Talk:Arch of Titus

Untitled
I replaced an early reference to the "Summa Sacra Via" with "Via Sacra". If there's info on how the various parts of the Via Sacra are defined, please add them to the Via Sacra page. Hotlorp 19:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Pulled by Elephants?
I would love to know the source for "perhaps of a quadriga pulled by elephants." I have never heard of ornamental chariot statuary pulled by elephants in Roman architecture. Californicus 05:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Neither. My source states a 'gilded chariot'. I will replace. EryZ (talk) 06:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

ABA Bays & rhythm
"in three bays with an ABA rhythm". What kind of bays ? And what is "an ABA rhythm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.241.137.80 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

A 'bay' in classical architecture is the space between two columns or within an arch, often held up or ornamented with arches. 'ABA' means that the width of the outer bays (A) is one quantity and the width of the inner bay (B) is another quantity. In this case, the central bay (B) is wider. This is consistent with Greco-Roman canon which dictates that the central bay of a temple or other colonnaded structure should be wider than the other bays. It's all part of the rhythmic unity of the classical canon of architecture. Californicus 05:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Possible copyvio
I found nearly identical text at: http://www.essential-architecture.com/ROME/RO-003.htm Somehow, it seems unlikely that they would copy from here, so it looks like the text here is copied from there. Mdotley 22:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's been over eight months, and no one has stepped up to defend the charge of copyright violation, so I have followed WP:CP, and reverted the page to the last edit before the copyvio. Text from the above-referenced page may not be reinserted into the article.  If you wish to go into the page history and retrieve any other text, that would probably help out the article immensely. Mdotley 22:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * To Wetman: Text you added to Arch of Titus has been reverted, due to probably being a copyright violation. It appears to be a direct copy from this page.  If you are the author, or have permission to reproduce the content, feel free to document that and restore the text.  Cheers! Mdotley 22:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, quite to the contrary, text that I added at Arch of Titus in October 2004, quite recognizably in my style, has been appropriated at Essential-Architecture, where you will find other Wikipedia article used to describe Roman antiquities here. You'll see the discussion of "ABA rhythm" above.--Wetman 23:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The following three posts are copied from my Talkpage --Wetman 00:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't know "your style" well enough to distinguish between your writing and anyone else's, but my reasoning was thus: 1, I posted on the article's talk page eight months ago that it looked like there's a problem, and no one said anything; 2, the writer of the text seemed to have some expertise, which I would expect to find at a site named "Essential Architecture", and which I saw no claims to on your User page; and 3, after several different explorations of the outside site, I found neither a grant of permission to share the info, nor an acknowledgement of its origins. By not disclaiming authorship, the outside site's owner is essentially claiming copyright, which I have no firm basis to dispute. Mdotley 23:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comparision of the WP article and his on Notre Dame de Paris might prove relevant. Both contain a large amount of the same material, including much of the WP trivia we all know and love. I suspect this was added by many editors, so either they all independently copied from this obscure site, or ..... Your argument no 2 is flawed as there is no claim of authorship or expertise anywhere. Many arts-related sites, notably www.wga.com, consist entirely of material taken from the web or copyvios of books. Johnbod 00:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Pay attention, Mdotley: The website Essential-Architecture has taken Wikipedia texts for its articles on Rome. Example: Eseential-Architecture on Domus Aurea and Wikipedia Domus Aurea. The Wikipedia article's transparent history will show you how that text was assembled, piece by piece. Now even you have "a firm basis to dispute" the unclaimed copyright of a mirror of Wikipedia. I am copying this to Talk:Arch of Titus. Have you been deleting other text on this senseless basis? --Wetman 00:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

We had a similar problem, discussed at Talk:Église de la Madeleine, where Wikipedia's text was mirrored at [Monument-paris.com] and was incompetently threatenmed with deletion here. If our correspondent Mdotley could be induced to glance at that discussion it might be enlightening. --Wetman 00:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Now see here! There's no need to start throwing around words like "senseless" (especially when I clearly explained my reasoning), and sly backhands, like "could be induced to glance at" a discussion that "might be enlightening", as if I "might" also not be bright enough to understand it.  I made no changes in the dark, and spent quite some time in the History tracking down who actually added in the text I questioned, so that I could alert you, personally, on your own User_Talk page.  Furthermore, I have not acted precipitously; I posted my concerns here months ago, giving anyone at all the chance to set me straight, which none of you on your high horses now chose to do.
 * Johnbod, a poster/publisher does not need to claim authorship -- copyright status is automatic unless specifically disclaimed. Direct quotes from Wikipedia should be sourced, and derivative works must be licensed under the GFDL.
 * I put a lot of time and a great deal of effort into what I did, and made it very easy for you to fix -- go into the page history, click the diff of my change, then "undo" and save.
 * Check my contributions list -- I make good edits to articles all over Wikipedia. I don't have as many as you, nor over as long a period, but that doesn't mean my edits lack sense. Mdotley 01:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that is technically the position, but in this case, where the site is clearly a cheapo link farm where the style of the article changes drastically from page to page, and (I am quite sure) it would be easy to demonstrate that WP texts built up by many editors over a long period of time have been ripped off, I think a sense of proportion is needed. Actually I am not sure you are correct about the copyright situation, as the site gives no address, never mind an author, so it leaves uncertain who would own this supposed copyright, which I suspect invalidates its claim.  It will not be surprising if cheapo web-merchants rip off WP if they discover that not only do we not demand credit, but we actually delete our own ripped-off material.  I think you should do some research into other pages on this site, now that the issue has been raised (perhaps you are becoming more familiar with Wetman's prose style now, but populist pages like Montmartre might be the ones to look at).  Johnbod 03:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * From WP:COPY: "All works are copyrighted unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed." Since I raised the issue here, and got no response in over eight months, I felt I had no choice, but to apply WP:CP, and revert to the last version before the apparent violation occurred. Now that I have gotten a response from those who know the material much better than I do, I am happy to leave it in your hands. Mdotley 21:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * At Wetman's Talkpage Mdotley posted "I gave you three good reasons, any one of which would normally be sufficient to establish the likelihood of a copyvio. If anyone is being senseless here, it's not me." Mdotley 02:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The "violation" goes the other way, as anyone who looks into it will immediately see, and as Mdotley doubtless now understands; the Wikipedia text has been copied, as is often the case, because we retain no copyright. The rest is immaterial. I have given Mdotley sufficient information to get it together, just by looking at the identical discussion at Talk:Église de la Madeleine above. I have checked Mdotley's last thousand edits and find no further deletions of this kind, so with the text restored all is now well again. --Wetman 03:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * '"Immediately" apparent' is in the eye of the beholder. Anyone who reads what I have written will immediately see that I have not been arguing that it is a violation, I merely asserted that it looked like one, and took action to protect WP by upholding policy. Since your initial objection, I have simply maintained that I acted reasonably. Mdotley 21:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference
For Jews not walking under the Arch: http://www.davidsconsultants.com/jewishhistory/history.php?index=entries

Revert date format to BC/AD
I propose that the date format be reverted back to BC/AD from BCE/CE due to a violation of WP:ERA which states that there must be a discussion and concensus reached amongst editors on the article's talk page before date formats are changed. Since I cannot find any such discussion on the talk page, I will wait for any objections before I revert the date format. 78.146.132.102 (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Gold Trumpets Seem Unlikely
The article says, "Gold Trumpets and the Table of Shew bread.[2] These spoils were likely originally colored gold, . . . ." Since there are no gold trumpets in the Bible, but indeed Silver Trumpets were prescribed by the Law of Moses, I doubt the statement about gold trumpets. Does your source say that? What is the evidence? Numbers 10: "And YHWH spoke to Moses, saying,  Make thee two trumpets of silver; of  beaten work shalt thou make them: and thou shalt use them for the calling of the congregation, and for the journeying of the camps. "  I suggest the deletion of "gold" until someone demonstrates that a reliable source says "gold." Such a secondary source needs a reference to a primary source for reliability. Unfortunately, it looks like this statement in Wikipedia has gone viral, repeated all over the internet in the same words used here. (EnochBethany (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC))


 * It would be great to see a detailed explanation of the reliefs - I am especially interested in the spoils of the temple. The Menorah is obvious, but I would be interested to know about the other objects, their design, and if they match the biblical account. Also, wasn’t manna and Aaron’s staff housed in the temple? We’re they also brought to Rome? 79.67.164.147 (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Height?
It would be nice if somebody included how tall this thing is. jason404 (talk) 02:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Arch of Titus. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141021223447/http://www.go-2-nice-places.com/2014/07/arch-of-titus.html to http://www.go-2-nice-places.com/2014/07/arch-of-titus.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect reference
Quote from the article: "The Arch of Titus (Italian:  Arco di Tito; Latin: Arcus   Titi) is a 1st-century AD   honorific arch,’ [1] located on the Via Sacra, Rome,   just to the south-east of the Roman Forum."

My issue: Incorrect reference [1] points to the different, now mostly ruined, Arch of Titus, located at Circus Maximus. This reference should be deleted, because it is not meant as a disambiguation and should not serve as such. Mirek Goldberg (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Just an amendment.
 * There's something wrong with the source code of the segment I mentioned.
 * It is not working correctly i.e. it doesn't display this segment of contents as the author meant, i.e. in its entirety.