Talk:Colossus of Rhodes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Colossus of Rhodes article.
Article policies
Architecture Portal
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high-importance within classical antiquity.
Greece Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece.
If you would like to participate, you can improve Colossus of Rhodes, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet been prioritized.
Colossus of Rhodes is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

Contents

[edit] Comment 1

Caution: this article attracts vandals. Consider keeping it on your Watchlists.

[edit] Comment 2

"The Colussus of Rhodes probably did not stand astride the harbor entrance as shown here"

Then why use that picture? Mintguy
The caption polus text should explain the historic image, fixed in the European imagination. --Wetman 08:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

_____ The section subtitled 'Fate' makes no sense to me at all. It starts off by describing the statue, then says something about the use of ramps that doesn't make sense: "...and bronze plates attached to the bars formed the use of a large earthen ramp." Then it says: "Construction had offended Helios, and they declined to rebuild it." Something is wrong with this sentence IE it seems to be missing a large amount of information between someone being offended, and then someone refusing to rebuild it. Was it smashed down?

Quite right, Garbled. The article had been heavily vandalized by deletions from Anons. (see History). I've returned it to my former edit. --Wetman 08:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

It's likely that it looked more like the Statue of Liberty, a big pillar shape, rather than a figure standing with feet apart. See this image for example: [[1]] from [[2]]http://ce.eng.usf.edu/pharos/wonders/colossus.html Fine Arts 18:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Y'know, if I had the insane amount of money that, say, Mr. Gates had, I'd donate the amount needed to rebuild this.


[edit] Shaggy dog story

"...In 1989, a stone construction resembling a gigantic human fist was found in the sea of Rhodes. It was supposed that it was the first discovery of a part of the Colossus. However it was decided that it was only stone and mud debris thrown in the sea by a bulldozer..." Since the Colossus of Rhodes was bronze, this bears no relation to anything... --Wetman 05:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but it is directly relevant to the article. I actually remember that story, so shaggy dog or not, it received global coverage. If nothing else it serves to illustrate how much confusion there still is about the statue. --Centauri 08:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
If it received global coverage, then no doubt the episode will be mentioned somewhere on the Internet. If not, it should be here at Talk until some source for this assertion of a "stone" colossus can be found. --Wetman 15:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Huh? Why should whether it is "on the internet somewhere" matter? Who made any "assertion" about a stone colossus? --Centauri 03:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalized yearear

it says 1993 in the very beginning.(Anon. High Schooler teen)

As fast as it's vandalized it's cleaned up. --Wetman 23:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Myth or Hoax?

I heard that the whole idea of the Collossus was potentially an ancient myth and it may not have existed at all, is there any foundation to this? •Elomis• 21:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The ruins of the Colossus were a major tourist attraction for almost a millenium so there are plenty of eyewitness reports. Wayne 02:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a pun?

"Media reports in 1989 initially suggested that large stones found on the seabed off the coast of Rhodes might have been the remains of the Colossus; however this theory was later shown to be without foundation."

GROAN! --24.46.164.83 23:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ...... making it the tallest statue of the ancient world.

The statement -> "Before its destruction, the Colossus of Rhodes stood 70 cubits tall, over 30 metres (100 feet), making it the tallest statue of the ancient world.[1]" <- is not correct and needs to be verified. Perhaps some citations should be given.

Its well known fact that Buddha Statues in Afghanistan were far taller standing at 55mtrs. Though the tallest one was demolished in 2001, still some others remain and further research can be done on the subject.

Buddha statues in Bamiyna (Afghanistan) were upset by Kushans, a Turkish type people known as Yueh-Chih in China moved from Central Asia to Bactria, defeating the Greco-Partians dinasty in such area in 76 AD. Then statues of Buddha were not carved out in the times of the Colossus.

Siddhārtha Gautama dead aprox in -480 BC, two centuries before Colossus, but buddism did not arrived Afghanistan until first century AC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Buddhism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Bactrian_Kingdom 81.32.170.176 00:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Miguel A. Roman

The Buddha "Statues" technically are not statues which are "free standing three dimentional works of art". Sculptures that are supported by attachment to a vertical stone background are called Bas-relief sculptures not statues. Wayne (talk) 10:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bronze

I remember seeing a documentary about the Seven Ancient Wonders, on the History Channel maybe, saying that the world's supply of bronze was exhausted to create this statue, and after its destruction by the earthquake, the bronze was melted down and used to make weapons and the like. True? If so, should something like this be added to the article? Morhange 07:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can't have been built with its legs apart

The article contains the phrase "and an engineering analysis proved that it could not have been built with its legs apart without collapsing from its own weight", with no citation on who did the study or when it was done. Frankly this sounds to me a whole lot like the engineering studies of the late 19th century that proved bumblebees can't fly. I have no doubt such a study was probably done at some point. But it was probably done by someone with no construction experience whatever as a term project or the like. I think we should have a citation, if anyone can find one.

(When the Statue of Liberty was refurbished a few decades back, a bunch of engineers did an FEA study and concluded that it could not possibly have stood for more than a few years after having been constructed. Amazingly they decided to doubt this conclusion and then included the copper skin as well as the frame in the computations, and discovered the skin actually added strength to the statue. Duh. I suspect a similar analysis was used for the Rhodes statue.) Loren.wilton (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)