Talk:Parthenon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured articleParthenon is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 12, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 24, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
December 21, 2004Featured article reviewKept
May 25, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Connelly's book[edit]

I think the recently added statement "In a recent book, the archaeologist Joan Breton Connelly has argued that this 'biggest, most technically astonishing, ornately decorated, and aesthetically compelling temple ever known' was designed to commemorate a human sacrifice" distorts what Connelly says. Uninformed people reading that statement may assume that Connelly is arguing that the Parthenon commemorates an actual, specific incident of human sacrifice. In fact, what she is suggesting is that the building commemorates a myth of a human sacrifice. Whether the myth has any basis in a real life incident is of course something that can't be determined, and Connelly certainly doesn't argue or assume that it does: indeed she says on p.142 of her book that there is not a single credibly attested instance of the sacrifice of a maiden in historic Greece, and that the evidence for actual human sacrifice in pre-historic Greece is "problematic, inconclusive, and slight." I suggest changing the wording to make it clear that Connelly is not supposing an actual event. (BTW I don't know why references show up under this comment but I didn't put them there.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.139.210.170 (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed the references, they are from earlier discussions.  Unician   06:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I've amended this paragraph (without having first checked the talk page) as follows:

In a recent book, the archaeologist Joan Breton Connelly has controversially argued that this "biggest, most technically astonishing, ornately decorated, and aesthetically compelling temple ever known" was designed to commemorate a human sacrifice.<ref>Joan Breton Connelly, ''The Parthenon Enigma'', New York, Knopf, 2014</ref><ref>Daniel Mendelsohn, Deep Frieze, ''The New Yorker'', 14 April 2014</ref>

Before, the two references were strangely conjoined with a comma. I removed "page 35" as the DM article is online (where it has no page number) nor is it clear to me that the page number belongs to the book (another possibility). I also added the word 'controversially' which is in Mendelsohn. The DM reference is not a good one for encyclopedic purposes: in that piece he's often not speaking directly, but posturing instead as a highbrow unreliable narrator, through a satirical lens of presumptuous future-history. My sense is that this article would be better off without this paragraph in its current state. — MaxEnt 10:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I've added a brief revision which I think clarifies what Connely is actually saying. I tend to agree though that the whole paragraph isn't really necessary: there are all kinds of theories about the Parthenon, and I don't see why special emphasis should be given to this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.139.207.88 (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Parthenon. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Parthenon. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Northern metopes[edit]

The article states: ”On the north side of the Parthenon, the metopes are poorly preserved, but the subject seems to be the sack of Troy.

No much later it states:

Several of the metopes still remain on the building, but, with the exception of those on the northern side, they are severely damaged.

What does that mean? That they are poorly preserved, so that we are not even sure if they present the sack of Troy, but not severely damaged? Afil (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)