Talk:Pergamon Altar

[Untitled]

according to german wikipedia, the gate wasn't smuggled out of pergamon, but bought for 20.000 Mark from the turkish authorities (or whoever was in charge then)

where's the source for the smuggling theory?

How about: "The Altar of Zeus was smuggled to Germany in 1897." [1]

But it sounds like there may be a German / Turkish POV issue here. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the german article about Carl Humann, he had the permission of the ottomans for his excavations. I doubt the transport of the altar was considered smuggling at the time it happened, since what we now mostly consider cultural vandalism [2] was pretty much standard practice at the time and even practiced by the rulers of the country [3].

Why is Hellenistic art "pedantic"?

Note 5: Steven J. Friesen

The phrase:

"The altar is mentioned in the Book of Revelation, Revelation 2:12-13: "In Pergamos where Satan's Throne is"."

should eihter be removed altogether or be directed to another reference. The text does not reflect the authors conclusion. Friesen does not support this theory - he explicitly says that he believes that it is wrong.

The full text can be found at: http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/27/3/351

Here! Here! After a solid reading of many translations of the passages (please see [4]), this statement is of the merest and thinnest conjecture. Mfryc 23:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

magnificently opulent

magnificently opulent

The assertion that the Pergamon Altar, the most magnificent Hellenic object in a public museum, completely covered with opulent large-scale sculptures, is "magificently opulent" was deleted by an editor, whose opinion was that it was "subjective". The purpose of Wikipedia is to transmit information: an opening statement "The Pergamon Altar' is a structure..." is inane. Without "magnificently opulent" the uninitiated reader and uninitiated editor may think that most Greek altars look pretty much like this. Let's keep obvious adjectives that characterise objects, paintings, buildings etc and serve to make the reader look again at the illustrations; they help create the encyclopedia. Deleting isn't editing. --Wetman (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

None of this changes that magnificence and opulence are subjective. To me, while it is as magnificent as I find most architecture of the period, it hardly strikes me as "opulent". Find more worthwhile descriptors to portray it if you feel it's necessary; the pictures certainly seem to speak for themselves already. If it's atypical, explain that. "Magnificently opulent" describes nothing more than the writer's opinion on the matter, which is worthless for a factual text (assuming, of course, it isn't the subject of the article). --Xanzzibar (talk) 10:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and deleting is a part of editing. Remove superfluous adjectives and keeping things concise is important, and remove things that I don't feel help the article is just as valid as adding things. --Xanzzibar (talk) 10:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Editor who base their decisions on impressions like: "To me, while it is as magnificent as I find most architecture of the period, it hardly strikes me as "opulent" are being subjective. The Wikipedia reader deserves sensible, informed, evocative, middle-of-the-road information, no matter how it may "strike" one editor or another. "Superfluous" is itself an adjective, after all. Carefully chosen adjectives serve to transmit informed opinion. What more essential and informative adjectives could substitute for "magnificent" and "opulent"? Perhaps Xanzzibar would be willing to substitute a published descriptive quote, drawn from his own extensive reading on the Great Altar of Pergamum. I have corrected Xanzzibar's insertion of "temple", as it is not a temple, as you'd have thought everyone understood.--Wetman (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Reworking of entire article

Besides the translation (which, I believe, takes care of most of the concerns mentioned above), I also added information about the altar available on site in Berlin. --Remotelysensed (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Weasel words? Original research?

As the translator of this article from the German Wiki Article,I would dearly love to know where there are weasel words/original research in this article, so I can do what I can to eliminate them. My only content changes involved slight updatings based on information obtained from the Pergamon Museum and duly credited. There is already a rather extensive collection of sources -- where are more needed? Please elucidate, I'd like to help eliminate the criticism. --Remotelysensed (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

After waiting almost six months for clarification as to where any original research or weasel words could be contained in this text, I have removed the information about the Peter Weiss novel in the "Reception" section, in case that was the source of the problem. I hope that takes care of this matter, if not, please advise. --Remotelysensed (talk) 09:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)