Talk:History of Athens/Archive 1

See also: Talk:Athens

Image of the Parthenon on this article
If you want demonstrate the "timelessness" of the Parthenon (whatever that might mean), you can do it at the Parthenon article. This article is about the history of Athens. It already has one picture of the Parthenon, and it doesn't need another. It certainly doesn't need a crappy old black and white one with a moire pattern all over the sky. I have a dozen better photos of the Parthenon. What is the purpose of this?? Adam 06:52, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * That is all fixed by making it a thumb. It was right next the the mention of the Parthenon and looked nice IMO. --mav 07:31, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)



*beats head on desk* But why do we want an old black-and-white photo of the Parthenon in the History of Athens article?? What purpose is it serving?? I have a lovely photo of Barcelona Cathedral, shall I post that??? It has about as much relevance. Somebody explain this please. Adam 07:47, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Because it is relevant to the article and was right next to a paragraph that mentioned it. It is also a close-up that shows the detail of the building. If you have a color version that shows as much detail and is either in the public domain or under the GFDL, then upload that. --mav

*keeps temper with difficulty* First, the artchitectural detail of the Parthenon has nothing to do with this article. It belongs (How can I put this more simply?) in the Parthenon article. Second, if you want to show the details of the Parthenon, there are about a million recent photos that do so much better. I have some at my website. I have yet to hear what the point of posting a bad 19th century photo of the Parthenon is.


 * The thumbnail looks fine to me. None of your photos show the whole structure and after seeing your photos I was reminded that any modern photo will have ugly scaffolding in it. It seems to me that you have something against the Acropolis and the Parthenon. --mav

I love the Parthenon deeply but this is not an article about the Parthenon. I am not going to debate the merits of various photos, because my position is that we do not need any further photos of the Parthenon in the History of Athens article, beyond the long-distance photo of the Acropolis we already have. That is my last comment on this (other than reversions of course). Adam 09:34, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Can you at least upload a higher resolution version of Image:Ac.acropolis.jpg so that people can seen some detail when they click on the thumbnail? If you do that, then this will be my last word on the issue. --mav 09:54, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If people want to see details of the Parthenon they can go to the Parthenon article. Is this really so hard to grasp? Do you expect to find architectural details of St. Paul's Cathedral at the History of London article? Adam 09:58, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes. Right next to a paragraph that mentions it. Images of these structures are at History of London: Tower of London, Westminster Abbey, Palace of Westminster, and the Crystal Palace. More can and should be added as the article text gets longer. As it is History of Athens have a large stretch of text with no images. The Parthenon photo would help close that gap. --mav

History of Athens already has a photo of the Parthenon. I am uploading some of my photos to the Parthenon article. I will also put the horrible black-and-white photo in thumbnail format and give it a caption (since its author hasn't bothered to). Adam 10:15, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's a good idea to have the photo as a thumnail. If you dont want more than one Acropolis picture in the article Adam, lets have the color one in the "Athens" article and the b/w one in the "History of Athens" article. As for the other photos, they are pretty good for explaining the Parthenon itself. The thing is that b/w and historical pics (not taken in modern era, or not standing anymore) are what I like to use in history articles. But one of the pics you took, with the tourists, will work well in the main Athens article. Also, the pic of the Parthenon with the mention of the explosion will work in the History article too. WhisperToMe 15:31, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You really don't get it, do you? The Parthenon is 2,500 years old. A 19th century photo is just as "modern" as one taken yesterday. The Parthenon today looks exactly as it did when that photo was taken, except that some of the rubble around it has been cleared away. The photo serves no useful purpose in this article at all, especially since (for the 20th time) THIS IS NOT AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE PARTHENON. I don't understand your stubborn determination to stick irrelevant photos, particularly one as bad as this one, into this article. The photo already appears at Parthenon anyway. Adam 16:09, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Adam, the photo is relevant, just like the Photos at History of London. The photo has a useful purpose, and I know that this isn't an article about the Parthenon, but the Parthenon is part of the history of Athens, isn't it? WhisperToMe 17:09, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Are you really this stupid, or are you just pretending to be to annoy me? Adam 17:33, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Do you really think calling people stupid is going to cause them to suddenly switch over to your point of view? This case is one where the picture is more important for atmosphere and stage-setting than as a document of the floor plan; books do this all the time, with old photos, engravings, etc. You're not going convince anyone of your superior taste and judgement by engaging in name-calling and histrionics. Stan 17:59, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I didn't call him stupid, I asked if he was. Adam 02:00, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Either way it was a personal attack so please don't do it again. --mav

Although I do not completely agree with Adam, I beleive that a picture of the Acropolis is more appropiate for this article. --Maio 00:53, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

-

Maio, the Acropolis pic is a bit too stretched out.

Adam, Mav and I have already decided that the picture is relevant.

Why is it that you are so opposed to the photo besides that it is black and white? I have already explained above on why a b & w photo is relevant. I feel that the color/modern photos should go in the main article, and the historical ones here. That, and the 1800's one has no scaffolding. It doesn't matter that it already appears in the Parthenon - a photo can be used in multiple places.WhisperToMe 06:16, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Adam, I don't understand the point you're making. Important structures are often discussed in articles about cities. History articles often contain pictures of these structures -- for eye candy purposes mainly. What's the problem? -- Tim Starling 06:19, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

We have already discussed this ad nauseam:
 * This is not an article about the Parthenon
 * The Parthenon is a visual cliche
 * That photo is a crappy one with a moire pattern all over it
 * It is already used at Parthenon. Adam 06:22, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But we already struck down three of those points. It doesn't matter if the pic is used twice, or three, or four times. And I personally like the pic. Not that the Agora pic shouldn't stay, however. WhisperToMe 06:23, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Believe it or not, what you personally like isn't the determinant here. I personally hate it, so that cancels out. There is no possible justification for using a bad B&W photo when we have alternatives. If you want to write an article about what the Parthenon looked like in the 19th century then you can use it there. IT DOESN'T BELONG HERE. Adam 06:26, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But wouldn't Mav's "vote" be the deciding one? WhisperToMe 06:42, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Surely you know that Wikipedia is not a democracy. It works by a process of exhaustion: every issue is argued out until one side gives up and goes away. I can assure I will not be giving up on this issue, since Athens is a topic dear to my heart. This photo is unworthy of a history of Athens, and I will revert it all year if need be. Adam 06:50, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pardon me for butting in, but the picture does, indeed, suck. Adam Bishop 06:52, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why not have a vote? Yes if you want to keep the image on the "History of Athens", No if you do not.

I vote Yes. :) WhisperToMe 06:58, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No. Adam Bishop 07:00, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Matters of aesthetics cannot be decided by majority vote. Adam 07:02, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps another black and white 19th century photo of Athens would work? WhisperToMe 07:08, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If you have an interesting 19th century photo of reasonable quality of Athens as opposed to the Parthenon that would of course be a useful addition to article. It doesn't change my mind about the one currently under discussion. Adam 07:13, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But to the common person, the Parthenon is Athens, in the sense that it is the internationally recognized symbol of the city. Yes, I know Athens experts like you don't like it, but keep in mind that this encyclopedia has to serve the masses too. WhisperToMe 07:15, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, until a better picture is taken, and uploaded, and linked to in the article. Moiré sucks, but we have to realize the we're building an enclyclopedia based on some pretty difficult sources. We do not delete the parthenon article just because there are better sources, so we should not delete a bad picture because better ones exist.Ronabop 07:16, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"we should not delete a bad picture because better ones exist." I have seen some absurd statements at WP, but that is about the absurdest. Of course we should delete bad pictures when we have better ones. And just about any picture of the Parthenon would be better than this one. But in any case (for the 1,000th time) THIS IS NOT AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE PARTHENON. Adam 07:27, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Read what I said. There are better articles, and whole books, on the parthenon, that we don't own. There are millions of better pictures, that we can't use. Unless we have something better that we can actually use, and is being put into use, it's silly to posit (and complain) that it exists somehow, but not used. If you can legally use it, don't whine about the past use, or current use, make a better wikipedia. Ronabop 07:50, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Adam, the moire in the sky is gone. TroyDavis ran the pic through Paint Shop Pro and took it out. Is that good enough? :) WhisperToMe 07:37, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * A picture of the Agora or the Acropolis is more relevant than a picture of the Parthenon for this article. Let me explain why:


 * The Agora was the heart of ancient Athens, the focus of political, commercial, administrative and social activity, the religious and cultural centre, and the seat of justice.


 * The Acropolis hill, so called the "Sacred Rock" of Athens, is the most important site of the city.


 * It is not about if the picture sucks, or if the article mentions the structure. The reasoning is what is more appropiate for the article. In any case, thanks to Adam for uploading pictures of the Agora.


 * Peace out,
 * --Maio 07:46, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

But Maio, isn't the Parthenon on the Acropolis? WhisperToMe 07:51, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Having now seen the article done Adam's way (in amongst all the reversions, tsk tsk), I like the old b/w picture better; the bright&shiny modern picture he moved up to the top is, well, too bright and shiny. Look closely at what professional book designers do; they'll mix old and new to set the mood, and play games with color and contrast on new images to keep them from looking too much out of place. So, does anybody want to agree on having an "article-editor-in-chief" to make the esthetic decisions, as an alternative to everyone stubbornly editing back to their own way over and over? Stan 07:56, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK Stan, I have a PhD in history and a Diploma in Art and Design, I have been to Athens and I am a fairly good photographer. Furthermore I wrote most of this article. Can anyone here top that? As for your aesthetic objections to the Agora photo, they are absurd - it is a photo of what Athens actually looks like (it is in colour now, you know). The function of an encyclopaedia is to convery information, not to "set a mood." The B&W photo conveys the information of what the Parthenon looked like whenever it was taken, which is why it belongs (if anywhere) at Parthenon. The photo of the Agora shows the historic centre of the ancient city, as it looks now, and is therefore eminently suitable for the place it occupies. Adam 08:29, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Adam, with all due respect, you know that tossing the degree around doesn't work here in Wikipedia-land. There is a whole page here dedicated to that. As for your arguments, there were four -- this is not about the Parthenon, it's a visual cliche, that bad moire photo, and the picture is already used. Number three has been resolved -- the photo is fixed.  As for 1 and 2, the whole idea of an encyclopedia is the intverted pyramid style -- paint in broad brushstrokes, and give laypersons the overview.  In that sense, by definition cliche and the "common" things are the main goals of encyclopedia articles.  The Acropolis and the Parthenon are the most prominent visual landmarks associated with Athens. It would be hard to argue anything but.  Look at the articles here on Paris and New York, and what do you see?  Eiffel Tower, Broadway and the World Trade Center towers.  The Agora is a good contender, but it really is the Parthenon.  As for "it's already been used", this article should be judged as this article, not as an adjunct to others. Just keep in mind Wikipedia is a reference that starts with the common reader, not a dissertation displaying uniqueness of thought. Fuzheado 09:32, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This must be the only intellectual project in the world where actually being qualified to do or say something is counted as a disqualification to doing or saying it. In the face of such unutterable and concerted stupidity I have nothing further to say, other than that I will, as previously stated, revert any further appearance of that crappy and redundant photo at this article, if need be all year. Adam 09:40, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The problem with waving degrees around is that here you're always evaluated on results, not credentials, and if the results are objectively poor, it's just going to raise questions about the quality of the credentials. Your comments and behavior on this article alone are totally unprofessional; why then should I give you any special consideration? Now about the pictures, your Agora photos are nice, but they look like a city park, don't convey any sense of history at all, and as "small views" they are no better or worse than the Parthenon picture. The picture presently at Acropolis is better for instance, although the cranes spoil the effect somewhat. These are really elementary considerations in design that I've learned just from random study, it's a little surprising to see a purported diplomate apparently not understand them. Stan 16:28, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If anyone really cares, the moire pattern is still on the re-touched picture. Adam Bishop 15:19, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Its not as obvious, but it can be retouched again if its still a real problem. WhisperToMe 23:21, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I like Adam Carr's version better now. The only reason why I wanted the original BW photo was due to the fact that the article at that time did not have many images. It now seems rather nice looking and balanced with Adam's photos. No reason to have the exact same photo here that is also at Parthenon. That building is already depicted on this page in a photo. --mav

1888 German map
Is it that big of the deal that the map is in German?

Also, it is a PD image from the 1888 edition of the German encyclopedia Meyers Konversationslexikon, and it shows how Athens was laid out in the late 18th century. WhisperToMe 05:54, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

No it doesn't, it's a map of Ancient Athens, as anyone who knows some Greek history can see. Adam 07:32, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of knowledge of Greek history, the image shouldn't have been removed. WhisperToMe 22:40, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

This is an English language encyclopaedia (he said for the 1000th time). A map in German is not helpful to readers, as evidenced by the fact that even Whisper, who knows everything about everything, didn't know what it was a map of. I have replaced it with an English map. Adam 06:09, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Image of Agora in this Article
While looking at the article, it appeared to me that the image of the ancient Agora in "Early History" depicts the "Tower of Winds". If my memory serves right, the tower is situated in the roman part of the Agora. Shouldn't a picture in this part of the article depict the ancient part of the Agora? Could somebody please comment on this?

Stony74 10:07, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)

Ancient pronunciation of &#x1f08;&#952;&#942;&#957;&#945;&#953;
I removed the pronunciation given for &#7944;&#952;&#942;&#957;&#945;&#953; ath-'en'-néigh for two reasons, as explained in the edit comment: Now, it has been changed to At-hair-nigh. Both objections stand with this transcription: --Macrakis 06:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) (with IPA template added later)
 * I don't see the point of giving the pronunciation of an ancient word, especially since Ancient Greek is written completely phonetically;
 * the transcription is completely non-standard and unintelligible (could it be trying for ? but that's nothing like the ancient pronunciation&mdash;or the modern for that matter).
 * There is no purpose in giving a pronunciation.
 * Wikipedia policy says Ad-hoc pronunciation guides are discouraged for good reason &mdash;and the 'r' is not the only problem: ?? If you insist on a pronunciation, at least use IPA, viz. &mdash;though that misses the tone accent....


 * The purpose of giving a pronunciation is to give knowledge to readers.
 * The pronunciation At-hair-nigh is completely intelligible, since it consists of three simple English words, and is as accurate as any written representation of a foreign language can be.
 * 99% of the world don't know IPA, and many computers, including my (brand new) one, can't even read the symbols. Adam 09:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--Macrakis 09:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that it is good to know the pronunciation of words in articles. But for those who want to know that, Greek spelling is completely phonetic, and well documented in Greek language and Greek alphabet. Along the same lines, I would not find it useful to have Caesar (kie-sahr?) and Augustus (ow-guss-tuss?) annotated in this way.
 * Apparently in your variety of English, you don't pronounce the "r" of "hair". Many others do.  That's the first problem.  Then there's the fact that English vowel qualities are all over the place (I suppose ancient Greek ones varied, too, but not in the same way).  Then there's trying to represent the aspiration of the 't' by the sequence 't-h'; it would be peculiar to write 'sp-ham' to explain that the 'p' in 'spam' is aspirated....  Finally, as I mentioned, it is simply against Wikipedia policy to use this kind of pronunciation key.
 * For the rendering of the IPA, sorry, I forgot to put it in the IPA template. I have corrected my posting above.  I agree that not everyone knows IPA, but not everyone knows Received Pronunciation ((PS: or Australian English, for that matter --09:38))


 * Greek spelling is only phonetic if you can read the Greek alphabet, which most Wikipedia users can't, and if you know that Ancient Greek was pronounced very differently to Modern Greek. Even most people who can read Greek will assume (for instance) that theta is pronounced as in the English "thing," and will not know that in Ancient Greek it was pronounced as an aspirated "t".
 * I have never heard anyone pronounce the "r" in "hair." I just tried and it's impossible. It would be heh-ruh or something.
 * Most people have no idea that the Romans said "Kigh-sar" and not "See-zuh," so that is indeed useful information, and if I was editing the Yull-ius Kigh-sar article I would certainly include it.
 * As I said, there is no way of conveying with 100% accuracy the pronunciation of a foreign word by means of written symbols, with IPA or anything else. In any case, we don't know with 100% accuracy how the Ancient Greeks pronounced anything. We have a reasonably good idea, and the rendering At-hair-nigh (or At-heh-nigh if you prefer) conveys that reasonably good idea with reasonable accuracy.
 * "Not everyone knows IPA" is a radical understatement, as I'm sure you know. Hardly anyone outside specialist circles knows it. The function of an encyclopaedia is to convey information to non-specialists. For this reason I disagree with what you say is Wikipedia policy, and when I disagree with Wikipedia's policies (as I frequently do), I ignore them, usually to the profit of readers, who are consistently ignored by whoever devises said policies. Adam 10:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I pronounce the "r" in "hair" and so does everyone else on this continent (well...almost). It did not occur to me at all that you did not pronounce it, and I was wondering where the "r" came from. Adam Bishop 15:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Pardon my ignorance here, but which continent do you live on? Adam 00:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * North America (but don't worry, I'm Canadian :)) Adam Bishop 02:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Well, I have been listening to American accents all my life (and even Canadian ones occasionally), and I have never heard anyone say "heh-ruh" for "hair." Anyway, that isn't really the point. We can render it "At-heh-eye" if we want to avoid having an "r" in there. Adam 02:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I've never heard "heh-ruh" either, but there is still an "r" there...that's strange, I guess we just have different mental images of what that sound should be. "heh" is fine I suppose. Adam Bishop 02:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whoops -- didn't plan on getting into a war here
Blissfully ignorant of this discussion, I just found the transliterated spelling "Athinai" in the article and corrected that to "Athenai".

I also found the British English imitated pronunciation "At-hair-nigh" and changed that to a dialect-neutral "At-hey-nigh".

The "r" absolutely does not work in most of North America. Nor Ireland. Nor Scotland.

I remember the talk show (that means 'chat show') host Johnny Carson (who?) introducing the unknown new singer Sade as "ShaRRRday" -- apparently due to an imitated pronunciation given to him in writing by a British speaker.

But I agree that imitated pronunciations aren't a good idea in general.

The solution to this issue is to have Wikipedia implement an International Phonetic Alphabet Voice Synthesizer. Type in a pronunciation in IPA notation, mark it with some kind of markup, and it becomes a link that speaks the IPA notation.