Talk:Wonders of the World

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Architecture (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject History (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Today's articles for improvement
WikiProject icon
This article was selected as Today's article for improvement on 15 April 2013 for a period of one week.
WikiProject icon
 

/Archive 1

OK, silly question...[edit]

But why is Stonehenge listed as a Medieval site? Medieval Britain is post-Roman, e.g. 400 - 800CE; Stonehenge is known to date from the third millennium BCE or even earlier. Hunterd is back! 02:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As the article says: "Many lists of wonders of the world are said to have existed during the Middle Ages, although it is unlikely that these lists originated at that time because the word medieval was not even invented until the Enlightenment-era, and the concept of a Middle Age did not become popular until the 16th century. Brewer's refers to them as "later list[s]"[2] suggesting the lists were created after the Middle Ages. Many of the structures on these lists were built much earlier than the Medieval Ages, but were well known." There has been much discussion about these lists, check above in the Talk. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Aah, sorry, probably helps to read the article. lol. I just read that bit and misunderstood it as being a list of wonders that were created in the medieval period, rather than the list being created at that time... Hunterd is back! 03:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
A very understandable error. In the past I argued that the whole section should be deleted, because it's so misleading, but others disagreed. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Much later update: I've changed the section title from "Medieval Lists" because it was so confusing. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Authorities and Bodies[edit]

After reading the Wonders of the World (new section), which I will add has been well written however is misleading and I believe in accurate.

Firstly, and most importantly; there are international bodies/authorities recognised by Gevena and European Conventions involving more than 40 separate countries who HAVE THE INTERNATIONAL LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY to make determinations and changes to the list.

Thus my concern is why has this article not been consistent with the authorities it quotes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Secondly, and finally; WHY ARE NO AUTHORITIVE BODIES MAKING FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS (which in the article gives the impression as FINAL and BINDING). These bodies "American Engineering Society" and CNN??????? The article is BIAS and inaccurate.

e.g. Sydney Opera House is stil officially a Modern wonder of the World (Travel - from memory) Under the Dutch Bodies list, This article gives the impression that these bodies have the power to change Internationally accepted lists.

Shame that Wikipedia has not arbitrated this article more closely and unbiased. Please fix or provide more research evidence from Standing International Bodiesx (not American Localised Bodies - - - there is a world outside the US)!

Thanking you in Advance

Regards,

Pablo Anon

Sydney, Australia.

1-1-10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.119.203 (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Whats with all this politically correct rubbish?[edit]

We have been using BC and AD for hundreds of years and to change it to "BCE" and "CE" so no one feels insulted is just going too far. If anyone is insulted because some one puts BC or AD then you must have a lot of time on your hands. You need to go out, get a job. There are more important things to cry/worry/complain about. Stop all this PC rubbish PLEASE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.213.154 (talk) 07:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

So, you're asking editors to stop doing what you're doing? (By the way, BCE/CE has nothing to do with PC.) Wikipedia has a policy about which system to use in an article - see WP:ERA. Mindmatrix 02:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

what is the top desations i the world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.147.38 (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


Pending changes[edit]

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Old City of Jerusalem is not in Israel[edit]

The Old City of Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as being part of Israel. This is discussed thoroughly in East Jerusalem#Sovereignty. The political status of this geographical area is undetermined and controversial, therefore I thought the only safe way of dealing with it is simply to omit "Israel". Specifying "Israel" as the country where the Old City of Jerusalem is located is a political statement and a minority POV. May I ask those who reverted my edit to explain their motives and provide reasonable references for their view?--84.111.117.111 (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No country accepts any part of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Thats why all embassy's are in Tel Aviv. Also the wonder in the article is in the "Old City" which is in East Jerusalem which is seen by the international community as occupied land. So therefor we can not say in this article that the area is in Israel as its against the international view. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like analysis and/or editors asserting their own POV. Wikipedia's official policy on Verifiability states "verifiability, not truth" and the cited source for the USA Today's New Seven Wonders list says "Jerusalem's Old City, Israel." Personally I do not care either way, but lets call a spade a spade. — Kralizec! (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The Old City of Jerusalem is part of Jerusalem which was unified during the Six Day War in 1967. Israel is responsible for its development, upkeep, laws, and in every way that a country is responsible for one of its cities. Just because some of the nations of the world do not recognize Israel's sovereignty does not mean that Israel is not ipso facto sovereign. Therefore, until some other political status is accepted Jerusalem will be and is part of Israel, Israel's capital city, including the Old City. As an aside which has nothing to do with the Wikipedia article, it is only under the sovereignty of the State of Israel that all religions have free access to their holy sites. Oh, accept for Jews who are not allowed to pray on their holiest site on earth, the Temple Mount. Before 1967 Jews could not even enter the Old City of Jerusalem, a place Jews called home for hundreds of years until 1948 when they were all kicked out. Today all nationalities and religious are welcomed to come and pray, visit, and enjoy this wonder of the world. Simplysavvy (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC) It seems to me the most sensible way to handle this issue is to say that the Old City of Jerusalem is in Israel, which it is, but to explain the controversy in the footnote, as has been done. I added back Israel as the country in which Jerusalem is found, no matter what its political status might be. For people who want to tell readers that the status of Jerusalem is in dispute, there is a nice footnote to do so. Thanks.Simplysavvy (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:NPOV and WP:NOTFORUM. There is a consensus that the Old City of Jerusalem and the rest of the occupied territories are not in Israel. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Why do you believe your point of view is neutral? There is no NPOV here and if there is no NPOV then we must use common sense. Jerusalem was annexed by the democratic State of Israel. It is Israel's capital city. Israel administers the Old City, collects taxes there, keeps the peace, etc... For the time being at least, as I said above, Israel is the country in which Jerusalem is found. This is common sense when you are talking about "The Wonders of the World." What country does one fly to in order to visit Jerusalem? I suppose you could fly to Jordan, but no one says anywhere, especially not Jordan, that Jerusalem is under their dominion. And since when does a "consensus" make something true or correct? Why is it so hard for you to say that the Old City of Jerusalem is in Israel? Have you thought about this? I think its the same reason that if a boat full of citizenless Jews who were German citizens until Hitler revoked their citizenship was trying to land at the shores of your country, you would not let them in because they have no passports. When there is a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians and Jerusalem is either shared, internationalized, or divided again, then we can change the table for the Wonders of the World. But for now, Jerusalem is in Israel, even if the rest of the world does not recognize it. As an encyclopedia with common sense and a supposedly NPOV, that is the best solution. I am not changing it back on the table, but I hope you will think about this issue and realize that your POV leads to hate and war, while my POV leads to true peace.Simplysavvy (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Ronald W. Clark's list[edit]

Ronald Clark's list of 52 items which constitute "Wonders of the World" is certainly longer than most. Nevertheless, I believe a considerable amount of care went into his selection (which is albeit a personal selection). His list is presented in his book "Wonders of the World" - which is of course the title of this article. It admirably fulfils the conditions given in the first sentence of this article, viz: "Various lists of the Wonders of the World have been compiled over the ages to catalogue the most spectacular constructions and natural things in the world." Clark's list is not something just thrown together for the purposes of this Wikipedia article, or some check-list of "spectacular places I hope to visit during the course of my life" put together by some young person and pasted into their blog. This list is a whole lot more thoughtful - and interestingly a lot of the Natural wonders are in the fields of biology. For example, a spider web is a pretty commonplace thing, and we might rather take it for granted. But as a "wonder of the world" there are few things to match it. The point is pivotal in E.B. White's classic book "Charlotte's Web", of course, as the character of the family doctor makes clear: finding writing in a spider web is wonderful, but so was the building of any web in the first place - a point that more or less everybody pretty much overlooks. I might be labouring this point (!) but a list of wonders of the world can fulfil the function, not simply of a checklist of places to visit (or dream of visiting), but a list to stimulate the proper appreciation of something: a sense perhaps of awe before something sublime, either of the natural world - or of human architectural or technological accomplishment: a push to the outer limits of what could be accomplished.

There is a notable generosity of spirit in this list, and for that reason alone I think it ought to remain in this article. Clark's background is to some extent journalistic - but in the best spirit of that word: he wrote clearly and concisely. He was also, as the Wikipedia article on him indicates, a master of several fields: an expert on mountaineering, a very gifted science writer and biographer - his presentations on the history of physics are still very well thought of - and an early steampunk novelist. So, no, Clark's list was not a publicity stunt: he was a prolific writer, but a thoughtful one, and this list is worthy of his talents - so far as I can see.

There is, I think, an inherent interest in this list, which any thoughtful human being would be glad to find in this Wikipedia article and look through.Ottershrew (talk) 09:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Baloney (in my humble opinion, of course) - 52 items, for crying out loud! Regardless of how much effort, thought or generosity of spirit (?) was put into compiling the list, it doesn't belong in this article, which is turning into one of those mens/womens magazines whose cover lines are larded with numbers - 103 ways to make him love you! 66 ways to make her moan! If we want to mention that this semi-notable person is one of many semi-notable folks who have published a list of stuff that he thought was wonderful, then so be it, but don't take up enormous amounts of screen space listing them. (I think the Hillman lists should be removed, too - I think the article should give lists compiled by organizations or notable historical figures). By the way, Clark's list isn't even mentioned in his own wikipedia article!
Anybody else have an opinion? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay David - those are good points, imho. Clark's list is a long one, which I think is your main difficulty with its inclusion in this article. And also, as you say, it's a personal list, not produced by an organisation or by poll-taking. I think, though, it should stay for the following two reasons:
1. It comes from a book with the simple title, Wonders of the World, i.e. exactly the same title as the title of this Wikipedia article;
2. This book was written by a man who is at least notable enough to have a Wikipedia article devoted to him. Ottershrew (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Type "Wonders of the World" into the Amazon.com search bar and you'll find six books (but not Clark's) with that exact title, plus a couple with variations like "Seventy Wonders of the Ancient World" and "100 Great Wonders of the World" - please don't say we should list all those, too!
My point is that I don't think the list is notable enough to take up such vast amounts of screen space. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
It's not about screen space, it's about policy--specifically, WP:NOT, and even more specifically, WP:NOTSOAP (giving the full list here makes it seem like this list is as notable and "important" as the traditional lists) andWP:NOTDIR (we shouldn't be including all possible info). So the list definitely should go. And, in terms of WP:WEIGHT, unless there is evidence that the book itself is notable (has been favorably reviewed, discussed on TV, etc.), it shouldn't even be included on this page at all. Our goal here should not be to include every single "Wonders" List ever included. For this reason, the Hillman lists should also go. I'm going to be bold and remove the lists right now, and keep the prose in an "other" section as a temporary compromise, but unless we can produce reliable sources, even the prose should go to.Qwyrxian (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I tried to remove Hillman more than two years ago and didn't get consensus. Patience is a virtue in wikipedia. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
On balance, I also now think this is the right way to go - though I do think the short paragraph noting the fact that there are various other lists "out there" is a useful datum for someone wanting to find out more. Good work, guys. Ottershrew (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Eiffel tower??? Leaning Tower of Pisa???[edit]

These are most certainly wonders of the world but not on this list!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.103.229 (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

opinion[edit]

OK forget about the empire state building for a second - just look at the entire manhattan skyline - if we are talking about wonders you cant single out 1 building the entire skyline of such a tiny island is truly a wonder of not just the modern age but of mankinds ability to dream beyond what is actually possible if not slightly displaying mankinds egotistical and mareialistic fabric. PS I'm not American ha X — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.143.86 (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's just your opinion. This is not a collection of what WP editors think are wonders, but a reporting of what reliable sources have already called wonders. As with all article's on Wikipedia, we don't make our own decisions, all we do is follow reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 10 October 2011[edit]

Istar Gate is can replace the Lighthouse of Alexandria or the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, also the Hanging Gardens of Babylon is considered a myth because there is no proof that it existed except that it is mention repeatedly in Babylonian legends.

StarlyteFlyte (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please provide evidence that a significant number of reliable sources have already made this change. Note that your opinion that one thing is a myth is original research. This article is not deciding what the Wonders are; all we are doing is reporting on what sources have already said that they are. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


Eighth Wonder of the world[edit]

can I present Bangkok Elevated Road and Train System as the eighth wonder of the world? it was called "a Bangkok version of Stonehenge" XD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.172.100.72 (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No. Thousands of things are randomly called "a wonder of the world"; this article documents only the most famous of those. Actually, more accurately, we only show the lists that are the most famous, so unless there is a famous list of world wonders that includes that system, it can't be included here. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

New7wonders of Nature[edit]

I just want to inform that the New7wonders Foundation officially released the declared winners for their search for the New7Wonders of Nature, which include the Puerto Princesa Subterranean River National Park of the Philippines and Jeju Island of South Korea, and the rest are undergoing deliberation. Please include this information in the article (I can do that myself but since i'm an IP Address and this is locked so i'm requesting here in the discussion page)... - 121.54.2.91 (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

House of the People should be added[edit]

Palace of the Parliament http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Casa_Poporului.jpg It is the largest most luxurious palace in the world. The article has a sewage pumping station but is missing the House of the People. What can I say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.201.80.240 (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Link 19 of references is an advertising page[edit]

Link 19 of the references is a page with advertisements. It could be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TopoMania (talkcontribs) 08:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point - I've killed the item; couldn't find another reference. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Please make this small grammatical fix....[edit]

In the second paragraph, the sentence "The number seven was chosen because the Greeks believed it was represented perfection and plenty" should read "believed it represented". Please delete the word "was". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.69.146.30 (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Thank you for catching it. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2014[edit]

The name Chichén Itzá is misspelled on this page (misspelled as Chichen Itza). The accents are necessary as the name would be pronounced incorrectly without them. Mxkieran (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. On Wikipedia we generally use the english spelling of a name. For a further explanation, see WP:ENGLISH. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 05:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2015[edit]

Niroshaka (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. NiciVampireHeart 16:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2015[edit]

I want to add somethings that i found to this page. Pls let me edit it. MyNameIsJimBob (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)