Talk:Seven Wonders of the Ancient World

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the assessment scale.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Seven Wonders of the Ancient World as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Astur-Leonese language Wikipedia.

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)

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...

This is such a great entry I don't want to mess it up, so I'm putting this minor tweak as a suggestion. It gets tricky since the "7 ancient wonders" & "7 world wonders" are nested inside each other, or not, depending on what search criteria used. My tweak is that, in Seven Ancient Wonders", it says, "Later lists include those for the Medieval World and the Modern World." Perhaps make "Medieval World" and "Modern World" link to the Wiki sections that cover these? Seems minor, but if you search on "seven wonders world" one can link to Seven Ancient Wonders, where the links would be especially nice. Especially since these two sections are so nice. (Seekers finding the inclusive 7 wonders obviously can scroll down to see these sections, but a Seven Ancient Wonders reader wouldn't see them, only other links that don't redirect to the inclusive 7 Wonders entries).

Great job, people! Trai dep 06:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[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)

Yes, I had always thought that too... J.P.Lon 17:01, 8 February 2007 (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.—Preceding unsigned comment 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] "Seven Wonders lists about the Middle Ages" [sic]

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)
The Wonderclub needs to be credited, if this is their list. A bit daffy. Are they a very dependable source, then? The fact that Stonehenge wasn't even recognized until the 17th century might be lost in the general babble... --Wetman 20:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I was the person who added the Brewer's citation to the article and I own a copy of that Centenary edition of Brewer's. DavidWBrooks queries whether there actually was a specific list or was it a mere genre piece. He also asked what "it" refers to in Brewer's and noted the discrepancy between the singular of brewer's "it" and the plural of "list[s]" in the article.

The Brewer's entry is under "Wonder. The Seven Wonders of the World." It starts :In the ancient world:" and then lists the traditional seven ancient wonders. It then continues "A later list gives:" and lists the wonders in the third paragraph (albeit Brewer's lists the same seven wonders in a different order and uses slightly different names for several of them).

Thus Brewer's was referring to a specific list, the list in the article's third paragraph. This list is also apparently cited by the other footnoted books in the article. That explains howBrewer's "list" became "list[s]" in the article. Brewer's gives no sources for this list and doesn't ascribe it to the medieval or Middle Ages period. It is simply a "later" list than the traditional and best-known list. I take "later" to mean that as more sites were discovered by Europeans and most of the ancient wonders were destroyed, new world "wonders" were added to the list.

My copy of Brewer's is the 1975 corrected fourth impression of the 1970 Centenary edition. I don't have the earlier editions but I'd guess that because the topic of the seven wonders of the world is such a venerable one that it would've been listed in the original 1870 first edition of Brewer's. As such the Brewer's list is certainly older and more authoritative than the Wonderclub citation which was the only one given for the "The Seven Wonders of the Medieval Mind".

I made my original contribution when someone proposed that the "medieval" list be deleted altogether as its only then source was the Wonderclub which could've characterised the list as being original research. That's why I cited Brewer's as a source to show it wasn’t a recently dreamed-up modern list.

123.3.2.179 04:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Leo Wassercug

Wonderclub seems to be causing a lot of confusion, I have removed it entirely from the article, it is not needed, we have 8 other sources showing a "medieval list" is not original research. -- Stbalbach 05:19, 19 March 2007 (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)

I just saw the list of the New Wonders of the World and being a Tanzanian, i felt proud to see Serengeti in the list. Just one thing, please mentioned country name as Tanzania and Kenya, since Serengeti is in Tanzania and Masai Mara in Kenya. Tanzania has been fighting to correct this most common error to the world as many people believe that Serengeti is in Kenya which is not correct. Hence i will appreciate if this change was made. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.45.36.180 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Done! It appears that I had their order swapped. Thanks for catching this mistake. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

With the new seven wonders of the world, I don't think it would be necessary to put the wonders voted by GMA. The show is not an authority in making such lists (that's my opinion). Maybe it would be better to put them on the Good Morning America page. Leoisiah 14:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is "an authority in making such lists" - or, rather, everybody is. They're just opinions, none is more valid than any other; the criteria for including them in wikipedia is notability. Millions of people saw or read that particular exercise - more than have seen some of the other lists on this page - so it's certainly notable enough to be included in an article about such lists. Whether this is the best place for that article is an issue (as is discussed elsewhere on this page). - DavidWBrooks 18:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] monument

Regarding this sentence (bolded part deleted)

It is unlikely the lists originated in the Middle Ages, in part because the lack of interaction between Europeans and Asians at that time makes it unlikely that they knew each others cultural monuments.

This is a logical and well founded assumption, but in fact knowledge and goods did pass east and west through trade routes. Much of medieval technology came that way. Plus, Marco Polo (we must assume) did travel to China during the Middle Ages (although I'm not sure what exactly he reported on). There are good solid factual reasons to believe this list was made after the middle ages (for one, the term middle ages was not invented until after the fact). It's more ambiguous to say no one had ever heard of the monuments through trade routes or early explorers. -- Stbalbach 04:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

196.45.36.180 07:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC) I just saw the list of the New Wonders of the World and being a Tanzanian, i felt proud to see Serengeti in the list. Just one thing, please mentioned country name as Tanzania and Kenya, since Serengeti is in Tanzania and Masai Mara in Kenya. Tanzania has been fighting to correct this most common error to the world as many people believe that Serengeti is in Kenya which is not correct. Hence i will appreciate if this change was made.

[edit] merge with Eigth wonder of the world

I think the last section of this page should be merged with Eighth Wonder of the World as it simply contains objects, sites and natural features which various people feel should be members of the seven wonders list. There is no consensus on any of the lists. What do other editors think? Andeggs 08:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. This article is about "Seven Wonders" lists, there are many in them. Not "Eighth Wonders", which has its own article and is a different concept (adding one to an existing list). When someone is looking for a seven wonders list, they will not think to enter "Eighth Wonders" in the search field, they will search on "Seven Wonders". various people feel should be members of the seven wonders list - this doesn't "add up" mathematically, people make new seven wonders lists because the name "seven wonders" is a well known and popular cultural idiomatic phrase. Even the Ancient List is just a copy of earlier lists - there is no single "right" list, it is a genre. -- Stbalbach 15:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kieran Martin list of tourist travel wonders?

A list of tourist travel wonders -as compiled by Kieran Martin- was recently added [10] to the article. While not authoritative, a google search turned up little on either Martin or the list. One wonders if this person and/or list meet the threshold for WP:NOTE. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion at the beginning of the list

See this from the top table: "Herostratus burned [the Temple of Artemis] down in an attempt to achieve lasting fame." Yet further down we read that the five wonders were destroyed in natural disasters. This was clearly not a natural disaster. --Edwin Herdman 01:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism or am I missing a beat?

In the section "Seven Wonders lists about the Middle Ages" there are 9 entries, the last two being macaroni and cheese, and apple juice !

I was going to delete them, but then saw a tag "Do Not Modify This List" above it. Am I being rather naive in assuming there might be some plausible reason to keep these two such as a pop-culture reference that I must have missed? I probably won't be back here, so if they need to be deleted, do it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.65.222.56 (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Alternative lists in Antiquity

I think the article should mention other works included in alternative lists of seven wonders in Antiquity. Diodorus Siculus (2.11.4), probably quoting Ctesias, describes an obelisk in Babylon, and then says: "they number it among the seven wonders of the world." See at http://www.livius.org/se-sg/7wonders/seven_wonders.html It is also wrong to state that these wonders were "located around the Mediterranean rim". What about the Hanging Gardens? Oiophron 17:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative list

I had long ago found an alternative list, but I have lost the link. Memorable was in particular that it started with the Blue Marble photograph. Does anyone here know this list, or have a link to it? I've Googled around a lot, but I haven't been able to find it again. Shinobu 11:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fate of Statue at olympus

The article reads "Dismantled by Christian rulers to discourage paganism", but a quick click of the link proves otherwise, in fact the statue of olympus page does not even mention this theory at all! I've never heard of it either, so i'd suggest someone editing the page and taking that piece of misinformation off. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.214.28.183 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that; I have updated the entry. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow, looks like that entry was changed [11] back on June 22. Ooops. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new seven wonders

Anyone else think that the "New Seven Wonders" falls under WP:RECENT or WP:UNDUE? I'm not so sure that either GMA or NOWC, both for-profit, carry enough weight for an encyclopedia entry on the Seven Wonders. BURNyA 20:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Not me. I think the Swiss-run thingamajig is certainly notable - it got lots of press all over the world. The TV-show tidbit is only a section within an article, which doesn't seem overplay. The for-profit aspect isn't relevant; wikipedia is loaded with articles about for-profit entities and programs. - DavidWBrooks 00:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase. The NOWC New Seven Wonders list IS notable. In fact, it has its own page. This article on the other hand seems to be about the origonal, historical Seven wonders of the Ancient World. At least that's what the first sentence says, and if you search for Seven Wonders of the Ancient World it takes you here. The problem is, almost a full half of the article is devoted to modern lists, many that are covered elsewhere, specifically the NOWC and GMA lists. BURNyA 22:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You have a point. If we can think of a title for all these modern, alternative versions, we could move them there and return the old stuff to the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. - DavidWBrooks 01:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Is the article really long enough to justify forking? --Kralizec! (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Length, of course, isn't the only criteria - if portions of the topic have oozed sufficiently far away from the title, then a new article is legitimate. This article is, I think, near that point, although it may not have fallen over. And as I noted above, a very hard part is thinking of a title that encompasses all the alternative wonder lists. - DavidWBrooks 14:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Alternatively, we could simply add the articles about other lists to "See also" and remove any without their own article as non-notable. The details do not need to be repeated here. IPSOS (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
There is some value, I think, to having all these lists in one place so you can compare and contrast them. Not a lot of value, perhaps, but some. - DavidWBrooks 16:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. Perhaps the article should be titled Lists of Seven Wonders of the World? IPSOS (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Angel Falls

Hasn't Angel Falls ever been listed as a Wonder?

[edit] Old city of jerusalem

The old city of jerusalem was choosed by Good Morning America as one of the wonders... so i was wondering where it is exactly the old jerusalem? after searching i found this fact: it lies in the eastern part of jerusalem which was occupied by the israelian army since the 6 days war 1967 but it still not a part of israel so i don't know if it's right to mention that the location of old city of jerusalem is israel since it lies in a palestinian occupied land . --Dr.simsim 21:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please add the link to Occitan Wikipedia

oc:Sèt Meravilhas deu Mond. Thank you João Xavier, 20 July 2007.

[edit] Crusaders in 1494?

"Damaged by an earthquake and eventually disassembled by European Crusaders"

The Crusaders were kicked out of Asia Minor by the early 15th century / late 14th century and their presence their was limited - I don't think they had the time or the ability to be dismantling anything.Tourskin 02:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Graffiti

Does anyone else feel like these new-fangled, 'oooh, you did an online poll?', 'i've heard of Herodotus, who the hell are you?' lists burn like graffitti on what would otherwise be a notable and noble article on a page from Classical history. Can we remove this desecration of the Classics? So a few million Americans saw a little program on TV. Hello, there's another 6 billion people who live here too. Not the mention the fact that of those few million perhaps a few thousand actually know where those wonders are located. Wikipedia, or a Ameripedia? The Jackal God 01:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a particular member of the "modern lists" you object to, or are you proposing that we remove everything touched by the damn dirty ape hands of Americans? --Kralizec! (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm definately a damn dirty ape of an American, and I think these modern lists are a blight on this page. We need another page to put this stuff in. Half the page is modern internet polls and travel lists. If noone objects, soon, I'm going to go WP:BOLD and move stuff around. BURNyA 15:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could fork all the non-ancient content over to another page? A good option might be to remove the redirect at Wonders of the World and make that page the home of all the modern stuff. We should also consider moving the current page to Seven Wonders of the Ancient World (since it will now only contain the ancient list), and replace Seven Wonders of the World with a redirect to Wonders of the World (disambiguation). If there are no objections and if no one else beats me to it, I could probably make these changes during my "down time" at work this weekend. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Great. I don't think I have the tools to do everything that needs to be done, but I'll do what I can. BURNyA 18:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The article forks and moves have been completed! --Kralizec! (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't sure it was a great idea when first described, but now that it's done, I think it's excellent. - DavidWBrooks 01:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wonder table vandalism?

Anyone noticed the first one the wonder table being a 24 yr old 'Brian' from Canada? I've tried to edit this out, but it doesn't appear on the edit page? (Above the Giza wonder) --84.65.130.16 12:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It was reverted [12] seven minutes after its insertion. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self contradiction in the article

The article currently says "Records show that the other five wonders were destroyed by natural disasters." Yet lists the Temple of Artemis' cause of destruction as arson. It looked like a simple edit in March of '06:

two by fire, three by earthquake  -->  five by natural disaster

But as one of the fires wasn't natural, it's no longer accurate. TheAmigo42 03:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki links

All interwiki links seem to be going to translations of Seven Wonders of the World so I have removed all the interwiki links from this article. Graham87 03:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Somebody had written that the Ancient Wonders were all in antarctica so I removed it. [Jimmymcchamp] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmymcchamp (talk • contribs) 15:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the wonderful world of undoing wiki-vandals! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! I went ahead and reverted the rest of the vandal's deletion via the undo button. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)