Talk:Seven Wonders of the World

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Seven Wonders of the World article.
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Architectural history.
Portal:Architecture
 Architecture Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] collosus at Rhodes

The collosus at Rhodes is a statue of Appollo not Zeus.

It is Helios, but not Zeus. You are probably right, since according to the Helios article "in later mythology Helios was conflated with Apollo, who thereby became the sun god". -- Cordyph 16:02 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

The Collosus at Rhodes is not Zeus or Apollo, it is Helios (Helos) the sun god.

[edit] ext link

There is a great deal of additional info available at The Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. Mention of the Euro-centric orientation of the list, and of the list of the Natural Wonders might be good, too. -- Brianiac 23:44 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Modern wonders?

I have some problem understanding why some candidates of modern wonders exist and perhaps something would be gained by way of explanation? I don't want to pick a particular bad example so perhaps I'll start the ball by justifying one and see how other can support the case? Rjstott 04:55, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Questioning credibility

Did the list 'Wonders of the Medieval Mind' actually exist? (correct me if I'm wrong)

The original Wonders list was made in the early Middle Ages. The only other known list ever created before hand was done by the ancient Greeks and was destroyed with the library of Alexandria.
The wonders list that we know of (The Hanging Gardens, The Pyramids...) was created probably around 400 A.D., as the statue of Helios was destroyed in that century.

So who made this list? How was the already existing list of the Seven Wonders of the World changed so very quickly after it was made?Was it during the late Medieval era, maybe around 1000 A.D? But I ask you, does it even really exist?

Right, it has no reference -- see the talk page at Seven Wonders of the Medieval Mind. -- Stbalbach 23:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wonders of the medieval mind

Where did the Seven Wonders of the Medieval Mind list come from? The begining of the medieval period is generally placed in the 4th or 5th century A.D. at the earliest, and even still these centuries are more often considered to be late antiquity. Roughly speaking, the 6th through 9th centuries constitute the early middle ages. As such, the Colosseum, built in the 1st century A.D., is most definately classical (i.e. ancient) and not medieval, and Stonehenge, built in the 3rd millenium B.C., is not even remotely close.

I am not certain, but I believe that when they were made has nothing to do with it. I believe that in the middle ages a group of scholars just came up with a new list of wonders that they knew about. So when they were made doesn't matter, but that they were around at that time.

Totally invented without recourse to history: Stonehenge! Stonehenge was utterly ignored in medieval times. Can we deep-six this bogus list? And the even more self-stimulatory "Underwater Wonders of the World"... A better medieval list is the "Nine Worthies". There is a reason why the medieval list is of male fighting aristocrats and not of technological marvels. --Wetman 05:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm especially amazed that there were people in the Middle Ages than KNEW aboutr such different monuments as the Great Wall, Stonehenge and Borobudur. Not even Marco Polo travelled to those 3 places! Either someone provides a source for this list or I'm deleting it. Luis rib 21:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I too think Stonehenge is incorrectly placed in the list of medievil wonders, as its construction dates back several 1000 years earlier than some of the buildings in the list of ancient wonders. --Abdull 29 June 2005 14:11 (UTC)
Yep I have to agree with everyone on this, the medieval list should be removed, as it serves no purpose. I doubt that people in the medieval times knew of all of the listed medieval wonders. And Stonehenge was pretty much ignored until very recently.

Stonehenge does not appear on the medieval list of "Wonders of the World" because (1) a "wonder," almost by definition, had to be Classical, and (2) Stonehenge wasn't regarded as "ancient." Until maybe the 17th century, it was generally thought by educated Brits to have been built by Druids shortly before the Roman occupation. And I think it very unlikely that any European in the 13th century would know of the existence of the Great Wall. In any case, there is -- TRADITIONALLY -- only the one list: Ancient Wonders. And that's what Wikipedia is reporting on. Otherwise, you could make up any list you like (Wonders of Coastal Louisiana, Wonders of the West End of London), and what would be the point? You would sliding off into Guinness-land. --Michael K. Smith 13:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed links

The following links don't really provide much valuable info, compared with the respective Wikipedia articles:

Feel free to incorporate facts from these sites into Wikipedia, but most of it is already present here in some form. Paranoid 13:08, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I also removed these two links from the "external links" section, replacing them with references in the text (like this: [1])

I am not sure it was a right way to do it, may be the references should rather be in the separate section in the end. If someone think I was wrong, please place these two links back there. Paranoid 13:16, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


[edit] "Alexander the Great" mislink

I removed to Discussion: This list is supposed to have been written by someone close to Alexander the Great, in order to emphasize the size of his empire: in fact, the seven wonders demarcate the territory Alexander had conquered. Even the Wikipedia article itself demonstrates now that this is hogwash. --Wetman 05:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed some buildings

I removed the Petronas Towers and World Trade Center (NY) from the modern candidates list as I don't believe there's anything particularly unique or noteworthy about these buildings other than they're pretty tall (and if this criteria is used then we would have to list the Sears Towers, the Taipei 101, and soon this list would look like a list of the world's tallest buildings)

[edit] Some questionable entries

I've don't believe these are particularly noteworthy, or don't know enough about them:

[edit] Ancient Candidates

  • Falak-ol-Aflak Castle (Persia)
  • Great Wall of Gorgan (Persia)
  • Persepolis (Persia)
  • Ziggurat of Ur (modern Iraq) (haven't heard of it, doesn't have an article)

Actually the Ziggurat of Ur is believed to have been (one of) the inspiration(s) for the Tower of Babylon. You have a picture of it on Ur. Luis rib 21:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Candidates

  • Rice terraces (Banaue, Philippines) (haven't heard of it, doesn't have an article)


The rice terraces of the Philippines are a World Heritage Site. So they are pretty important, but surely not a Modern Candidate for Wonders of the World. Luis rib 21:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion.

How is Angkor Wat ancient by the way?

I think it would be a good idea to have a box for each wonder with the information about it and a little thumbnail image of it. It would just make the article prettier and show what they wonders were all on one page.

 Hi

you could use that style box... or something better. Thoughts? gren 04:08, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea of expanding the description of the wonders / including a (brief) description. The description could include who built the wonder / why it was built, the ultimate fate of the wonder, and why it was considered a "wonder". I did a quick one for the Colossus of Rhodes. srs 00:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Enlarge

The Colossus of Rhodes was a statue of the god Helios, built on the island of Rhodes, by the sculptor Chares of Lindos. It was built to celebrate the successful defence of Rhodes from a siege led by Demetrius, and to honor the patron god of the Rhodians, Helios. It was completed in 282 BCE, after 12 years of construction, and stood at 34 meters (110 feet) tall- roughly the same size as the Statue of Liberty. However, after an earthquake struck Rhodes in 226 BCE, the statue snapped at the knees and fell over onto the land, having stood for only 56 years. Even in this state, the statue was still an impressive sight, and attracted travellers for over 800 years, until 654, when the remains were sold to a travelling salesman. There is currently an ongoing debate in Rhodes as to whether to rebuild the Colossus.

The main reason I think that's a bad idea is that the Colossus already has its own encyclopedia page. This page is already a long enough list without including extensive summaries of each item. I think the individual lists could use more introduction (and maybe some fuzziness, i.e. if there's no consensus, why pare it to seven? is Wikipedia intende d to be an authority here?). --Dhartung | Talk 18:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protected.

I have protected this page, due to its use as a vandalism target.

James F. (talk) 20:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good you did, many people have been putting disturbing messages and deleting important text or changing it to gibberish.
Whats the point? i dont really get how u can protect it..cause is wikipedia.i want to learn to block other ppl
Thx

Now unprotected again.

James F. (talk) 18:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Erratum in Protected Page

In the first (summary) paragraph, second sentence, "Some of the wonders know today....", for "know" read "known" Alan Canon

[edit] The Issue around the Colossus in Rhodes

I believe that it is actually wrong, that the statue is of Zeus because there have been many finding that show that that is true and that the staue is not of Apollo. The statue has been made in honour of Zeus and has been permanently recorded.


The Colossus of Rhodes was definetely Helios. Helios was the patron God of the island of Rhodes and also appears on the island's coins. You are confusing with the statue of Zeus in Olympia, which was made by Phidias (I think) and was decorated with ivory and gold. Luis rib 7 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)

[edit] The Wonders of the World

If the C.N Tower in Toronto and the Empire State Building are both wonders then why aren't other tall buildings considered as wonders. How about the Sears Tower and the Twin Towers, aren't they almost as tall or even taller?

Whoever decides which bulding, statue, etc... is a wonder needs to do some studying, or add all the other tall buildings to this lists of wonders, or actually take out the tallest building and buildings from the list of wonders.

Like me, since I live in Toronto, I do not fancy that the C.N Tower is a wonder because I have been there many times. The CN Tower doesn't have much use and isn't any more special than any other tall building, except that it is in Toronto. The Empire State Bulding still maybe considered a wonder because it had been finished in 1931 and many famous films had been produced around or on the building, such as "King Kong"- in black (original) and in colour (edited version).

Many other people question the decisions of the world's wonders but it doesn't really bother us because it gives us no advantages for our country, people, and economy. The only thing wonders attract is tourism but after sometime wonders get ruined because of this.

By: Alex.K

Okay, let's make up a list of Wonders: How about Disney World? Or the world's largest railroad switching yard, somewhere in eastern Nebraska? Or Atlanta's Hartsfield International Airport, which is the busiest in the world? And I know a really terrific Tex-Mex restaurant in Dallas that ought to be included on any list of "wonders". . . . (Hmmm. This could get out of hand.) --Michael K. Smith 13:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] θαυματα/θεαματα

I have altered this point to demonstrate the similarity of the Greek words for "wonders" and "must-sees". However, this demonstrates nothing but that the thesis that one assimilated to the other is plausible. Ideally, whoever added the θεαματα suggestion in the first place should provide a source for this thesis. Phlogistomania 15:03, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

i have a report due on friday on this anyone want to like give me important facts?

[edit] Clean-up

I added the cleanup-tag since many issues mentioned here are still unresolved, especially some disputed entries on the various lists. --FlorianB 7 July 2005 15:13 (UTC)


Well done. I'm afraid that most of those lists were actually made up by some wikiuser long time ago. Since Wikipedia doesn't allow original research, we should delete them all, and try to find real attempts to create other lists of wonders (and cite sources for that!). An example could be the UNESCO World Heritage List, which tries to assemble the most important cultural and natural sites in the World. Luis rib 7 July 2005 20:00 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect from Seven *Natural* Wonders?? =

Seven Natural Wonders of the world redirect here, but I thought that was s different list entirely, including for example, the Grand Canyon...

[edit] Possibly plagiarized?

Most of the information on this page is taken word for word from http://ce.eng.usf.edu/pharos/wonders/list.html However, I don't know how to mark this article.

That text does appear to be copyvio. I will delete it altogether; which will leave us, I am afraid, a very short page. Worse still, all the useful work editors have done to those paragraphs will be lost. It is a real shame; but there's nothing else we can do. Doops | talk 06:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Just a thought

Personally, I think Wikipedia, though not a physical, tangible construction, is a pretty astonishing collaborative effort. It's certainly one of the wonders of my (modern) world. If I could nominate it, I would. --StoneColdCrazy 23:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Original Research

Many of the lists in this article seem to be the product of original research, in other words, people contributing their own lists of what they believe are notable wonders or changing lists to add wonders which they think are more important. There are only three lists which have any cited sources to them:

I would like to delete all lists except these three and any others for which notable outside sources can be cited. –Shoaler (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

There used to be a lot of those in the article, but aren't they all gone now? Doops | talk 22:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Maybe the just need to have their sources cited. I don't see any source for Underwater Wonders. Does anyone know where these came from? –Shoaler (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Natural wonders

What ever happen to the Giants Cauesway in Northern Ireland and the rock of gibralter?

They're still there. --Michael K. Smith 13:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed from page

I removed the following text from the page: "The others were destroyed by the Giants of Helenotopia." since it appears to be gibberish. If someone can explain what the hell it means, I would like to hear it. Matt Deres 01:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seven Wonders of the Holy Roman Empire

According to this page, the astronomical clock at Strasbourg Cathedral is "one of the Seven Wonders of the Holy Roman Empire". The Historical Dictionary of Switzerland makes the same claim [5]. But what were the other six? --Mathew5000 18:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't think this poll has any significance

If a place is exotic and very small that many people don't know about or if the wonders are in a war zone that means that they are unpopular and thus will never make the list.Unacceptable at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22:40, 3 August 2006 (talk • contribs) Berinio (UTC)

Greetings and welcome to wikipedia! As you are a brand new member of the wikipedia community, I would like to help you understand some of our guidelines and rules. Official wikipedia policy on article content specifies that it must be verifiable and must not be original research (please see Verifiability, not truth for some of the specific reasons why this is important). While you may feel that the Alternative list should or should not include certain wonderful sites, the existing list is comprised of properly cited facts from a published, reliable source (in this case, the NewOpenWorld Foundation). Hopefully this aids your understanding of the reasoning behind other editors' actions. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Again, welcome to wikipedia, and happy editing! --Kralizec! (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Library

I thought that the Great Library of Alexandria was a wonder. The Coffee Shop That Smiles Upon The River 01:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 7 Wonders Foundation

Regarding the 7 Wonders section which looked like this:

==Alternative list==

The New 7 Wonders foundation has launched a poll to decide another new list of 7 Wonders, with 21 sites on its shortlist, as follows New 7 Wonders:

However, since an unlimited number of voting certificates can be bought off the NOWC by any financially liquid individual and as in its 'Terms & Condition' the NOWC "reserves the right at its absolute discretion to exclude votes", the outcome of this poll will be far from representative for the world population's opinion.

I removed it from the article as it appears to be a commercial site. Basically, they charge money to vote (if you want to vote more than once, first vote is free). It is like a Who's Who service that allows anyone to be listed so long as you pay for your entry. It's inappropriate for Wikipedia, and certainly has no substance or official backing or status, other than to make money for the owners. -- Stbalbach 12:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC) Anything different than this, is well...

  1. Acropolis (Athens, Greece) or Petra (Jordan)
  2. Colosseum (Rome, Italy)
  3. Moai (Easter Island)
  4. Eiffel Tower (Paris, France)
  5. Great Wall (China)
  6. Pyramids of Giza (Egypt)
  7. Taj Mahal (Agra, India)

Do we need a vote to what we already know? obviously not.--Pedro 22:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern architecture

Regarding this recently added section moved here:

==Modern Versions==
The seven wonders are a popular source of inspiration for modern architects, especially in the neoclassical style.

This appears to be original research. It could be added to the "More recent lists" section of the article if there is supporting evidence that this lists exists, and that these are the items on the list. -- Stbalbach 22:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Lighthouse of Alexandria" or "Walls of Babylon"?

My whole reason for raising this issue is I lost a game on Trivial Pursuit because I answered the question "How many of the seven wonders of the world were in Egypt?" with two and the answer was one. I assume the people writing trivial pursuit were using not the main list used by this article but the one noted here as "Antipater's original list". This all makes me wonder why does this article state in such difinitive terms "the seven wonders are:" and then include the lighthouse but not the walls. Surely "the original" must have something of a claim to be the definative. When? Who? Why? was the list changed from walls to lighthouse. - Waza 05:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move article back?

While the core of this article is the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, it has evolved past that beginning and now contains several different lists of world wonders. As such, I feel we should revert the move [7] and return the article to its prior name of Seven Wonders of the World. Thoughts? Opinions? Objections? --Kralizec! (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah agreed. The move was done without discussion (I had not even noticed). This article is really about the "seven wonders" phenomenon. -- Stbalbach 15:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palau

Palau is sourced - but more than that, it is considered the Mt. Everest of underwater diving, people who have dived in Palau say it is the best in the world. You can research it further from the links what exists underwater there. -- Stbalbach 16:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chicken and Egg Wonders

I think perhaps it is misleading to comment that "The Seven Wonders were wonders because they were among the most popular tourist destinations..." They were "tourist" destinations because they were Wonders. This also is misleading because of the suggestion that it was common in the ancient world to be a "tourist" and travel to see each one. These sites did not all exist at the same time, and were located in regions commonly at war with one another, "touring the wonders of the world" really wouldn't have been feasible despite the presense of graffiti on pyramids (some of which is original builder and maintainance workers as is the case in many Roman structures).

This is also important because of this comment "It is notable that the Seven Wonders sites were all man-made; no natural features were included since they were not popular destinations" - again the issue of large scale world "toursim" and the absense of visiting natural features is troublesome. Natural features, such as natrual springs and mountains were part of each culture that lived around them and were certainly "destinations" in and of themselves.

Yes the sites drew attention, yes visitors came to each and were astounded by them and wrote of them being "wonders". But that is really the point isn't it, they are wonders... therefore people visit them and call them such. Not visa versa. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.230.6.164 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't make it up, this is what scholars say. I don't understand the chicken and egg thing, what your saying is what the article says, they became labeled wonders because people commonly went to see them. Don't assume tourism today is the same as tourism in the ancient world, people didn't trip around from site to site on holiday (although maybe some did), if one of the 7 wonders was available to a person in Egypt they might make a point of seeing it sometime in their life if they could, simply for the sake of seeing it (which we would label "tourist" today). Please remove any mention of "large scale global tourism". -- Stbalbach 14:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we are actually agreeing with each other. I am saying that toursim wasn't prominent in addition they weren't contemporary. Therefore the passage that suggests that these are wonders because they were top tourist destinations is putting the cart before the horse, first off, there wasn't tourism where one could compare and second they existed to glorify locally which is not what the article suggests. All I was triyng to point out is that the article presupposes expicitly that toursims equals wonders (explicit in the first part of the article quoted above) when really historians were the ones writing of them after hearing/seeing them as wonders without the post-toursim definition.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.230.6.164 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Forked content?

After looking at the two articles, I am thinking we should fork the entire New Seven Wonders section out of this article (replacing it with a {{tl:main}}) and move all of the text to the dedicated New Seven Wonders of the World article. Thoughts? Opinions? --Kralizec! (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Its a tough call, but I honestly do not mind seeing the content stay here or move to the New Seven Wonders of the World page. The only issue is that one concerns a Swiss organization doing so and another concerns the Good Morning America/USA Today special event with a panel of seven judges doing so. If the content were merged into that article, it would need to be recalibrated quite a bit. However, it still is a change to consider.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The New Seven Wonders of the World article is about the Swiss-based company. Since they are "questionable" in business practices (see Talk page), it is best to isolate them in their own article and not confuse the reader with more legitimate (which is what N7W tries to do, such as with falsely claimed ties to UNESCO). Perhaps it needs to be renamed, or given a dab, to distinguish it from the American GMA list of the same name. But the GMA list is fine in this article, it's not that long and couldn't really justify an entire article on its own. -- Stbalbach 18:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is they are using a common name. There are other "New Seven Wonders of the World" and the actual Seven Wonders of the World, the Ancient ones, are what anyone is looking for. This is even more the case with the other new lists on this page. A tourism company making a list of hot destinations in the last few years does not compare to the Wonders that have been famous throughout the last 2000 years. 1000 years hence, everyone will have forgotten about "Hillman tour company", but the Wonders of the Mediterranean will still be around. Just because someone uses the same name does not mean they suddenly get to be compared to the real seven wonders. —Centrx→talk • 21:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand your concern, Seven Wonders lists are a type of genre, they are common, not only today, but throughout history. I'm not sure it makes sense to have separate articles for each list, keep them together as a single phenomenon where they can be spoken of collectively, looking at their traits and characteristics as a genre, as the article tries. It adds more context and meaning rather than atomizing it to bare facts. The Ancient list is clearly given top billing in the article, it's not like someone reading this would come away thinking it is equal with the other lists. Also we are not writing a final copy to be sealed in a vault for 1000 years, this is an ever-fluid text which is relevant to people who are alive and writing and reading today. -- Stbalbach 23:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
That's no reason not to do it right if there is a right way to do it, and Wikipedia is published statically and will be published more. Perhaps we can just let it remain in improper form until someone decides to write a complete article on the Seven Ancient Wonders of the World, but it is going to have to be split some time, and keeping it together just makes it look like a more complete article than it is. —Centrx→talk • 00:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medieval world

Stonehenge is a Medieval wonder? The Colosseum? The Catacombs of Kom el Shoqafa? Those are all ancient world constructs - what the heck makes the medieval? I am going to remove Stonehenge, the oldest of the lot, since its only reference is a goofy Website that lists it as part of "seven wonders of the Medieval Mind" (mind?) with no backup data. ... Well, I guess I won't right away because somebody's put a DO NOT MODIFY LIST note atop it, so I'll wait a day or two. But we need a better support than Wonderclub.com. - DavidWBrooks 21:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think if you look closely, the Wonderclub.com described their list as the "Seven Wonders of the Medieval Mind", not "Medieval World". It states that the list is made by scholars during the medieval era--sort of a modification of the original list. It's basically their version of what they consider to be the "seven wonders". It doesn't necessarily means that the wonder has to dates back to the medieval era. I also don't think it is proper to remove any items from the "medieval" list, since the list has several references to back-up, and that is how its listed in the website.--205.124.145.254 00:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Davis, it doesn't matter if the list is true or not, it is sourced and verifiable. First sentence of WP:V says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Also Stonehenge is listed in all the sources, not just WonderClub. -- Stbalbach 02:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Who else lists Stonehenge aside from that Web site, which gives no support for including it. Perhaps I'm being dim, but I can't find it on the other referenced sources. - DavidWBrooks 13:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe my problem is that the title implies these were Middle-Ages constructions, rather than "things that probably impressed people in the Middle Ages according to the view of Victorian-era and later people," which seems to be the gist of it. The discussion roughly says that, but it's kind of hidden.
How about an introduction along the lines of "The Seven Wonders of the Medieval World is a concept that came up in later times, (thereby cutting off any confusion from people like me who say 'Whoa - Stonehenge isn't medieval;) in order to list items that ..." well, when you come right down to it, I'm not sure why the lists were drawn up. It doesn't seem to have been in response to any medieval scholarship or discovery of actual lists from the Middle Ages (unless, as is possible, I'm missing something) it's just "here's some big, impressive things that were around in medieval times and aren't on the traditional Seven Wonders list, but I think probably impressed medieval folks." Odd. - DavidWBrooks 13:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It lists like four references all of which say "Stonehenge" - I could have added more references but thought it was getting redundant. In the second paragraph it says "It is unlikely the list originated in the Middle Ages. Brewer's calls it a "later list"[2]". Seems pretty clear, and sourced. -- Stbalbach 15:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
You're right about Stonehenge - I missed it in the other lists became it wasn't given first. D'oh!
I still think it's confusing, though - the all-caps section title alone implies that it's a list established in Medieval times, just as the Ancient list was established in ancient times. I have tried rewriting it to indicate that these are not historic lists, instead of putting that fact in the second paragraph. What do people think? - DavidWBrooks
We don't know when the Middle Ages list was created, who made it, where or what it consists. All we know is there extant mentions of it in the literature, and that it goes by various names, and is of various content. There is an entire paragraph that offers reasonable suggestions on when it was likely to originate, most certainly after the Middle Ages. The first paragraph talks about its name and contents. The second paragraph talks about its likely origins. I'm not sure what is wrong with how it is structures, it is sourced and academic in character. Also the Ancient List was not a creation of "Ancient times", per the article it says it was created in the Middle Ages, just as the Middle Ages list was probably created after the Middle Ages. -- Stbalbach 03:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

(We're at risk of over-indenting here, so I'm going back to the left.) Let me start over, because I blundered into this issue rather late and have done a very poor job of expression myself and/or trying to make fixes. My bad.

I believe the section as it stands is confusing to the casual reader, a bad thing for wikipedia. Stbalbach, you seem to know quite a bit about this, which sometimes makes it hard to see how less-knowledgeable readers might have issues.

Consider the ancient and modern sections. They both start out by saying who made the list(s) and when, then add necessary provisos and cautions. That's a good format.

The medieval section, however, starts out by saying that there really *isn't* a list, only something like a genre; that despite the all-caps header which implies a semi-formal name, nobody agrees on any sort of title or even a number of items; confusingly, it makes a passing reference that imply there *is* an accepted list (Brewer's comment about "it" - I don't know what that "it" refers to); unlike the ancient and modern sections, it never says who drew up any list or when; and then, to complete my confusion (and confusion of others, see above in this talk), it starts off with non-medieval items! So we have a list that we say doesn't really exist, that we have titled "Seven Wonders of the Medieval World" although most of the sources don't use that title, and then we give a list that consists neither of items created in medieval times nor of items listed in medieval times. Surely you see why I was baffled, even if I did a very poor job of expressing myself, or trying to make it better.

At the very least, this section needs to give some names of people who have drawn up lists and when they did it. - DavidWBrooks 14:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok understood. I've re-written to add more explanation. Let me know if there is still a problem. -- Stbalbach 15:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Much better - thanks - although (of course) I have a couple minor quibbles! (There are always quibbles) "Extant" links to a disambig page that isn't hepful; if we use the word - personally, I think it's more formal than we need - I guess it should link to the wiktionary entry. Also, I'm still not sure what the "it" in the Brewer sentence refers to; somebody's specific list, maybe? We mention plural "lists" right before that sentence, so a singular pronoun is confusing. Finally, is it possible to list one or two of the people who drew up lists, perhaps Carrington, to help readers place lists in context? - DavidWBrooks 16:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, fixed the the first two, the last I'm not sure as all the example/sourced lists are just derivatives and have no special authority or notability that their names should be mentioned directly in the text. It is my hope to eventually find some better sources (I'm waiting for google books and microsoft books to finish scanning entire libraries which may be done by the end of 2007). Also want to find the Brewers Dictionary of Phrase and Fable and see what is says in full. So yeah agree but need better sources. -- Stbalbach 12:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks good. Wonder who that Carrington guy is? - DavidWBrooks 12:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The UT/GMA "New Seven Wonders" list

Watchers of this page may note that there have been some recent disputes on the USA Today/Good Morning America "New Seven Wonders" list. In an attempt to nip this growing edit war in the bud, I just watched a couple of hours of streaming video [8] from the GMA broadcasts in question, and updated the list accordingly. Here are the explanations of, and reasons behind my edits.

Format changes:

  • removed the bold - none of the other lists in the article have the wonder name in bold
  • added in the wonder's number because that is how the GMA broadcast presented them
  • broadcast dates - I left these in, however while they are relevant now, they probably will not be in a few years, and should be removed at that time

Content changes:

  • Wonder #3 - the GMA broadcast specifically talked about the polar ice caps at both the north and south poles; while their "live" reporter was actually in Iceland (and the GMA site occasionally lists Iceland as this wonder's location), this wonder is located in the polar regions (which ironically do not go as far south as Iceland)
  • Wonder #6 - similar to #3 above, while they were in Chichen Itza, the show talked about Maya civilization and Maya architecture ruins; also, as Mayan ruins exist all over the entire Yucatán Peninsula (in the modern countries of Belize, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico), I changed the location to Mesoamerica
  • Wonder #7 - GMA listed this wonder as the Great Migration of "1 million wildebeests, half a million gazelles, and 200,000 zebras" [9], however the GMA broadcast talked about not just the animals in the migration, but also their ecosystems and the two national parks that make the whole thing possible; as such, I delinked "Great Migration" in the wonder's name and instead put in links to the Serengeti National Park of Tanzania and Masai Mara National Reserve of Kenya

Thoughts? Opinions? --Kralizec! (talk) 06:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason to add the "date announced" - what value is that? It's not exactly of historical interest; just complicates the table. - DavidWBrooks 13:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Geeze what a mess GMA has created. Sounds like a poorly produced show. I suggest we wait a bit and see if they come out with an "official" statement to try and fix the confusion they created. I'm not attached to the dates either, the dates are mentioned in the text, but don't see how it hurts either for now. -- Stbalbach 15:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it rather ironic that the imprecise wording of the UT/GMA list is giving us fits as we try to integrate it into this article, because you could tell they used this wikipedia article as a source! For example, the segment they aired on the original seven ancient wonders included all the pictures found on this page. Likewise, the GMA segment on the seven natural wonders used the same obscure list we presented here. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I was to one who originally created the list. The dates can be parted with, no problem. As far as the editing disputes, I'm sure the list should simply reflect what GMA announced themselves rather than trying to adjust to more precise locations or naming.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/e/v/Talk%7ESeven_Wonders_of_the_World_5f8c.html"