Talk:Mausoleum at Halicarnassus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Dec 04[edit]

"The Knights claimed that Moslem villagers were responsible for the theft, but it is just as likely that some of the Crusaders themselves plundered the graves."

Is there any historic reason to say Moslem over the more accurate Muslim in this article? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

There is nothing particularly more "accurate" about the currently favored transliteration of the Arabic word. Both vowel sounds are intermediate between the two transliterations; the form Moslem has the historical advantage of being the traditional English spelling. Bill 15:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
More essential, how was this supposed claim voiced? Is it that archaeologists found pieces from the Mausoleum incorporated into local Ottoman stuctures, as they certainly did find them incorporated into Crusader-period fortifications? That's the history that needs to be clearer here. --Wetman 08:08, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Should there not be a source required here for the reference to the 1960's research 'proving' grave robbers arrived long before the Crusaders? 03:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Specifically, this section could really use a source, maybe someone with access to better search capabilities than I can find one: "The Knights claimed that Moslem villagers were responsible for the theft, but it is just as likely that some of the Crusaders themselves plundered the graves. On the walls of the small museum building next to the site of the Mausoleum we find a different story. Research done by archeologists in the 1960s shows that long before the knights came grave robbers had dug a tunnel under the grave chamber, stealing its contents. Also the museum states that it is most likely that Mausolus and Artemisia were cremated, so only an urn with their ashes were placed in the grave chamber. This explains why no bodies were found." 03:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Source for this section is partially me. I was their on holiday. I unfortunately didn't take any pictures of the texts on the walls. Somebody with access to a uni library might be able to dig up prof. Jespessens account of the site. Raindeer 15:15, 15 dec 2006 (CET)

Oct 05[edit]

Changes made based upon visit to Bodrum in October 2005. Wikipedia Classic Dictionary also has a lot of information. Raindeer 18:30, 19 Oct 2005 (CET)

Jan 06[edit]

I removed the link just added (, because it returns a 404 error; and because the parent site ( returns a much stranger error, at least to me: my browser pops up a warning message stating that maybe it isn't what it looks like. . . . Bill 15:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Update 2 years later: I find that page back up, with no warning message — only to discover that it's a piracy of a page from Jona Lendering's site. Furthermore, even the (good) page by Lendering doesn't belong as a link here, since it's not about the Mausoleum but about Mausolus. Bill (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


Someone with better copy editing skills than I needs to clean this up - it's not bad enough for a tag, but there are plenty of duplicated sentences that will require restructuring to eliminate. Rainman420 21:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


I moved the modern images down to the modern section, and added one of the ruins. There should also probably be an image of Maussollos in his section, if one exists.--Patrickneil 22:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


User:DIEGO RICARDO PEREIRA has been editing the article — any view on whether the edits constitute an improvement? I'm not so sure. m.e. 09:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

ss? ll?[edit]

Why are the 's' and the 'l' in Mausolus' transliterated name doubled? The lambda and sigma in the Greek original aren't. This page ought to be moved to 'Mausoleum of Mausolus' or 'Mausloeum of Mausolos', with appropriate re-directs. Agemegos 22:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right. The spelling should be Mausolus. --Centauri 01:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Affectations of special spelling are a weakness of a certain level of Wikipedians. They are intended to look "educated". Very vulgar, actually. --Wetman 11:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


My recent edits have eliminated some fantastical and distracting linking, like roof and navy, and added a few links—— to the names of the sculptors, for example. I have tightened loose construction without loss and have Englished some stray idiom. An article in this condition should not have been selected as an example of Wikipedia's best. Perhaps the text has eroded. --Wetman 21:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Mausoleum of Mausolus[edit]

Can we change the awkward and pretentious stab at accuracy of Maussollos for the perfectly familiar Mausolus, universally employed by native speakers of English when speaking or writing of this person? Would there be any objection? On what would it be based? --Wetman (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

hgfhghghghghghffghg —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus for move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Mausoleum of MausolusMausoleum of Halicarnassus — Hy there, I'm hereby requesting that we move this article towards Mausoleum of Halicarnassus asap. The proposed name (which is currently a re-direct) is the common and simply famous name of this ancient wonder of the world (in English). To be very honest I doubt that most of us have ever heard of a 'Mausoleum of Mausolus' at all. Flamarande (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Furthermore, the administrator could and should protect the article against any future move.

Agreed the redirect should be reversed. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Support per nomination. I believe that we can all agree that the entry above (from Zacherystaylor) is clearly a Support vote Flamarande (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me. I don't think protection is necessary at the moment however. Dougweller (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I'd be searching if I were a Wikipedia reader.--Wetman (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I suspect that the two entries above are support votes (I could be wrong :). Flamarande (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, just to be clear. We should not look silly, as the present redundancy makes us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

you can't have it both ways[edit]

if Americans are going to come in here and write distances in feet, can they lay off the spelling of our units of measurement (metres). You should just choose one; you can't have it both ways Owen214 (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the measurements so they're now abbreviated. That way spelling doesn't matter one way or the other. Nev1 (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The wikipedia needs a markup language for distance so you can put meters and then have it display in feet for the americans. Jeff Carr (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
See Template:Convert, which does essentially that (and much more) with the correct parameters. Also note that you replied above to a comment made almost 5 years ago. Dwpaul Talk 17:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

AT not OF[edit]

the title of this page should be 'Mausoleum at Halicarnassus' not 'Mausoleum of Halicarnassus' as the tomb was not the tomb of halicarnassus, it was at the capital city of halicarnassus. (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Read [1]. The English uses the most common English name, even if such a name is technically wrong. Flamarande (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Most scholarly articles/scholars refer to this as the Mausoleum AT Helikarnassos - differing spelling of the city's name is tolerable, but basic inaccuracy should not be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

If you are able to provide hard evidence by serious sources for "at" instead of "of" I we may make a move. Notice the "serious" = no simple Google counts. Britannica uses 'of'. How about other encyclopedias? Flamarande (talk) 09:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Without trying to sound anal I wouldn't count Britannica as a "serious" scholarly source either, it's just as prone to error as WP. Oxford Companion to the Classical World, Oxford Classical Dictionary, unfortunately neither are available online without a subscription, but do a simple search on and see how many scholarly articles turn up AT over OF, by my reckoning its 100% the former. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I looked a bit around and found this [2]. I believe that you're right in this issue. Flamarande (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Flamandre — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Flamarande (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)