Talk:Mask of Agamemnon

message: I beefed up this article and removed the stub, as any editor can do. If anyone disagrees, just revert it.Dave 17:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, it's definitely not a stub.  --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 17:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed stub

message: It would be nice to know its dimensions and weight, and possibly also what gold it is made of.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.225.127.186 (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Weight?

message: really?  does anyone know anything about the actual construction? because 'hewn' doesn't really make much sense in this context.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.234.117 (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hewn? 

message: I'm working on editing this article for a school assignment. It's my first time editing an article on wikipedia, so I am making liberal use of the talk page to communicate as clearly as possible with any other contributors who might stop by and take a look at what's going on. I like the fact that there are some unanswered questions floating here to direct my search, and I lol'ed a little bit at the discussion of what constitutes acceptable parameters for debate on the internet. I would just like to add my personal view that whenever we argue on the internet, everyone loses.
Some potential sources I would like to use to add more information to this article are;
 This article which describes the dimensions of the mask
http://odysseus.culture.gr/h/4/eh430.jsp?obj_id=4503
This article which is a little more specific about the method of production
[...]
And one more to say where the mask is currently located. I will be starting to work out the edits I want to make to the article in my sandbox very soon, in case anyone is interested in knowing more about where I am going with my edit. 
Achurn333 (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential Sources

message: Two short comments about the article.
First, what is the most current consensus about the legitimacy of the mask? In the section about controversies it mentions that there has been some debate over whether the mask was fabricated by Schliemann, but not what current scholars think of the artifact. Does anyone know of a contemporary source that could be used to wrap up this section?
Also, all but two of the sources come from the same website since it is one long article broken up into a series of pages. Granted, the Archaeological Institute of America is about as reputable as it gets, but some variety would help expand the perspective of the article.
Kbaganski (talk) 03:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Improvements 

message: "they claim, has been greatly exaggerated, and they also claim that the attackers were conducting a vendetta." Does anyone have a citation for the article which makes this claim? A few citations relating to the debate around the mask's authenticity would go a long way in informing readers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keegan Sud-Tost (talk • contribs) 18:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source on Controversy  

message: I believe everything said is fine, but would think more different sources would make this better. Most facts are from one website, making different depictions on the mask in different explanations, with one book contributing and one from another website. I would think more from other websites or books about the mask and Agamemnon would be great to the credibility of this page.
King1384 (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: The lead paragraph says it was made "about 1600 BC" while the infobox gives the range of "1550–1500 BC." Seems like one of these should be changed, but I don't know which. —Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I changed "about 1600 BC" to "about the 16th century BC". Demetrios1993 (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the date of construction? 

message: Review () by , published in The American Historical Review (October 1987):
*
Review () by James T. Hooker, published in The Journal of Hellenic Studies (November 1988):
*
Demetrios1993 (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews of ''Myth, Scandal, and History'' (1986) 

message: The following text is poorly constructed, the "men" in question are not mentioned earlier in the article and none of this is accompanied by citations or specificity with the last claim.
"The faces of the men are not all covered with masks. That they are men and warriors is suggested by the presence of weapons in their graves. The quantities of gold and carefully worked artifacts indicate honor, wealth and status. The custom of clothing leaders in gold leaf is known elsewhere." 198.24.21.137 (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it needs improvement. Grave Circle A at Mycenae contained the bodies of eight men, nine women, and two children; nineteen in total. The quote you shared above is obviously referring to the other three men who were found without masks. By the way, for the most part, this addition is traced back to 2005 (diff). I rephrased it and added some references, but it needs more work. Demetrios1993 (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context/Citation needed for this paragraph