Talk:Parthenon/Archive 2

message: This page states "Some of the dimensions form the golden rectangle expressing the goldefxcvmay hac contain stubjertss
], praised by Pythagoras in the previous century" yet the Golden Ratio was developed 200 years later, and not by Pythagoras, according to our own page on the Golden Ratio 
Some scholars deny that the Greeks had any aesthetic association with golden ratio. For example, Midhat J. Gazalé says, "It was not until Euclid, however, that the golden ratio's mathematical properties were studied. In the Elements (308 B.C.) the Greek mathematician merely regarded that number as an interesting irrational number, in connection with the middle and extreme ratios. Its occurrence in regular pentagons and decagons was duly observed, as well as in the dodecahedron (a regular polyhedron whose twelve faces are regular pentagons). It is indeed exemplary that the great Euclid, contrary to generations of mystics who followed, would soberly treat that number for what it is, without attaching to it other than its factual properties." And Keith Devlin says, "Certainly, the oft repeated assertion that the Parthenon in Athens is based on the golden ratio is not supported by actual measurements. In fact, the entire story about the Greeks and golden ratio seems to be without foundation. The one thing we know for sure is that Euclid, in his famous textbook Elements, written around 300 B.C., showed how to calculate its value."
Something is inconsistent, and since the Golden Ratio page supplies appropriate citations, I suspect it may be this page.
Graldensblud 18:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Golden Ratio

message: What was the roof comprised of?  There's no information in here about what covered the structure.  Building such a huge wide-span roof in the ancient days sounds like a big marvel that isn't being discussed. -Rolypolyman 17:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Marble tiles, some of which are on display on the rock, in plain view. --5telios 10:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Roof

message: There is no article in front of "Kerameikos" when the word is used on its own. When it is used in combination with another word like cemetery or area, the article is used (the Kermeikos cemetery, the Kerameikos area but never the Kerameikos)
:Actually, in English, it is quite common to refer to the Keremeikos. Examples abound on the web and in scholarly literature. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kerameikos / The Kerameikos

message: I have cut the following text: 
The sculptures that reside in the British Museum are in a noticably better condition to the ones that were left attached (The pediment sculpture of Cecrops that Elgin left and the remaining Caryiatids resemble melted wax after 50 years of modern pollution).
As it is unreferenced and shows a non-neutral point of view. "Melted wax" - one may as well write "runny shite". The claim needs to be referenced and should be cleansed of its point of view. I do not disagree that the in-situ sculpture seems to be ni worse condition. I do disagree with the wording here. --5telios 10:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pollution 

message: "Construction began in 447 BC, and the building was substantially completed by 432, but work on the decorations continued until at least 433." Shouldn't the last number be smaller than 432? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pantaallou (talk • contribs) 14:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not make sense 

message: This artificial issue, which is a problem only for those who come to the table with a "definition" of temple that does not include the Parthenon, is strictly a  Christian issue, and not a professional art historians' or archaeologists' issue. If I'm not mistaken, the Christian "scholars" who raised it-- the article says in the "late 19th century"-- need to be identified. --Wetman 05:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question "treasury or temple?" is silly, as the answer is "yes, both"--not just for the Parthenon, but for any Greek temple, which all served as storehouses for objects dedicated to the god. The Parthenon doesn't seem to have had a priestess or a cult associated with it, which is strange for a Greek temple. But Wetman is quite right here--if "Greek temple" is defined in a way that excludes the Parthenon, the definition is wrong. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wetman, this issue has been discussed many times here. You yourself took part in the debate. Some references are quoted in the archived talk page. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Treasury or Temple?" 

message: It's a good idea to have this section, but I don't think it should be the first section after the lead. I'd say the first sections after the lead should be a detailed description of the Parthenon's architecture (including the "refinements") and its sculptural program (metopes, pediments, frieze, statue of Athena Parthenos); then its history, including its prehistory. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Twospoonfuls 15:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proto-Parthenon 

message: The dimensions of the base of the Parthenon given in this article are: 69.5 meters by 30.9 meters (228.0 x 101.4 ft). Other sources give slightly different figures.
This width (30.9 meters) is equal to the length of one second of the arc of the earth’s circumference. Since the mean circumference of the Earth is 40,041,470 metres, the length of one second is equal to:
:\textstyle\frac{circumference.of.the.earth}{360 x 60 x 60}.
:\textstyle\frac{40,041,470.meters}{360 x 60 x 60}.
:= 30.896 meters
For a complete analysis see here.
This may or may not be a coincidence. Odysses (☜) 13:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it probably is a coincidence. Twospoonfuls 15:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, if anyone has access to jstor and wouldn't mind helping me out could they please email me, thanks. Twospoonfuls 18:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Geodesy of the Parthenon

message: I moved the "etymology" section down and retitled it "name". The reason for moving it down is that this is a less important issue than the architectural form of the building and its sculptural decoration; at the same time, it's a complicated and inconclusive issue, and doesn't make for a great first section. In fact, I would say that the section right now is only provisional, because it seems there's quite a bit of disagreement over which room parthenon meant originally, and I haven't had time to do much more than read Hurwit on the issue.
As an aside, I deleted some stuff from the previous version of this section. First, I have never seen anyone say that there is evidence of a cult of Athena Parthenos associated with the Parthenon. A statue, yes, but no altar, no priestess, no inscriptions recording sacrifices, etc. The main cultic activity for Athena is associated with the Erechtheion, or perhaps the temple of Athena Polias next to the Erechtheion if you believe Ferrari's article in AJP (2002). If Encyclopedia Britannica is saying that there was a cult attached to the Parthenon, it's dead wrong--or at least, we have absolutely no evidence for one. Second, I cut out the bit from Bernal about the temple in Egyptian Sais. I don't consider Bernal a good source on Greek architecture, and anything he says on the subject is likely to be a tiny minority view. If another source agrees with him then this material might be worth putting in the article, but I'd rather see it in the context of a broader discussion on architectural influence, covering the predecessors of the Parthenon and the effect it had on later architecture. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reverting Odysses' edit which gives the LSJ definition of parthenon. The reason is that the LSJ gives only one of the possible definitions, and is therefore not as good of a source as Hurwit, Beard, et al. who point out that the word's meaning is ambiguous--it could be "of the virgin" or "of the virgins". BTW, "maiden" isn't contemporary English, it has a distinctly archaic feel. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmmm... Akhilleus, searching the google book, I find a few theories about Parthenon's name; I think they should be somehow included. Anyway, I will add some edits, and then check them or copy-edit them. I'll also make some stylistic interventions.--Yannismarou 16:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but there's an issue of how many theories we want/need to include. As far as I can see the two most common ideas are that the name comes from the Athena Parthenos or that it means that the arrephoroi wove Athena's peplos in a room of the Parthenon. However, it seems like most scholars don't strongly endorse any theory, because there's not much evidence. In any case, a full explanation of the problem would be very detailed, and probably beyond the scope of this article--our readers are probably not very interested in contemplating exactly what opisthodomos means in the context of the Parthenon, for instance. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, check my new edits, and their accuracy. Feel free to revert or re-edit anything you regard as redundant or inaccurate. I may get repetitive or I may have misunderstood some of the theories.--Yannismarou 17:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First I was surprised by the removal of the LSJ definition of Parthenon by Akhilleus. But Yannismarou has given a perfectly reasonable explanation about the easy to reach googling information. I do realize now that this is far more attractive to the average reader. We don’t need to bore anyone with old-fashioned references. Perhaps if Akhilleus wishes to rename the article Virginarium, the reader will be even more aware of what the monument really is, and we won’t have to bother about Parthenon been in FAR. Odysses (☜) 17:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the snarky comment, Odysses, but there's a basic problem with using the LSJ to write encyclopedia articles; the LSJ is essentially a dictionary, and provides less information than scholarly articles and monographs (which are the sources that Yannismarou is getting from Google Books). Second, as I've already said above, on this particular issue the LSJ gives only one of the possible meanings of parthenon, and is therefore not as good of a source as Hurwit et al. who give both possible senses. 18:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: If Yannismarou is going to delete the entire section on the proto-Parthenon, then common courtesy would require a word of explanation. Twospoonfuls 09:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i did not delete it, my friend. I summarized it in "Design and Construction" and created a sub-article, because the analysis was overwhelming here. Common courtesy would require a careful reading of my edits, before you ask for a word of explanation.--Yannismarou 16:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proto-Parthenon

message: I know that FAs should not have galleries, but I strongly believe that the gallery should be the last thing to remove from the article, after everything else is fixed. It remains a source of nice pictures to add throughout the article, while it is rewritten and expanded. After we have in front of our eyes a brand new article with the new pictures we want to add, then the gallery should be removed.--Yannismarou 16:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I made that change because it was easy, but it's easy enough to put the gallery back in on a temporary basis if you like. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Temporary disagreement about the removal of the gallery