Talk:Triumphal arch

Temple Bar

Could the Temple Bar in London count as a triumphal arch? I'm not too sure about adding it. --Andrew 00:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Certainly, although it was not freestanding. It was also a symbolic gate of course, but that does not rule it out.Johnbod 11:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Moscow

Is this [1][2][3] a triumphal arch?--Nixer 16:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

No, this is a wooden gate to the All-Russia Exhibition Centre. --Ghirlandajo 11:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Many of the listed archs also serve as entrance gates into cities or parks.--Nixer 20:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The last arch

When and where it was built the last arch in the world? When it was built the last arch of Roman Empire/Bysantine Empire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixer (talk • contribs) 18:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

La Grande Arche de la Fraternité

should it be mentioned as the world's largest triumphal arch? it's over twice the height of the Arc de Triomphe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirv (talk • contribs) 03:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

But, by definition , a triumphal arch is built in honor of a military triumph... if you look at Le Grande Arche, it was built in honor of humanitarian advances... far from the military conquests of Napoleon or the Romans that triumphal arches are most closely associated with. 'Scuse any grammar errors, --Screenmaster16 04:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Brandenburg Gate Berlin

Removed it as it isn't a triumphal arch. It was part of the old Berlin toll city wall and was left in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.46.136 (talk) 05:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(Speechless!) --Wetman 07:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's neither free standing (former toll houses), nor built separately from city gates or walls. It doesn't fit the definition in the article, either change the definition, or remove the gate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.44.97 (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It also wasn't built specificly in honour of a victory (anon again). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.59.18 (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Changed England to United Kingdom

The arches in London are there because it is the capital of the United Kingdom. The Wellington Arch is there to celebrate a British victory, while Marble Arch doesn't actually celebrate a victory as such, unless the fact that it has frescos of Empire mean that it celebrates the building of an empire on which the sun did not set. Anyway, they were both built after 1707, so they're British.

Chrisfow 21:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

why you dont take the arc of Carabobo in Venezuela?

the trimphal arc of the batle of Carabobo is very significative!! please investigate about him! hehe sorry by mi english i m from venezuela!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.78.37.239 (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Do it yourself, it's the goal of Wikipedia. If there is any mistakes, other will correct it for you S23678 (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Gallery picture

If the gallery is meant to show some of the more grand or beautiful arches, I feel that the Canadian "[Princes Gates]" in Toronto is much more fitting of a Canadian arch than the currently shown one in Kingston. Does anybody object to changing the pictures? Canking (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there is place for the two arches. The RMC one, in Kingston, is an important memorial still in "active" use today, as the names of the fallen ex-RMC students in Afghanistan have been added to the arch recently. It is as well a Triumphal Arch as it shows all the main campains fought by ex-RMC students. s23678 (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It was part of the old Berlin toll city wall and was left in place Canking (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Somebody wrote that last comment "It was part" and signed it with my signature. Is their any way to find out who that was or if they changed anything to the site? Canking (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Spasskie gates

Shouldn't Spasskie Gates, constructed by Petrus Antonius Solarius in Moscow also be included? They have dedication in Latin above the portal.--Dojarca (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Corinthian Arch at Stowe

If no one objects I'm going to remove this - it's not a triumphal arch... You have a fortnight or forever hold your peace! Egg Centric (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed specifics

I removed the following text, which seems a bit off topic but which someone might like to check and use elsewhere, like Arch of Titus or Arch of Constantine:

The Arch of Titus, is one of the oldest surviving arches in Rome, built in about 85 AD in commemoration of Rome’s Victory in the Jewish war and of the ruler who brought about the victory, Emperor Titus. There had been much hostility between the Jews and Romans over the years, and in 67 AD the Jews revolted. Titus’s, father Emperor Vespasian, was originally in charge of squashing the Jewish war, until he later ascended to the thrown, leaving Titus in charge. Within the arch, a relief of chiseled stone, shows one of Titus’s final plays in the war's final days. The relief depicts Titus and his men sacking and burning a Jewish temple. Another depicts Titus’s glory through a progression of horses drawing him in a chariot.

The Arch of Constantine was created in Constantine the I honor and his accomplishment in the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. During this time Diocletian enacted the use of the tetrarchy consisting of 2 senior, 2 junior emperors and heredity played no part in succession. Maxentius, son of a previous senior emperor Maximian, in his pursuit of power drove out Senior Emperor Severus and others' attempts to squash him were thwarted until Constantine I. According to a Roman figure, Christ came to Constantine guaranteeing his victory if he put his trust in the lord and mark his army’s shields with the cross. The three arch inscription at the very top of the arch emphasizes his victory in many glory worthy words. And below that, there are several reliefs that, depict his leadership in and out of battle. One of which shows Constantine I using his words to lift up soldier morale while another shows outsiders surrendering to his will. The arch also includes many incorporations of Roman gods, although Constantine was supposed to have converted to Christianity after the battle.

AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Arcul de Triumf - Bucuresti.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Arcul de Triumf (24396923048).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Triumphal Arch Bucharest 1.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Memorial gates and arches - Unexplained reversal of content

We have seen many times over the years memorial gates and arches being placed in this article. Recent examples of this have included the Arc de Triomf in Barcelona, the Arco de Triunfo in Cienfuegos, as well as Hadrian's Gate in Antalya, which, contrary to their names, and according to academic research, are not actual triumphal arches but (civil) memorial monuments. Such structures have their own general page—as linked in this article's lead—as well as their respective articles, where the difference between them is clearly explained. Anyway, I have always tried removing these erroneous examples here when possible by replacing them with topical ones (e.g. the Triumphal Arch in Moscow). I have also recently added a higher definition picture of an actual triumphal arch (the Arch of Constantine in Rome) and better captions for two others (the Porte Saint-Denis in Paris with its construction date and the Castel Nuovo in Naples regarding its dual function as a triumphal arch/city gate). Despite this, some individuals have been engaging in unexplained edit warring to revert these changes to the bad examples I mentioned. I think I can say that the quality of my edits is justified and that my good faith is not only evident, but demonstrated. So I would like to ask the administrator to protect my edits from those individuals who, without arguing their points of view, decide to revert them, in blatant denial of justification and consensus. Bernard Lee (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Johnbod please also discuss your issues here, since you were the one demanding it. As you know, edit summaries do not count towards "a discussion". Bernard Lee (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we do know that. Anyway, the main effect of your reversion was to the images. In an article mainly devoted to ancient Roman arches, there was a lead picture of the modern Arc de Triomphe, followed by (on my desktop), two screens with no illustrations at all - a ridiculous situation, which I see you are responsible for. You are altogether too hung up on a distinction between "triumphal", "honorary" and "memorial" arches. There are two aspects to this: firstly, as an architectural form the "triumphal arch" is so called regardless of its actual supposed social function, and articles on war memorials etc should be linked here (as most are) for that reason. Secondly, in the Roman period academic uses are pretty variable, with many arches usually called "triumphal" called "honorary" or "memorial" in proper archaeological scholarship. In many cases, especially outside Rome, we don't know enough to attempt to say which applied. If you look at the many entries for Roman arches in this specialized work you will see many or most (the Arch of Constantine for example) described as "honorary or triumphal" - AFAICS the exact phrasing varies with the author of the entry more than anything else. In post-classical examples the situation is somewhat clearer, and perhaps more significant, but the importance of the distinction is questionable. I'm fine with the date of of the Porte Saint-Denis being added, but I think my caption for the Castel Nuovo is more accurate - it is not a "city gate" at all, but the entrance to (as the name suggests) a fortress/palace. You also restored a link to Paris, which is against WP:MOS. I'm not too attached to the Cuban example - but it is called a triumphal arch, & it seems rather POV for us to just deny this. Memorial gates and arches is just a very scrappy list. The version you kept reverting to includes a photo of the Porte Noire in Besançon, which seems to be just a large city gateway - little different from Hadrian's Gate. List of Roman triumphal arches sensibly avoids being too concerned over the exact imperial spin given to each of these works of propaganda. Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Johnbod,

• First of all, this distinction is important. It is not about me being hung up or anything of the likes. Just because a monument is called 'triumphal arch' in its respective language does not automatically signify that it is one. As I mentioned, we have seen many gates and arches of all sorts being added here over the years, some more colourful than others, the recent Cuban and Barcelona examples that you restored being just two of them. Contrary to your claims, a "triumphal arch" is generally understood in academic literature as a monumental archway usually built to commemorate some notable victory. Even in Roman times, they were primarily used to commemorate military triumphs and other significant events (e.g. the accession of a new emperor), marking the line of march of a victorious army during triumphal processions, hence their name. In any case, it is preferable to avoid vague examples, where no official consensus exist, and to stick to examples not subject to disputed interpretation. I therefore disagree with you that articles on war memorials, etc. should be linked here for that reason. Letting these erroneous or dubious examples pile up significantly reduces an article's accuracy.
• Secondly, this article is not "mainly devoted to ancient Roman arches", as you claim, but is a general article about triumphal arches covering the entire span of history of these structures. All the sections have well-furnished galleries, so I do not know which two screens with no illustrations at all you are referring to. The picture of Paris' Arc de Triomphe in the lead is of a well-known and documented example, and is better than digging out three or four existing pictures from the galleries, leading to overcrowding at the top, for an article that anyway, in my opinion, already has too many images. Besides, I am not responsible for the Porte Noire example that you mentioned and you will see that it is still present in your current revision of the page. Actually, I fully agree that it should be removed on the same basis as Hadrian's Gate, for the reasons that I mentioned previously. As for the Castel Nuovo, you are right in saying that it is not a city gate, however, the description I used in the caption as a 'triumphal arch integrated into a gatehouse' is exactly what the structure is, and anyway is more precise that the term 'gateway' that you restored. As for my restoration of a link to Paris contrary to WP:MOS, you could have simply removed it without reverting all my edits. A proper edit summary from your part would have helped in this case for clarity.
• Finally, I must insist that my edits are not merely my edits, let alone my views, as they basically come down to a general consensus on the subject throughout the history of this article. This effort to keep it clear of inaccurate or erroneous examples has been dear to many other wiki users, and is no better illustrated than the warning in the last gallery—of which I am again not the originator: 'Please do not add images of memorial arches below - only triumphal arches'.

Bernard Lee (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Johnbod, since you are still editing here and are clearly not willing to address further your unjustified reversal of content, I will revert back my edits to their last clean version (not touching any of the edits you have made thereafter). In case you still have disagreements, you remain free to address them further. Bernard Lee (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I'm supposed to respond to you within 5 hours, am I? That is unreasonable. You haven't taken on board ANY of the points in my lengthy comment just above. I'm afraid your comments are largely wrong. This article IS "mainly devoted to ancient Roman arches" as anybody can plainly see. Insofar as it is a "general article about triumphal arches covering the entire span of history of these structures", you will find if you look at the history that this is mostly because of my contributions going back to 2007, adding material on post-classical periods. I am the editor with the largest number of edits and the largest amount of added text, so please don't talk to me about "a general consensus on the subject throughout the history of this article", which was very uncontentious until you came along in April 2021. You say "a "triumphal arch" is generally understood in academic literature as a monumental archway usually built to commemorate some notable victory. Even in Roman times, they were primarily used to commemorate military triumphs and other significant events (e.g. the accession of a new emperor), marking the line of march of a victorious army during triumphal processions, hence their name." This is nearly accurate, but only because it has so many get-outs: "usually ... primarily ... and other ...". As I have explained above (and recently added to the article), this emphasis on specific victories is not found in quality sources, where arches (of all periods) are generally regarded firstly as expressions of political power. I don't think you have ever added any sources to the article, & I wonder how much reading you have actually done on the subject. There is a lot of hand-waving in you latest comment: "In any case, it is preferable to avoid vague examples, where no official consensus exist, and to stick to examples not subject to disputed interpretation." What does "vague" mean? Who do you think might provide "official consensus"? Where is there "disputed interpretation"? You seem to expect a clarity and quantity of contemporary documentation that only exists for modern examples, and even there the publically stated motivation for building may well not be the whole story, by any means. You have again reverted to a version with a lead image of a modern arch then no images for two desktop screens; you claim not to know what I am talking about here, but it could hardly be clearer. How do you justify this? This is my biggest single issue with your version, which you have so far not attempted to defend. Do you actually object to having a Roman arch in the top spot, and if so why? Do you actually want two unillustrated screens, and if so why? If you think the article "already has too many images" we are not likely to agree, but if that were the case, leaving long stretches of text unillustrated, with large galleries, only makes things worse, and is contrary to image policy. And so on. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

If you actually paid proper attention to my revert and comment above, you will see that I have addressed every single valid point that you mentioned (e.g. the removal of the Porte Noire, the link to Paris, etc.). I have made corrections and adaptations based on your comments but instead, you decided once again to revert all my edits (and another user's in the process), including restoring a low quality picture of the Arch of Constantine, removing an unambiguous example (the Triumphal Arch in Moscow), as well as the less precise caption for Castel Nuovo, the construction date of the Porte Saint-Denis, etc. Again, this kind of disruptive editing is not acceptable. So what you contributed a lot to this article? So have many other wiki editors over the years. In no way does that justify your reversal of perfectly valid improvements and act as self-validation for your omniscient knowledge of the subject. My edits remain faithful to the content and wording of the numerous qualitative references provided throughout. I have constantly shown good faith in resolving this issue whilst you have not, not moving one iota on your preset belief of what this article should look like and contain. What you really seem to be hung up about are the illustrations and I am even ready to concede to have your way with those, even though I still fail to comprehend where you see no images for two desktop screens. Anyway, since you have still failed to explain how my abovementioned edits constitute a valid claim for reversal, I will once more restore them to their last clean version. Any future unjustified removal of my content will be submitted to the incidents noticeboard. Bernard Lee (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Bernard Lee: I'm responding to your request for admin help. I do not think administrative action is needed here. I encourage you to continue with discussion at this talk page. If no consensus can be reached, there are more options available at WP:RCD. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Bernard Lee and Johnbod, please stop reverting. It's time to start involving other editors. A neutral post at WP:Third opinion or WP:WikiProject Architecture might be a good first move. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your intervention, Firefangledfeathers. It is truly appreciated. I will wait for Johnbod to take such an action if he deems it necessary, since I took the first step here and have no further comments with the current version of the article, which takes into account both points of view. Bernard Lee (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

You have reverted me 5 times over the last few days; there's a reason you are named first. But you have quietly conceded the key points for me, despite your bluster above, so I can live with this version as a basis for going forward, despite the pedantic and unnecessary diacritics on "facade" which you have suddenly decided to favour. Good luck taking this to ANI! Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Good to hear that you are happy with this version. To be clear, I did not quietly concede anything: I have systematically and clearly explained every one of my interventions—as well as my concerns with yours—here and in all my edit summaries. I have agreed to take your comments into consideration, as explained above, to try to reach consensus, but I guess one cannot ever win with you. Regarding our disagreements on the definition of 'triumphal arch', since we will probably never see eye-to-eye, my edits stayed clear of any anachronistic political interpretation one way or another, and I will comment no further on this. As for my so-called "pedantic and unnecessary diacritics on 'facade'", I simply restored the spelling changes made by the other user, which you had also reverted without noticing. Bernard Lee (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Well I missed that, & am glad if you are not too attached to these - I think it is partly an ENGVAR thing. Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)