Talk:Ploutonion at Hierapolis

'Pagan'
This is a meaningless word, and not a proper noun when referring to antiquity. The religious affiliations of this site are known. It was a cult site for Cybele, whose mysteries were sometimes in Greek practice connected to initiatory cults such as the Eleusinian Mysteries (that's the link to Pluto). Because it was a dream oracle, in the Roman Imperial era it was incorporated into Imperial religious practices pertaining to Apollo as a god of prophecy (whom Augustus adopted as a patron). From the Pluto article: "The ploutonion at Hierapolis, Phrygia, was connected to the rites of Cybele, but during the Roman Imperial era was subsumed by the cult of Apollo, as confirmed by archaeological investigations during the 1960s. It too was a dream oracle." Note that a source published in 1998 was aware that this ploutonion had been explored by archaeologists in the 1960s. The article needs scholarly sources that meet standards of RS for this topic, not just journalists reporting on archaeologists who quite forgivably want to excite the public and stir up funding. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Does the article's creator have any intention of addressing this rather major problem? Otherwise, the article needs one of those scary-looking tag for "Factual accuracy disputed". Cynwolfe (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The fatal gases emanating from that location are well known to the locals. I was told about it when I visited a few years ago. There's a sign saying "'Tehlikelidir Zehirli Gaz' (Dangerous Poisonous Gas). Lonely Planet describes this: http://www.lonelyplanet.com/turkey/aegean-coast/pamukkale/sights/ruin/plutonium. 206.47.245.252 (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Factual accuracy disputed
Per the quote and citation above, and the absence of a response, I'm tagging the article for factual accuracy. The site seems to have been discovered and explored for decades. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you're not disputing the accuracy of the article as a whole, just the accuracy of specific facts, I feel that the inline templates are sufficient. I've therefore removed your tag. You are, of course, welcome to make appropriate corrections to this article, provided they conform to WP policy. 2602:100:4759:4D52:1126:2EAE:8A4:A54C (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Since I wasn't the one who chose to create an article about this topic, I was hoping the person who did would be motivated to look beyond journalistic sources into some actual scholarship. I've contributed quite a lot of content to Wikipedia, so I'm not the one who needs the note about doing so appropriately and in conformity with policy. I provided a source above that indicates the site has been explored since the 1960s. It's a pretty big error to state otherwise and to imply that's an element of notability, and if I created an article, I would want to look into it. I can do so myself, but wanted to give the creator a chance before barging in. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, settle down there Cynwold, you eager guy you, references linked. I just returned from a vacation in Turkey, visited the site and thought it was neat, created a Wiki article. Apparently the 2013 excavations are important because they found the definite opening of the gate (hence the media hype of events) and they were able to reconstruct it digitally which has never been done before. There are no references to this online though so we will just have to bear it in mind and fix it if and when such sources become available, most likely upon the publishing of the archaeological dig's findings.- Clark Sui (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Cleaned up references, more things to be done
I cleaned up the article to use named references, now the source is much more conveniently readable. I also removed some double references: many news reports said the same thing as the report by Discovery News. Still, the references don't cover all the claims: I've added citation needed templates at those spots. Specifically, I haven't been able to find a source for the claims that the Galli crawled over the floor to survive the gas and the 2,000 square metres figure. I think there still is a lot of rewriting to be done, and I'm going to send some e-mails to D'Andria to ask if there is a scientific publication on the recent discovery which can be used as a source for this article. --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, I think it would be nice to have a schematic map of Hierapolis which shows the lcoation of the ploutonion relative to the city. The current map of Turkey is not so useful, people can already see the location of Hierapolis in its own article. --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Return to Pluto's Gate

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was not moved. This raises the question of whether Pluto's Gate should in fact redirect to Ploutonion. --BDD (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Ploutonion at Hierapolis → Pluto's Gate – Ploutonion is the least common of the three options & while "plutonium" hierapolis -wikipedia does bring in more hits than Pluto's Gate, it is not the English name. Most of the reliable sources reporting the rediscovery of the site (such as this one by the archaeologist in charge of the site) include all three names but label the Greek and Latin as such and use "Pluto's Gate" as the English name and "gate to hell" as a descriptor. Pluto's Gate currently simply redirects here, so there is no other page requiring the Greek or Latin name (let alone the site name) for disambiguation here. — Llywelyn II   11:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, this page was originally at Pluto's Gate before the page creator ClarkSui mistakenly moved it to make it "more correct" (apparently not realizing Wikipedia prefers common names to "correct" ones). — Llywelyn II   11:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Pluto's gate" is just a generic poetic phrase for the opening to the underworld, found often (if you skim through these results) in literature, for instance in translations of the Frogs of Aristophanes. Any ploutonion could be called "Pluto's Gate": it isn't a standard proper name for the one at Hierapolis that excludes its use for similar sanctuaries. It's a catchy tag to popularize the archaeological work. Archaeologists—quite forgivably—sensationalize their findings in the popular press in order to garner support. The blogs and journalistic sources used to support the move don't meet RS for a topic in archaeology and classical antiquity. The name "Pluto's Gate" would imply that the references in literary sources were specifically about the feature at Hierapolis. The nominator's own rationale states that "Pluto's Gate" is a less common way to refer to this sanctuary than ploutonion or plutonium at Hierapolis. (Incidentally, there's no "gate" implied by the word ploutonion.) Cynwolfe (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Agree with Cynwolfe. I originally moved it to the current title precisely for this reason. Would not be adverse to changing the spelling from Ploutonion to Plutonium, but I think the page is correctly named based on its location at Hierapolis. Note that Plutonium at Hierapolis also link to this page so such a change would simply be a Romanization of the site from its Greek name currently being used. - Clark Sui (talk) 06:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Agree with Cynwolfe. Pluto's Gate implies a single sanctuary, while a ploutonion implies there are more sanctuaries of this type. Also it isn't actually a gate. Like Clark Sui I'm in doubt too over the question of changing it to plutonium. In the previous question I mentioned I'd e-mail D'Andria. I still have to do so, when I do I will ask his opinion on both issues since he's probably the most appropriate expert to answer these questions. --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.