Talk:Ishtar Gate

message: The Ishtar Gate was NOT one of the Seven Wonders. Its just a part of the Walls of Babylon, which were one of the Seven Wonders.
Read the german version about the Walls of Babylon (Stadtmauern von Babylon). You can find much more informations about this topic. Maybe someone can translate it into English.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.4.124 (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Walls of Babylon

message: The excellent image has allowed me to notice something upon which I have never before seen comments. The "dragon" has the hind legs of a raptor, the forelegs of a feline, the head and hide of a reptile, and a tufted tail like a lion.  It also appears to be "snorting out the breath of the terrible flame of bright fire" as its forked serpent tongue flicks.
It would seem that the beast is less a 'dragon' and more a 'chimera,' in accord with the Homeric description.131.81.200.158 (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Observation: 

message: the ishtar gate is a place where you make a wish and it comes true  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.229.139 (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ishtar gate  

message: Considering the age and significance of the Ishtar Gate, this article is surprisingly lacking in info. In fact, it's mostly about where the surviving pieces are today. The article needs more info on the role the gate played in ancient babylon and its significance in the ancient world.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Needs More Info  

message: There seems to be a misunderstanding, whereas the color is similar to lapislazuli, the gate of course isn't made from actual lapislazuli but from glazed bricks. Or do I miss some information? --Pjacobi (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lapislazuli 

message: The article says The Met has a lion, but I was there this month, and it has a dragon.  The sign next to it says "One of these dragons is on long-term loan to The Metropolitan Museum of Art from the Vorderasiatishches Museum, Berlin."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.180.200 (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Met 

message: FYI, I am currently a docent at the RISD museum and we have a Babyonian Lion. I ended up here because I wanted to 
Know how the lions were made. My theory is that the lion was modeled in clay then cut  into a type of brick size grid.
From there each brick was made into a mold so one would have a paw brick mold, a knee brick mold and so on and so forth.
They would then cast all these bricks and put them back together like a puzzle, after each brick had been fired, glazed,etc.
I am not an expert. I just happen to have a sculpture background and know 68.230.153.127 (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Babylonian Lion in RI 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ishtar Gate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100812114601/http://www.designmuseum.se/lejon.htm to http://www.designmuseum.se/lejon.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: in the History section you talk about "enamelled yellow and black glazed bricks" this is a redundant statement. glaze and enamel are the same thin at there base level. Glaze is usually collection of minerals and glass that water is added to, where enamel is just those same materials without water both are melted at high temperatures to create a colored glassy or mat finish. you should just use enamel or glaze when describing the colors of a brick.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiprojectgroup2 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  enamelled and glazed redundancy  

message: This page has a lot of strengths. The section on "Design," the gallery, and the inclusion of the inscription are great. One area that could use more information is the "History" section. I noticed that a considerable portion of it is formal description that might be moved to "Design." It might also be helpful to add more citations under the "Excavation" section.
SarahMRedman (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for further information 11/28/17 

message: Everything's looking really well. Could you perhaps stick in a side panel, under your first image, full of easy access to information about the gate as well? - wingerterka  —Preceding undated comment added 23:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 11/28/17 

message: Hello! I was really confused at first when a plethora of new accounts suddenly started editing this page, all within a short time frame of each other. At first I thought that it was one person trying to work on the article, but who did not know how to log in and just kept creating new accounts every time he or she wanted to make an edit. Now I see that there is apparently an art history class working here. I wanted to say that I really appreciate all the work you are putting in, but please remember that all content must be cited to a reliable source for verifiability. Any content that is not cited could qualify as original research, which is strictly forbidden here on Wikipedia. Some of the material you have added (which seems to be useful, relevant, and accurate) is uncited, or at least appears to be. Please provide sources for this information so that it can be kept; otherwise, it will eventually have to be removed. Citations should be placed in proximity to the text they are supporting, so that it is easy for the reader to see where the information in that passage comes from. This means that every paragraph needs at least one citation, even if those citations are used elsewhere. It can feel redundant, but otherwise it can be nearly impossible to tell which sources are supporting which statements. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please cite your sources. 

message: Looking back at the history of this page, it has shown great improvement. The information that was added seems relevant and rather useful but as mentioned above, there are a few areas that could use a little more citations, for example the "Ishtar Gate and Processional Way" section. Overall, the page looks great! SergioFer (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Sections 2,3,4,and 5 seem to have been added recently. All well done. The pictures are exquisite, and the text is rich with valuable information that gives life to what was otherwise a short page that didn't do the Ishtar Gate justice. That being said, more citations need to be made, lest these sections be removed by someone other observer.
Dvchicago (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions—11/28/17 

message: I think you guys have made some really great additions to this page - I think the images you've incorporated are very helpful. I think citing more sources to back up your information would make your edits a little bit stronger but overall I think you've added a lot of useful description to this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye1797 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ishtar Gate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140127113356/http://blog.britishmuseum.org/2013/12/19/a-loan-from-berlin-a-lion-from-babylon/ to http://blog.britishmuseum.org/2013/12/19/a-loan-from-berlin-a-lion-from-babylon/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have the strong feeling that the English article about the gate is less clear than the German one, in that it almost immediately has a line "It [the gate] was part of a grand walled processional way leading into the city." That led several contributors to organizing the processional way category (in commons) as being part of the gate one. In the German article the two are treated as separate. In particular in describing the way the two were reconstructed in Berlin (“So konnte schließlich mit dem Aufbau des Ischtartores und eines Teils der Prozessionsstraße im Südflügel des Pergamonmuseums begonnen werden, um sie 1930 der Öffentlichkeit erstmals zugänglich zu machen.“) the distinction is clear. 
In the English article, under “History” it reads “Through the gate ran the Processional Way, which was lined with walls showing about 120 lions, bulls, dragons, and flowers on yellow and black glazed bricks, symbolizing the goddess Ishtar. The gate itself depicted only gods and goddesses. These included Ishtar, Adad, and Marduk.
Comparing this to the German article, which seems to be the original one, only lions symbolize Ishtar, not the menagerie and its flowers. It states wild bulls symbolize weather god Adad. And that the dragons symbolize Marduk. Looking at the reconstructed gate one can see these animals. The line “The gate itself depicted only gods and goddesses” with its silly “only” suggests on its service one would see gods in more human guises, but that is not the case. The next line suggests these three are only some of more gods and goddesses depicted, that again is wrong, at least in the reconstruction. I would edit the text is it were not for the fact I do not have any original sources, and do not know if the German article can be trusted 100%. It might be nice if a specialist took a look at the English text, though.Dosseman (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparing the German (original?)  article with the English one. 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion