Talk:Mausoleum of Maussollos
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Castle. | |
| ??? | 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. | |
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing! | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. | |
 |
To-do list for Mausoleum of Maussollos: | edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|---|
|
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category |
||
 |
Mausoleum of Maussollos is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. |
Contents |
[edit] Comments
[edit] Dec 04
"The Knights claimed that Moslem villagers were responsible for the theft, but it is just as likely that some of the Crusaders themselves plundered the graves."
Is there any historic reason to say Moslem over the more accurate Muslim in this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.194.232.249 (talk • contribs) .
- There is nothing particularly more "accurate" about the currently favored transliteration of the Arabic word. Both vowel sounds are intermediate between the two transliterations; the form Moslem has the historical advantage of being the traditional English spelling. Bill 15:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- More essential, how was this supposed claim voiced? Is it that archaeologists found pieces from the Mausoleum incorporated into local Ottoman stuctures, as they certainly did find them incorporated into Crusader-period fortifications? That's the history that needs to be clearer here. --Wetman 08:08, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Should there not be a source required here for the reference to the 1960's research 'proving' grave robbers arrived long before the Crusaders? 67.68.30.81 03:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Specifically, this section could really use a source, maybe someone with access to better search capabilities than I can find one: "The Knights claimed that Moslem villagers were responsible for the theft, but it is just as likely that some of the Crusaders themselves plundered the graves. On the walls of the small museum building next to the site of the Mausoleum we find a different story. Research done by archeologists in the 1960s shows that long before the knights came grave robbers had dug a tunnel under the grave chamber, stealing its contents. Also the museum states that it is most likely that Mausolus and Artemisia were cremated, so only an urn with their ashes were placed in the grave chamber. This explains why no bodies were found."67.68.30.81 03:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Source for this section is partially me. I was their on holiday. I unfortunately didn't take any pictures of the texts on the walls. Somebody with access to a uni library might be able to dig up prof. Jespessens account of the site. Raindeer 15:15, 15 dec 2006 (CET)
[edit] Oct 05
Changes made based upon visit to Bodrum in October 2005. Wikipedia Classic Dictionary also has a lot of information. Raindeer 18:30, 19 Oct 2005 (CET)
[edit] Jan 06
I removed the link just added (http://www.ancientlibrary.com/wcd/Mausolus), because it returns a 404 error; and because the parent site (http://www.ancientlibrary.com) returns a much stranger error, at least to me: my browser pops up a warning message (see this screen capture of it) stating that maybe it isn't what it looks like. . . . Bill 15:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup
Someone with better copy editing skills than I needs to clean this up - it's not bad enough for a tag, but there are plenty of duplicated sentences that will require restructuring to eliminate. Rainman420 21:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] images
I moved the modern images down to the modern section, and added one of the ruins. There should also probably be an image of Maussollos in his section, if one exists.--Patrickneil 22:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Edits by User:DIEGO RICARDO PEREIRA
User:DIEGO RICARDO PEREIRA has been editing the article — any view on whether the edits constitute an improvement? I'm not so sure. m.e. 09:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ss? ll?
Why are the 's' and the 'l' in Mausolus' transliterated name doubled? The lambda and sigma in the Greek original aren't. This page ought to be moved to 'Mausoleum of Mausolus' or 'Mausloeum of Mausolos', with appropriate re-directs. Agemegos 22:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- You're right. The spelling should be Mausolus. --Centauri 01:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Edits
My recent edits have eliminated some fantastical and distracting linking, like roof and navy, and added a few links—— to the names of the sculptors, for example. I have tightened loose construction without loss and have Englished some stray idiom. An article in this condition should not have been selected as an example of Wikipedia's best. Perhaps the text has eroded. --Wetman 21:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
