Talk:Art in ancient Greece

Whether or not it was copyright, it was a lousy article anyway. I am happy to write a new one, alone or in collaboration with others who are interested in this field. Adam 03:09, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In the future, please follow the directions on the copyvio notice (and do not remove the copyvio notice). The new article should have been created at Greek art/Temp so that the original could be deleted. Now we have a possible copyright violation in page history (which still exposes Wikipedia to copyright infringement since the public can still access it.) - Texture 17:21, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So delete it already. Adam 00:23, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Is there some reason that the FaC message must be here and not on the article page? Exploding Boy 23:41, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

---

Shouldn't there be something on the Greek art of the 2000 years since then, or at least pointers to articles on it elsewhere, given that this resides at Greek art? Perhaps Byzantine art or modern Greek art or something, since I agree the term "Greek art" in English usage commonly refers to ancient Greek art, so this article should stay as is (modulo some pointers to other material). --Delirium 10:23, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

I debated calling this article Art of Ancient Greece and I won't object if anyone wants to move it to that title. But I eventually decided that Greek art is the most commonly used term, since the following period is usually called Byzantine art (an article which I am gearing up to write). I suppose there is modern Greek art but I know nothing about it. Adam 13:24, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

i was under the impression korai were, atleast originally, non-nude. good job with this article. well-written, and i found few typos. Badanedwa 14:59, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Yes of course they were. The article says that the female nude was not acceptable until the 5th century. Adam 02:59, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Were the korai "of far less artisitic importance"? I know they were of less cultural importance - to the extent that they weren't as widely comissioned or produced as kouroi - but an obvious amount of work went into the clothes, particularly the geometric patterns on early examples, and on the hairstyles and jewellery on later korai (at least the few I've seen), which I think suggests they were artisitically significant. -- Gregg 07:50, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that was a careless formulation on my part. What is of "artistic significance" is of course a subjective judgement made by art historians, not an absolute. It flows from the belief that the human form (the nude) is the highest form of artistic representation, and that therefore the kore is of less important since it made no contribution to the representation of the human form. The Greeks of course made no such judgements, and certainly not in the Archaic period. Adam 09:01, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Lack of References

Where are the references to the sources used for material in this article? Without references and proper citation, it could simply be made up out of thin air. If it was in fact written from personal knowledge then it should still be confirmed with as many of the most reliable sources in the field as possible. This article is improving again, so it might as well be the best that is possible. - Taxman 14:47, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

It was written from the accumulated knowledge of an author (me) who has a doctorate in history, has been reading Greek history for thirty years and has travelled in Greece. Encyclopaedias are supposed to be authoritative references in and of themselves. When people read the Greek Art article in the Britannica, they don't find references, and they don't expect to, because they accept the Britannica as an authoritative source. Nor do they in Collier's or Funk & Wagnall's (go check, I just did). At the Britannica they get a bibliography, at the others nothing but the author's initials. If Wikipedia is a genuine encyclopaedia, it shouldn't need references. (I agree the article could use a bibliography.) If you disagree with any statement in the article, you are free to edit it, then we can debate the point. Adam 15:19, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems surprising that you, an academian, would argue against references. The fact that Britannica or other encyclopedias don't list references and cite sources makes them less authoritative and reliable, not more. Why should we be restricted by what they do? Further, Brittanica is a physical, ivory tower institution that has a long history, all of which adds to their credibility. Wikipedia has none of that, and many critics feel that Wikipedia can never be reliable. The only way to counter that is with citing the best sources available. Think of it, without references a critic could claim all of the material is entirely made up, or at the least, that much of it is wrong. Why not head the challenge off at the pass and reference it upfront?

You say you are a PhD and authoritative, but anyone can claim that. If you really are a well known, authoritative source, then perhaps you could add your real name and qualifications as a reference in the article. If not, then it is better to stand on the most respected sources in the field. Of course your contributions are welcome, but properly referencing the article would make it even better. I am more than willing to help, but I have not the slightest idea what are the best sources in this field. You would be most qualified to decide that. - Taxman 16:18, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

• If Wikipedia lacks credibility (and I agree it does) it not because its articles are not footnoted liked undergraduate essays. It is because it allows far too many anonymous cranks to write and edit articles.

• While there is some merit to that position, it doesn't seem likely to change soon. And in any case not allowing anonymous people to edit won't entirely solve the credibility issue. It's not the panacea you seem to think it is. For one, lots of people that have PhD's are cranks too. So credibility is about a web of trust. Using trusted sources and citing them goes a long ways towards that. By the way, you use a lot of straw man arguments, undergraduate essays are besides the point. Journal articles and high level academic works are cited too, and for a reason. - Taxman 00:26, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

• I do indeed use my real name here, as I believe all editors should be required to do, and my qualifications are at my user page. Wikipedia policy is however against signing articles, and indeed this is not "my" article since anyone can edit it.
• Obviously we disagree about how encyclopaedia articles ought to be presented. I believe the Britannica (and all the other encyclopaedias I have ever used, which is a lot) are right in believing that encyclopaedias articles do not need footnotes, and you are wrong, but we will have to agree to disagree.

• The curious thing to me is why. Brittanica and other encyclopedias that pay a staff are completely different from Wikipedia. That gives them an automatic credibility and Wikipedia will never get that without referencing. Even if you don't feel like doing it yourself, do you really think an article is not improved and more trustworthy and reliable if it cites and uses the best available sources, vs one guy's take on something? - Taxman 00:26, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

• I agree the article needs a bibliography. I will try to add one. In the meantime you are free to edit the article in any way you like. Adam 23:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Please do. I'm certainly willing to help, I just don't know this subject in depth. So my most valuable contribution is encouraging others that are able to do the needed work. - Taxman 00:26, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

If Wikipedia lacks credibility, no amount of footnotes will give it credibility. If I can make up my article out thin air, I can also make up footnotes. Do you check footnotes in other Wikipedia articles back to source? If I cited Greek art: its Development, Character and Influence by Robert Cook, would you check that such a book existed? Or that I had cited it correctly? I don't think so - if you had the time and expertise to do so, you wouldn't need an encyclopaedia. An encyclopaedia gains credibility only by publishing articles which people find through experience to be accurate. Wikipedia has a long way to go in that regard, but I am trying to make a contribution. Adam 01:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course references can be made up, but the point is it is much more difficult to both make up incorrect text and fake references than it is to just make up fake text. And having the references makes it much easier to either verify the material or that the citations are fraudulent. Yes in fact I do check that books cited exist and click on external links used as sources, or papers available online to check that it corresponds to the article. Not all the time but I do for some featured article candidates for example. Point is not every reader has to do that for an article, only one does if done thoroughly. That is a huge difference. If you cite a statement to a book and that is not in there it makes it very easy to cast a doubt over the rest of the material and at the very least make it known that a thorough review is required. If you never cite any statements to sources that is much harder and much less likely to be done. But like I said, it only takes one person knowledgeable about a subject and familiar with a source to call BS on a citation. Its not that hard for one person out of a 100,000 that read an article to go to the library and see if a source really stated that. Its very easy to see if a source exits. For example that book above carries ISBN 0140146784 in one version and is available here. Additionally I see my local library has a copy that I could go get in about 5 minutes. - Taxman 02:32, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

And Wikipedia is in its infancy. One thing it has proven is that people will contribute material, much of it surprisingly valid. Eventually some or all of the pretty good part of the material can be put through a formal review process. That could involve checking the sources and verifying them thoroughly. In the meantime, well referenced articles are a big step. - Taxman 02:32, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Bronze Sculpture

I slightly edited the caption under the photo of the bronze sculture. It had said that the sculpture was definitely Poseidon; this is uncertain. Experts are reasonably sure that it is either Zeus or Poseidon, but are ultimately uncertain which is represented. I changed the caption to reflect this.--MS

Known world

I think this clarification of 'known world' is useful to have - which user Brian0918 did here [1] but was reverted, which I have restored Cfitzart 00:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

More Modern Greek Art

Anyone care to help me add some new material about artists such as vryzakis et al? --GreekWarrior 22:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)