this new photo format means that these are just thumbs anyway, and anyone who is interested in the photos will look at the enlarged versions. Adam 00:23, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
HISTORICAL ERROR
The Parthenon was not the treasury of the Delian league, which in fact was so named because its treasury was on Delos. Jeff Anonymous 18:47, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- It was moved to the Parthenon in 454. Adam 04:42, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, they shouldn't have done that. I predict it will cause only trouble. :) -- Decumanus 04:43, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- It couldn't have been moved in 454 BC... it wasn't built until 447! Does anyone have a reference for the real date? jamesmusik
- The name stayed the same, even though they moved the treasury.
The dates are correct. The Treasury was moved from Delos to the Acropolis at Athens before the Parthenon was built. In fact it was the Delian League's money that was used to pay for it. I agree the text is a little ambiguous on this, and I will expand it. Adam 00:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Nashville Parthenon
I added a short paragraph referencing the Parthenon replica in Nashville, TN. If you get a chance, visit it! Cheaper than a Grecian vacation, and walking through the massive bronze doors and seeing the overwhelming statue of Athena Parthenos at the opposite end of the building is awe-inspiring. It was an amazing experience that must be akin what the ancient Greeks felt upon entering the temple. -- Woody Eadie
- shudders at thought of the Parthenon in Nashville* (I suppose it's better than Gracelands in Athens) Adam 09:21, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Temple or Treasury
Re the recent edit. You present some interesting points, but all the authorities I have consulted say that it was a temple, and I have to go with them rather than your opinion. Yes it was also a treasury, but so were most Greek temples. Adam 09:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Just because an opinion is held by the majority does not make it right. Besides, I could claim myself to be an "authority" (PhD in Greek archaeology, lecturer in Greek history, director of excavations in Greece). So this question has to be decided on merit only : I am not satisfied by your answer. Just try to disprove my points instead of believing blindly the doxa. At the very least, I feel that this view has to be represented in a featured article — its omission is ground to remove the banner. Marsyas 12:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
OK, here are some points:
- I can tell you from bitter experience (as a PhD in history) that no-one at Wikipedis is allowed to argue anything from "authority". You cannot say "I am a professor of mathematics and I say that two and two makes four and that's that." You have to persuade the collectivity of editors that you are right on the basis of evidence, not assertion.
- Wikipedia also has a rule against "original research" - which means you cannot present your own theories, no matter how much work you have done. You cannot say "I know that Troy was located on the Isle of Wight because I have dug it up myself." An encyclopaedia is not a learned journal - it has to represent the consensus of professional opinion (the doxa if you like) and not the viewes of the heterodox.
- I have looked in three encyclopaedias and two textbooks and they all say that the Parthenon was a temple to Athena Parthenos. None of my books are very new, however. To convince me that the archaelogical consensus has changed, and therefore that the article should be changed to reflect that, you will need to produce some references, by authorities other than yourself.
Adam 13:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. You are the one who wrote first about "authorities", not me. This is not my research — classical architecture is not my field. I wrote it in the article : this a view first exposed in the 19th c. and repeated numerous times since. I don't present my own original research on Wikipedia. I added one French important reference on the subject : this is not one obscure article in a little read journal, but one big manual for students in Greek archaeology. The writer was (he's retired now) the Professor of Greek archaeology in the Sorbonne university. The Encyclopaedia Universalis — the French equivalent of the Britannica — holds the same view. So this NOT some extremist stuff. Marsyas 13:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
OK, I will try and recast the material you have added in a form which will pass muster with the Wikipolice. Adam 14:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(PS: Tell me what you think of the image I deleted today from Antinous and the comment I make on my reason for deleting it in Talk:Antinous.)
- ...a 19th-century neoclassical ideal bust "of Antinous type"? --Wetman 13:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, that is just what I thought. Adam 14:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The article cannot be written so that something the article itself sees as a minority view (that the temple was a treasury) is listed as proven and true. If you want to claim that certain people say it is a treasury, say who they are so it's them saying it and not Wikipedia. Of course then we should also have cites to the people saying it's not and why. See Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View for the policy. DreamGuy 16:06, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
- OK, so the arguments should be rewritten in a more neutral way. I will do it and I will give you the whole debate. No problem. Marsyas 17:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)