Talk:Ħaġar Qim

Current Status

I've just been to visit the temples and Hagar Qim is closed while they erect a monstrous tent over the top of it. I assume this is in order to counter erosion by wind and sun, but that's the end of photographs like those appearing on the wikipedia page. Is it worth updating the captions to the images to reflect the fact it no longer looks like that? Sweavo (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Dating

On what grounds does anyone date Hagar Qim to the period 3200-2600 B.C.? Have any skeletons been found? In 1839?

The dating stems from the layout of the structures, and the artifacts found. The "Earth Mother" statues found at the site are of the style that dominated during the Chalcolithic period (Copper Age). The "Earth Mother Venus" type of statues found in the ruins were consistant with those found in other Proto-Indo-European religious sites of this era. When first discovered it was actually dated as belonging to the Bronze Age, partially because of more recent ruins on top of the original temple. In the 1950's and 1960's it was redated, placing it in the Chalcolithic period. Mushrom 20:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Main Temple

Ched, your edit to the Main Temple section is consistent with what's being expressed; the curtains would have served to further distinguish spaces within the temple, basically creating sacred spaces within a sacred space. Same goes for edits concerning the Niche. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Review

Very well done article. I've tried to tweak it a little - it's up to you if you wish to keep it as such, or revert back. Some suggestions I noted while going through the article (and I didn't redo it entirely) are:

• Temple Forecourt I would either expand this section or move to another part. It seems orphaned with such a short paragraph to have an entire section.
• The Niche The two staggered pictures seems to disrupt the format - but I'm not sure how to fix it.
• cites 5, 6, 21 and 22 are the same (now 5, 20, and 21)
• cite 42 doesn't appear to match the text
• cites 24 and 25 appear to be the same
• cites 44 and 45 appear to be the same
• cites 49 and 50 appear to be the same

basically, you have many of the references listed multiple times. I reformated the references for 5 - and used the ref name to show how to use in multiple places. So .. what was once ref 5 and ref 6, is now just two instances of ref 5.

• ref: beautytruegood.co.uk is listed in several places (with #section) - was that your intent? I would think that only listing it once would be fine.

I think the writing is very good, The topic is covered very well, and described in detail. You could probably tag it as a Class-C article and noone would argue. It would need some work to get to GA, but it's definatelly doable. If I have time I'll check back a few times over the coming days and try to help. Hope this helps ;) — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 05:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

nonsense moving

What about reverting of the article move from Ħaġar Qim to Hagar Qin??? It is a ligt nonsence. 93.220.56.94 (talk) 08:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The name of the complex is Hagar Qim, not Qin - this does nothing to make Wikipedia seem reliable... 92.251.80.56 (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Please move back the article to Ħaġar Qim or at least Hagar Qim. The article title is incorrectly spelt. Clyde Ellul 21:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Hagar Qin → Hagar Qim — The title of the article is misspelt, as can be noted by reading the same article. The redirection from Hagar Qim to Hagar Qin should be reverted as it doesn't make any sense. --Clyde Ellul 21:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

nor have any human bones been discovered in Maltese temples

I am a little perplexed by the sentence "No burials exist in the temple or the area surrounding Ħaġar Qim, nor have any human bones been discovered in Maltese temples.[13]". Either this is incorrect, or it is written by someone who does not believe the Ħal-Saflieni Hypogeum to be a temple (very large numbers of bones were found there). The source appears to say only that no evidence of human sacrifice has been found. But since the source also says that the temples "would have been centers for food distribution, healthcare, and education", perhaps it should anyway be treated with some caution?
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20060110180637/http://www.heritagemalta.org/sites/hagarqim.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ħaġar Qim. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.heritagemalta.org/Consultation/Documents/Temples
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071020170410/http://www.heritagemalta.org/Consultation/Documents/Temples%20-%20Description.pdf to http://www.heritagemalta.org/Consultation/Documents/Temples%20-%20Description.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.mepa.org.mt/file.aspx?f=2627

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)