Talk:Hanging Gardens of Babylon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Any modern look-alikes?

These gardens look amazing. Is there anything that exists today that looks anything like the Hanging Gardens of Babylon? 64.236.245.243 21:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Questions

have Nebuchadnezzar never physically existed?

Er slopeing Gardens of Babylon a better name?

are a Greek better source end than assyrisk source?

Was there recent findings in Babylon regarding this?

---

I'm Pretty Sure The Walls Are Part Of The Seventh Wonder ||

                                                         ||
                                                         ||
                                                        \  /
                                                         \/

Awkward sentence & more info

This opening sentence is awkward:

The Hanging Gardens of Babylon (also known as the Hanging Gardens of Semiramis) and the walls of Babylon were considered one of the Seven Wonders of the World.

Were the gardens and the walls together one wonder or were they two seperate wonders? The sentence doesn't make it clear.

Since this was one of the wonders of the ancient world, shouldn't it have more information? The illustrations are great, but shouldn't we have more descriptions of the gardens themselves? I know this topic is more extensive than what we currently have. I'd write it myself but I am not an expert in this area. User:Frecklefoot

---

First of all, i think the main question is, did the gardens even exist? The main answer I had gotten was, "maybe", and "yes". The sites that had said "yes" backed it up with info from greek writers, which described the wonder. However, none of the websites have a full blown, 3-d view of the place... I would really like a site, that could show the entire site.

Reply to above: Good luck finding a full blown 3-D view. This is something that disappeared thousands of years ago. The best we can do is Middle Age representations of what they THINK it looked like.

The problem is that all the very few accounts of the garden all slightly differ in their description and even these accounts are not backed up by any archeological findings that are certain or perhaps credible. Most of the images and accounts of the garden are highly romanticized and fantastic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.139.72 (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Lost Glory?

What I would like to know is, if they did exist where we think they did, and were in fact as large and grand as stories tell, then why is there little or no physical evidence of their having been there at all? In Egypt, for example, people have found remains of structures of similar age, so why do no remains of these gardens exist?

-- If the means of watering the gardens were destroyed (or, if based on people power, no longer compelled to perform the watering), the flora would simply wither and turn to dust within a few years. The stone or earthworks required to support the gardens would sink into the soft, fertile ground (in the Fertile Crescent of ancient Mesopotamia between the Tigris and the Euphrates) within a few decades. We know nothing of the underlying foundations, and it's likely that even ancient architects would have known little about how to build durable construction like that. (For examples of modern buildings that were built with insufficient foundations, check out the Carousel Mall in Syracuse, NY; Walt Disney World in Florida was built on massive quantities of concrete to keep it from sinking into the swamp; and, finally, of course look at the famous Leaning Tower of Pisa, which has recently been closed to outsiders because it's getting too dangerous inside.) With regards to the next comment, the pyramids are (by definition) constructed completely differently; they are essentially a single monolithic structure with no edges to break off or weaken the structure, and built on solid, desert rock. It's not inconceivable that these gardens could completely disappear in decades, let alone centuries or millennia, to say nothing of the rumors of earthquakes which can wipe out mountains in an instant. Ancient Babylon itself is essentially just a mound of rubbish today. Also, the challenge of watering them would not be as great as it appears, centuries-later speculation regarding watering systems notwithstanding; it could have been as simple a scheme of a hundred or so slaves carrying water all day long. -- preceding comment by J. Becker

Ever try to knock down a pyramid? Several governments in Egypt have attempted to wipe out Egypt's past, but it's not that easy. In Iraq and most other countries the ecology is constantly degrading structures, however deserts generally preserve them. As far as why haven't they been found yet, keep in mind that none of the Mesopotamian civilizations had been discovered until the Mid-1920's, and since then most Iraqi governments haven't been entirely stable and archaeologist-friendly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.123.76 (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(This part of Iraq is in the "Fertile Crescent", not desert.)

Location

Where in Iraq were they meant to be? Kernow 13:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)</nowiki>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon 55 miles south of Baghdad, adjacent to the Euphrates, adjoining the Royal Palace.

OR

Across the Euphrates from Mosul. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineveh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.139.72 (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Could this be the location of the hanging garden? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillah Read under Babylon ruins.

The ruins are along the Euphrates river as quoted in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvaroisit (talk • contribs) 11:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Image Caption

A 16th century depiction of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon (by Martin Heemskerck). You can see the Tower of Babel in the background. Is it really meant to be the Tower of Babel? I think it's much more likely to be the Minaret of Samarra in the background based on appearance. --NEMT 10:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Medieval and Renaissance Europeans imagined the Tower of Babel with the same spiral design you see in that minaret, sort of the same way they depicted biblical characters in then-modern clothing. They didn't know what these things actually looked like (and weren't really concerned with that anyway), so they painted them in ways they were familiar with. Ştefan 01:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible Plagiarism

The following paragraph appears to a simple concatenation of the fifth and sixth paragraphs from http://www.unmuseum.org/hangg.htm.

According to accounts, the gardens were built to cheer up Nebuchadnezzar's homesick wife, Amyitis. Amyitis, daughter of the king of the Medes, was married to Nebuchadnezzar to create an alliance between the nations. The land she came from, though, was green, rugged and mountainous, and she found the flat, sun-baked terrain of the Mesopotamia (a region of southwest Asia) depressing. The king decided to recreate her homeland by building an artificial mountain with rooftop gardens. The Hanging Gardens probably did not really "hang" in the sense of being suspended from cables or ropes. The name comes from an inexact translation of the Greek word kremastos or the Latin word pensilis, which means not just "hanging” but "overhanging," as in the case of a terrace or balcony.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by SoCalAlum (talk • contribs)

This appears to be correct... The paragraphs were added by Abhi madhani (talk · contribs) on 22 November 2004 (see this diff). According to the internet archive the same text has been present at unmuseum.org since at least 8 July 2000. That section should be rewritten as soon as possible. —JeremyA 03:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Stubb`d.

I made it a stub because, although it provided some useful information, it did not provide near enough to be considered encyclopedic content. VikedaL

Yeah, this article is in SERIOUS need of attention; there really should be more than this in a 7 Wonders article. I'm really not knowledgeable enough about this to be of much assistance, but I urge those who are to be bold! 85.166.247.218

I am in the process of doing an overhaul of this page so we can remove it from Stubb'd status. However I don't have a large amount of experience with wikipedia so please feel free to lend me advice on the job I do. Nikter 02:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there enough information to remove the Stubb'd status now??Nikter 03:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hanging Gardens of Babylon → Hanging Gardens — I would think that one of the original seven wonders of the world wouldn't need to share a disambiguation page with a nice local garden in modern India. Nice as it may be, it's not a 100th as notable as the original. —The Evil Spartan 04:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.'

• Support as nom. The Evil Spartan 04:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support I definitely agree. —METS501 (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I think it would be better to leave the title of the page the same, and simply place a redirect on the "Hanging Gardens" page, as well as a link on the top of this page for the disambiguation [age. No one ever refers to them simply as the "Hanging Gardens", it is always The Hanging Gardens of Babylon.

• Might I suggest reading up on WP:DISAMBIG, which says that we don't have a disambig page just because we can. If one is more often used, then we use it. The Evil Spartan 06:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• No you've missed my point altogether. I support that Hanging Gardens should redirect to the Hanging Gardens of Babylon page, but the title of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon page should remain the same, as it is more precise and is the name more commonly used. Shaizakopf 03:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Good call. I'm going to do that, as it appears there's consensus for it. The Evil Spartan 18:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, I know it as Hanging Gardens of Semiramis which would be more precise. Hanging gardens is too common to be a precise name. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Agree with nom. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I've always heard it as "The Hanging Gardens of Babylon" , like "The Colossus of Rhodes", "The Great Lighthouse of Alexandria", etc. Probably only the Pyramids are more commonly just the Pyramids and not "The Pyramids of Giza", but Pyramid are not those. 132.205.44.5 23:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't see the purpose in eliminating the appendage necessary to the name. Reginmund 00:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unless any of the editors supporting this can show evidence that this is more commonly known as "Hanging Gardens". I have always called it "The Hanging Gardens of Babylon", and I've never heard it referred to as "Hanging Gardens". Crazysuit 17:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 19:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is it one of the seven wonders of the world?

The article needs to be more clear on why it is one of the seven wonders of the world. -Sox207 21:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the above statement. No one here or anyone alive for that matter named it one of the Seven Wonders of the world. It was named that centuries ago. This section is not about describing why it was named that for that is not covering fact, but more opinion. It is a fact that the Hanging Gardens are consided one of the "Seven wonders of the Ancient world". Explanation as to why it is would belong, in my opinion, in the Seven wonders of the world page.Nikter 23:52, 29 September 2007

Image caption -- what's it saying?

The caption of the first image: "Hanging Garden, Assyrian interpretation. note, the perspective not invented. In the front, under this image is a river (not represent or a matter of course in that time). In the left a pipe go the well tower, in the middle a water tower, in the right garden by many fruit trees on a slope by tree pointed vaults and irrigation (on a layer of asphalt). In the front of well tower is a image of the god of water, and on the pipe is a altar by points." Someone who can understand it please make it into proper English? -- 128.148.60.60 13:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking it out for now because it reads horrible. It also looks bad having a massive caption like that. I'll leave it in here for now and if any one can actually decipher what it means they can rephrase it and stick it back in the article. sdgjake 15:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hanging Garden, Assyrian interpretation. note, the perspective not invented. In the front, under this image is a river (not represent or a matter of course in that time). In the left a pipe go the well tower, in the middle a water tower, in the right garden by many fruit trees on a slope by tree pointed vaults and irrigation (on a layer of asphalt). In the front of well tower is a image of the god of water, and on the pipe is a altar by points.

note, the perspective was not invented in that era. In the front, under this image is the river (not represent or a matter of course in that time). In the left side: A pipe go the well tower, in the middle of the image: a water tower, in the right side of the image: A garden by many fruit trees on a slope by tree pointed vaults and irrigation (on a layer of asphalt). In the front of the well tower is a image of the god of water, and on the pipe is a altar by points

better?Haabet 22:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

A: the river (invisible)

B: water pipe (from river to well tower)

C: altar (for God of water)

D: God of water

E: well tower

F: water tower

G: Garden (by bushs and trees, by a layer of asphalt below)

H: Border of the garden

J: vault (three vaults)

K: streams (of water)

Modern Culture Section

I have been wondering why there isn't a link to Sonic Riders or a similar page due to the fact that a floating Hanging Gardens of Babylon is used as a major plot point (as well as the Babylonians in general). If any other references in modern culture are known, I say we add in a section for it. If not, it might be possible to reference it somewhere else in the article. 210.10.203.47 (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

the Gardens of babylon

How many layers did the Hanging Gardens have? because it seems that they make it seem strong but you need to know..

No one really knows, that's part of the trouble in writing the article, haha. Everyone wants to know what they "really" looked like, but since the ancient writers' descriptions differ, we can't really say without speculating--Prpldv06 (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

the Gardens of babylon

How many layers did the Hanging Gardens have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.82.23.229 (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

destruction

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.233.170 (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Updating this article for a Final Project

Hi everyone,

If the number of edits that I'm doing alarms you, please be aware that I've been assigned by my professor to contribute to this article. I'm going to be collapsing the "greek and other references" sections together, explaining who the ancient writers were, adding more citations to all sections, and clarifying questions and concerns that people have listed in this discussions page previously. I'm also moving the pictures around since the first one isn't even a picture or artistic rendition of the hanging gardens, which is a bit confusing. I also removed the reference to Semiramus (for now), because no current scholars believe that she built the Hanging Gardens. She's credited with building the walls and obelisk (also ancient world wonders according to differing Greek lists).

If anything I've added or edited is inappropriate for wikipedia, let's discuss it. I've been doing research all semester and will back up everything I add with citations. I'm new and just thought it would be polite to let everyone who's invested in this article know why I'm being so bold.

Cheers, --Prpldv06 (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

So I hope you all approve of the edits I made. I think the "references in ancient texts" section is much clearer now. I also explained Semiramis' relationship with the Hanging Gardens and Babylon's wonders. The popular culture section should be turned into prose instead of a miscellaneous list, and there are probably other references to be found. It seems like the Hanging Gardens capture the imagination of game designers quite frequently. Let me know if you have any questions about the edits I did. Prpldv06 (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC) The article should mention the earlier theory that the Gardens were on Etemenanki in Babylon which is at least tiered or terraced. Also there should be mention of the recent theory that the Gardens were late and were built on the ruins of Entemanki (after 332 B.C.) on a modified pattern to it, as described in a book "The Tower of Babel and the Hanging Gardens of Babylon" by John Richards 2014.86.141.122.79 (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC) Oldbuffer See also youtube video under John Richards ab hanging gardens of BabylonRichard Xerxes (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Reader feedback: Everything seems coherant. A...

109.148.30.24 posted this comment on 18 May 2013 (view all feedback).

Everything seems coherant. Also upto date with the recent theory of Sennachirib :) There is an anomaly in the References section with a manual ref. (#13 - beneath the list)

Any thoughts? Ryan shell (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

That manual reference was added recently. I can't access the German work it referenced, but I added the extra information (the source language of the quote) to the 'proper' reference #13. If someone can access the work (Reiseführer zu den Sieben Weltwundern: Philon von Byzanz und andere antike Texte: Zweisprächige Ausgabe, eingeleitet, übersetzt und erläutert by Kai Brodersen) and find something, feel free to revert my edit and add a separate reference. Regards, Pim Rijkee (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Stephanie Dalley's book is now available on Amazon so I have added it to the bibliography. I have also summarised the argument under the 'controversies' section. The references are the ones she cites, but tracking them down may be a problem - some will be on University networks like JSTOR, some might be on AWOL (Ancient World on-line), some will need an aademic library! (Rhona Dalley (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)) Someone (unidentified) had removed the section on Sennacherib's garden, claiming that it is "unsourced". There are fourteen primary academic sources quoted in the thirteen footnotes. I have restored the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhona Dalley (talk • contribs) 12:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Summary re-written

Quite a lot has been published since the start of the year, Dalley's book and Rollinger's article on Berossos in particular. I have had a go at re-casting the summary to reflect the different points of view. Rhona Dalley (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The Hanging Gardens

What destroyed the gardens? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobbypeanut (talk • contribs) 16:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Balance?

By word count, 38% of this article is currently about the recent Nineveh theory, which seems to be attributed to just one person. Is this a reasonable balance? 86.179.0.12 (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Removal

There is no rule to remove the addition by the ip. The only problem is, it is not in English, and can't be verified. If it gets officially translated, then it would be fine to use. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 08:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Water conveyance via Archimedes screws?

Upon reading this article and also viewing the Stephanie Dailey documentary on PBS, I am dismayed that a basic engineering question has not been addressed.

Assuming a system of "Archimedes screw" mechanisms, utilizing the trunks of shorn palm trees fashioned into reasonable facsimiles of a screw gears, were used, how were those mechanisms powered or turned at a rate sufficient to convey water to the highest levels of the gardens and in sufficient volume to keep the vegetation constantly hydrated?

Toward the end of the documentary, a CGI representation of the gardens in their full glory is offered up showing the converyor mechanisms turning dutifully against gravity without even a passing mention of how the mechanisms might have been powered. Human power? Unlikely. Mag-lev? Divine intervention? Nuclear power? Dubious explanations, all.

HIGHLY irresponsible omission, in my opinion...or did I miss something?? (I don't think I did.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by THardey (talk • contribs) 02:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The screws were cast in bronze; the article says this clearly. For more info see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oksi4p4Jqo

At least seven credible mechanisms have been proposed for powering the screws - four using animate (human or animal)muscle power and three making use of the head of water brought in by aqueduct. Each is feasible using the technologies assumed to have been in use at that time. However, there is NO clue in any text as to which, if any of these designs was used. Sennacherib in a very difficult passage of text refers to "chains and ropes" but these might have been for the installation rather than operation of the screws. Diodorus Siculus says "no one outside could see it being done" but this could simply refer to the fact that one cannot see the water going up inside the tube. A Wikipedia article is not the place for idle speculation so the only proper thing to do is to say there is no evidence. I have added a sentence to that effect.Rhona Dalley (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't get it. Didn't Sanacarib describe how he brought the water up? He said he used trees. Trees suck up water from their roots. Then, you can simply tap the tree and plug in other root systems to keep the water going up. A good tree trunk can lift tons of water a day. Why not take his word for it instead of trying to interpret it to mean a metaphore for some kind of machine? - PS: I'm not logged in right now. My name is josh and my wiki username is socratesone.

Incorrect attribution for picture

There's quite a major mistake in that the current picture - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hanging_Gardens_of_Babylon.jpg -

is captioned thus:

"A 16th-century hand-coloured engraving of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon by Dutch artist Maarten van Heemskerck, with the Tower of Babel in the background"

This contradicts the label given to the picture file itself: "'Hanging Gardens of Babylon' probably 19th century after the first excavations in the Assyrian capitals."

And in fact the actual engraving of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon by Maarten van Heemskerck is displayed on his wikipedia article, and it's not the same one.

I've amended it.

86.14.124.169 (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Two buildings but, one name?

So from reading the text in the Talk section. I have learnt that the conical building is the Minaret of Samarra so that leaves the two buildings in the foreground. The pyramid looking on on the left. And the one with plants growing over it. SO if one is the Hanging Gardens, then what is the other building called? WhippetWild (talk) 11:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hanging?

For all I know, I may be quite dumb, but I can't figure out in what sense these "gardens" were "hanging". Actually, the article seems to debate their existance only, and not what they are supposed to have been. 213.64.153.11 15:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

daaaaaaaaa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.248.216.14 (talk) 19:29, August 28, 2007 (UTC) They're called hanging gardens because its name comes from the greek word kremastos which means overhanging. So its not so much as hanging as overhaning, in this case over the terraces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.208.40 (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC) It was slope, like seats in a greek theatres. Haabet 16:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not really sure what's supposed to be so amazing by the paintings and the article doesn't even try to actually describe WTF the Gardens looked like or what was so impressive about them. Which makes the article pretty shitty, IMO. 72.245.29.212 (talk) 03:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC) ~Watch the language and they were not hanging the flowers all around it made it look like it was floating in the sky

... and to make this alredy long comment even longer, here's what some people may think the Hanging Garden is..

What some people may think is that there is a wire attached to the garden floor; the garden floor is hanging; the beautiful garden is in pots that are hanging. (possibly dried up or still green) They might have not know what gravity was back then. 86.97.34.82 (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Jessica

Is this sorta based on gravity?

Is this sorta based on gravity? What is ΑιΕΧΑNDRιΑ mean? I tried to translate it but I guess it didn't work; I found it in Ephesus; the one thing I can read. Seems like a name. A lovely one indeed. Now; back to the main topic; I need it for my reaserch on Ancient Rome. งานวิจัยปลอม . 86.97.34.82 (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC) Jessica

Contemporary accounts

I've suggested removing the statements that the gardens were often described by visitors to the city - there are NO contemporary accounts of the Gardens in Babylon. Nor is there any evidence that they were in "the centre of the city". Rhona Dalley (talk) 09:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2016

39.50.174.162 (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC) i would request you to please change this step by not using the same information each time like you told about king Nebuchadnezzar 2 to 3 times. i would be really grateful if you accepted thank you39.50.174.162 (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: King Nebuchadnezzar is mentioned in the lead - which is a summary of the article, so inevitably contains repetition - and in the "Scholarship and controversy" section - sometimes in the negative as with Herodotus - but all these uses in the article are sourced.
If you wish to requested a specific change please do so in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please ensure you add references from reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article - Arjayay (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2016

Remove the terrible, watermarked image that is halfway through the article. It's just a terrible ad for some graphics company

Rictuar (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Jeepers!  Done --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 04:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Where did they go a year after..? (and possibly more)  Done -- Jessica ^talk 04:24, 30 August 2017 86.97.34.82 (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Removed statements about the translation of Sennacherib's Prism

1. Stephanie Dalley's 23-page bibliography does not refer to Laessoe's work, as this statement claimed. Her translation is her own and the main translation reference is to Heidel (1953). 2. The description misses the whole point - that the mechanism was cast in bronze. Best left out.

I note that the contributor's account has been blocked.Rhona Dalley (talk) 11:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2018

Marvel of Mankind -- needs quote. 89.160.195.230 (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK _Discuss 23:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Needs quote

The sentence:

According to one legend, the Neo-Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II, who ruled between 605 and 562 BC, built the Hanging Gardens, alongside a grand palace that came to be known as The Marvel of the Mankind, for his Median wife, Queen Amytis, because she missed the green hills and valleys of her homeland; this is attested to by the Babylonian priest Berossus, writing in about 290 BC, and quoted later by Josephus.

What legend is this? We need a quote for it. The phrase 'The Marvel of the Mankind' can not be found in the work cited, in this article, by Josephus.

I would like it to be:

According to one legend, the Neo-Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II, who ruled between 605 and 562 BC, built the Hanging Gardens, alongside a grand palace that came to be known as The Marvel of the Mankind{Citation needed}, for his Median wife, Queen Amytis, because she missed the green hills and valleys of her homeland; this is attested to by the Babylonian priest Berossus, writing in about 290 BC, and quoted later by Josephus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.195.230 (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Plant species

I have removed references to Stephanie Dalley's work from this section (at her request), as she did not publish that information. I have also deleted reference to "palm oil" as this comes from the palm nut, a tropical species, not the date palm.Rhona Dalley (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Rhona Dalley: I see that references have reappeared. Is there a problem with the latest version? The Parson's Cat (talk) 09:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Reference 42 is correct. Concerning reference 43: there is no mention of dates on p150 (I am consulting the OUP hardback edition). On p163 there is a comment "..but (date palms) would not have produced good fruit at such a northern latiutude." I consider that a comment about trading dates is, in this context, misleading. I know Stephanie Dalley agrees. So I've taken it back out.Rhona Dalley (talk) 09:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Date format conventions

I often wonder how people referenced themselves in the universal time-line before Christ became the baseline. I mean, did they say "Here we are, it's two thousand BC"? Of course not. This is a matter of important inquiry. Any suggestions? JohnClarknew (talk) 23:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Following WP:TALK#TOPIC it's probably best not to get into a detailed conversation here - but see History of calendars. It's worth noting that there seems to be a Wikipedia convention for sticking with the original date format used by an article, e.g. MOS:ERA. These are guidelines rather than rules, but a lot of Wikipedians will use them as a basis for determining consensus. The Parson's Cat (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

On further investigation, there's also something about being consistent within an article at MOS:DATEUNIFY. The Parson's Cat (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

POV check: Bablyon versus Nineveh

It isn't clear from this article whether there is a scholarly consensus that the Hanging Gardens of Babylon were in Nineveh, or whether it's simply a point of view. I wonder whether we could get more input from experts here? The Parson's Cat (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The WP:AGEMATTERS applies here. There is already consensus that the Pseudo-Berossus is not only based on an misinterpretation, but Professor John Dillery, states, "Stephanie Dalley has suggested that Berossus was the first ancient authority to situate these gardens in Babylon, based on a misreading of an inscription of Sennacherib in which that king advertised his responsibility for elaborate works at Nineveh, at a location briefly known as "Babylon."

"There are even illustrations of these gardens, or paradises,²² on Assyrian reliefs. The most splendid of these comes from the palace of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh (fig 2.5).²³ It shows water flowing along an aqueduct and then cascading down in different streams or canals through a well-wooded garden that was probably at Nineveh itself. At the top of the garden is a beautiful pavilion with a stele on one side showing an Assyrian king. It has been suggested that such gardens at Nineveh were actually those referred to by Classical authors as the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.²⁴"

The original mention of the Hanging Gardens among the seven wonders doesn't mention a location, the notion of "Babylon" was ex post facto applied to the legends based; as stated above, on a "misreading", much like most of the foreign histories regarding the East. See here... https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/magazine/2020/07-08/know-where-7-wonders-ancient-world-except-one-hanging-gardens-babylon/ I'll be waiting for a rebuttal that is actually substantiated. My sources themselves quote other sources. If no rebuttal is presented, then this page will be moved to the "Hanging Gardens of Nineveh". Universal Constants (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I see that you've attempted before but people have reverted this? Perhaps it would be worth proposing a move as per WP:RM and trying to build consensus? The Parson's Cat (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't remove legitimate sources without talking about it here first. I'm aware of all of the histories regarding the "Hanging Gardens of Babylon", but as I've stated the new archaeological consensus is that the actual location is at Nineveh. I'm waiting for any rebuttal, if you'd like to propose the move per WP:RM you're more than welcome, but make sure you provide a rebuttal to the sources I've cited above. Universal Constants (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

See below. The Parson's Cat (talk) 08:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@StAnselm: You've made a comment in the page-move discussion below about balance in this article. I began a discussion along the same lines a few days ago. I wonder if you have time to join us here, please? (I appreciate that time is finite, so no offence will be taken if you can't help this time.)

In case it helps, here are three useful snapshots of the page that capture 'major edits':

• The page as it was on 1 July 2020, before any recent edits.
• The page as it was on 9 July 2020, after edits promoting a Nineveh location. this is very similar to the current version of the page as of 1 August 2020.
• My own attempts at an NPOV middle ground, subsequently reverted by the author of the Nineveh edits.

I am not suggesting that any of the three are 'correct' - they just capture editors' perspectives at certain points.

Question: What do you think we should do to make this page as good as it possibly can be, please?

Thanks a lot for your help! :-)

The Parson's Cat (talk) 09:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure. The "erroneously identified" is POV and undue and should not have been added back in. (I note we have "erroneous" three times int he lead!) I would say just go back to the 1 July version - we have no consensus for the edits, and I don't think they add much. We already had the three interpretive possibilities mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead. StAnselm (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm inclined to agree - I'll be 'bold' and restore this version. Hopefully editors wanting to make changes will be happy with that as a baseline. I note that Stephanie Dalley's Nineveh hypothesis is already prominent in the article as it is. The Parson's Cat (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I've also added a hatnote at the top of the section on Nineveh crosslinking to Nineveh#Sennacherib's Nineveh - the palace and gardens at Nineveh are of great interest whether or not they are 'the' Hanging Gardens and I wouldn't want to see them eclipsed by an argument over their name! :-) The Parson's Cat (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I am concerned that there is an editorial push for 'consensus'. It is not Wikipedia's place to act as a referee on academic opinion. If an article needs to cover a subject where there are different (and often equally valid) theories, I believe the article should cover each of them as clearly as possible. Take as an example Prof Chris Stringer's theories on human evolution - they change with each newly discovered piece of evidence! You can also consult Max Planck (under "Planck's principle" in this Wiki). I hope that all the edits I have made on this and other pages have been to clarify matters of fact or evidence, rather than to remove alternative interpretations of such data as do exist. As the Seven Wonders of the World have been listed for two thousand years, it is logical that people seeking information will search under the names by which they are commonly known. That is where the information should sit (as it currently does). Hope this helpsRhona Dalley (talk) 10:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rhona Dalley: WP:CONSENSUS is important, but what you are describing is also important: you'll find it documented under WP:NPOV.

I think you missed the beginning of this debate? The thing that prompted the discussion was a series of edits to the page that produced a version of the page that focused on one point of view, claiming it reflected overwhelming academic consensus, and there were attempts to move the page to Hanging Gardens of Nineveh which had been challenged and reverted. You can see how the article changed since then by looking at the current version of the page. The Parson's Cat (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

There is this article that suggests they were in Nineveh; https://www.history.com/news/hanging-gardens-existed-but-not-in-babylon 86.14.189.55 (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - while I don't think this itself would meet WP:RS, I understand it's based on Stephanie Dalley's academic work, which is referenced in the text as one of several credible hypotheses. The Parson's Cat (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Requested move 25 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Hanging Gardens of Babylon → Hanging Gardens – There has been some moving and unmoving of this page relating to the location of the Hanging Gardens. From what I can see, there isn't enough evidence that they are now commonly known by a name other than Babylon, but I can see the argument for using Hanging Gardens by itself - the article already indicates where the ideas come from and gives some sources for this. (Updated 'oppose' is now listed below.) I don't personally have a strongly vested view, but it does look like a consensus here - as opposed to move wars - would be valuable. The Parson's Cat(talk) 19:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC); edited The Parson's Cat (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I see that Universal Constants (talk) has altered my original proposal. I've reinstated it - as it is my signature against it - but note that Universal Constants is proposing Hanging Gardens of Babylon → Hanging Gardens of Nineveh. (If everyone could try not to edit each others' comments, it would be great!) The Parson's Cat (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The WP:AGEMATTERS applies here. What evidence can't you see? The consensus is based on archaeological research from Professor Stephanie Dalley from Oxford; cited by Professor John Dillery from the University of Virginia. If this is going to be moved, this is going to be moved to the Hanging Gardens of Nineveh, based on current sources per WP:AGEMATTERS. There isn't going to be any reliance on what evidence you see, rather that is why current sources are cited. There is already consensus that the notions from Pseudo-Berossus; which is what all the Babylon notions derive from, is not only based on an misinterpretation, but Professor John Dillery, states, "Stephanie Dalley has suggested that Berossus was the first ancient authority to situate these gardens in Babylon, based on a misreading of an inscription of Sennacherib in which that king advertised his responsibility for elaborate works at Nineveh, at a location briefly known as "Babylon."

"There are even illustrations of these gardens, or paradises,²² on Assyrian reliefs. The most splendid of these comes from the palace of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh (fig 2.5).²³ It shows water flowing along an aqueduct and then cascading down in different streams or canals through a well-wooded garden that was probably at Nineveh itself. At the top of the garden is a beautiful pavilion with a stele on one side showing an Assyrian king. It has been suggested that such gardens at Nineveh were actually those referred to by Classical authors as the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.²⁴"

The original mention of the Hanging Gardens among the seven wonders doesn't mention a location, the notion of "Babylon" was ex post facto applied to the legends based; as stated above, on a "misreading", much like most of the foreign histories regarding the East. See here... https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/magazine/2020/07-08/know-where-7-wonders-ancient-world-except-one-hanging-gardens-babylon/ I'll be waiting for a rebuttal that is actually substantiated. My sources themselves quote other sources. If no rebuttal is presented, then this page will be moved to the "Hanging Gardens of Nineveh". Universal Constants (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus for Hanging Gardens of Nineveh. I see one very credible person's hypothesis on location, and I see a second very credible person reporting that the first person has proposed that hypothesis and citing some supporting evidence. That's evidence in favour of the point, but not proof of a consensus. Do either of these sources consistently use the name Hanging Gardens of Nineveh? The Parson's Cat (talk) 08:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd also suggest sticking to the reliable sources here - I removed the magazine article because it didn't fit the criteria of WP:RELIABLE, and in any case just referenced a good source already in the article. I removed no other sources. The article already contained reference to the Nineveh hypothesis in the lead, and has a large section citing Dalley's work. The Parson's Cat (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

question: Has there been an official change from "The Hanging Gardens Of Babylon" to either "The Hanging Gardens Of Nineveh" or "The Hanging Gardens"?--Mr Fink (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't find much on Google Scholar, Mendeley, ResearchGate or Scopus, but I noted that all authors but one - including Stephanie Dalley - seem to use of Babylon. (The exception is one 2004 article by K. Foster entitled The Hanging Gardens of Nineveh.) I saw some references to simply Hanging Gardens in abstracts, but didn't for titles, For titles, The Hanging Gardens of Babylon did seem ubiquitous. Does anyone have any other evidence? The Parson's Cat (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Stephanie Dalley never endorses of Babylon. Just because it isn't phrased Hanging Gardens of Nineveh doesn't mean anything. Parsonscat you keep misconstruing the facts. First you state "I see no evidence" after I provided three sources. Then you state "but I noted that all authors but one - including Stephanie Dalley - seem to use of Babylon." It's as if you were entirely oblivious to what Stephanie Dalley wrote, oblivious to the gypsum relief she invokes, and oblivious to the fact that she refutes Berossus' notions, even oblivious to the fact that she states... "Nineveh, at a location briefly known as 'Babylon.'" The credible sources don't present a "hypothesis", this is your opinion. What the scholars state is, "based on a misreading of an inscription of Sennacherib in which that king advertised his responsibility for elaborate works at Nineveh, at a location briefly known as 'Babylon.'" Don't just impose your bias, if two scholars say that Nineveh is the correct location, then Nineveh is the correct location. The second is the statement from the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which reaffirms, "It has been suggested that such gardens at Nineveh were actually those referred to by Classical authors as the Hanging Gardens of Babylon." None of the sources that state "of Babylon" are of this century. Anyone that mentions Babylon as the location cites the same sources, which violates WP:AGEMATTERS. Three sources are more reliable than what you believe, and we should reflect what the sources state and avoid inserting opinions and personal beliefs, as it doesn't "fit the criteria of WP:RELIABLE." Universal Constants (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not disputing (or endorsing) the location - it's more about WP:COMMONNAME for me. Let's both hang back, and see how other users feel. The Parson's Cat (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Yet what you refer to as WP:COMMONNAME is a violation of WP:AGEMATTERS since the sources are outdated. The consensus among archaeologists; which supersedes the myths, is that the location is at Nineveh. The original doesn't even state any location. The location was ex post facto imposed as Babylon, as Stehpanie Dalley notes is a misinterpretation of Nineveh. So the move isn't going to be retrograde; as that too would violate WP:AGEMATTERS, we're moving forward to Nineveh based on the consensus of the archaeologists that state the location of Babylon itself was a misreading of Nineveh. I'll wait for an actual rebuttal, not any opinion or feeling of anyone. Universal Constants (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I've rechecked the list of academic publications on ResearchGate for dates, and I can confirm that modern academic authors are still using Hanging Gardens of Bablylon in their article titles. Stephanie Dalley did so for her 2013 book The Mystery of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. (I agree that Dalley has presented a compelling case that the Hanging Gardens' "Babylon" is what we know as Nineveh, but I am sure that others will agree that Dalley has used the title Hanging Gardens of Babylon in a relatively recent book.) The Parson's Cat (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

In the Book Dalley states why Nineveh was misunderstood as Babylon, "Ctesias, we now think, had written this in a satirical vein, mischievously transposing events and inventing salacious details.⁴ His account transposes the last king of Assyria with the earlier, rebellious brother of Ashurbanipal, who became king in Babylon and lived some thirty-six years before the historical fall of Nineveh. It muddles Nineveh with Babylon.⁵ No wonder that Greeks were confused."

Furthermore, Dalley cites Karl Popper in his Conjectures and Refutations; who quotes Albrecht Dürer. She states, "This book has shown that the Hanging Garden was built at Nineveh, not Babylon, by Sennacherib, not Nebuchadnezzar or Semiramis. At long last specific evidence has come to light to reveal the solution to a complex question. The correct decipherment of a 7th-century BC Assyrian inscription gives a match with the crucial elements in descriptions of later Greek authors..." You're taking everything at face value, without even understanding that Dalley has irrefutable evidence within her book, in fact her entire book is refuting the traditional location for Nineveh. We can't just take things at face value, the actual legends being peddled is what Dalley refutes with archaeological evidence; mind you by citing others, in what the literary review cites, "her already heavy-weight roster of supporters". Take also for example this article, which also cites archaeological support. Take also this article. Now take this article from 2010 which states, "Reinhold Bichler and Robert Rollinger point out important weaknesses in Dalley’s argument, underlining that there is no evidence linking the Neo-Assyrian parks with the Greek stories, but ultimately leave the problem unsolved (Bichler/Rollinger, ‘Die Hängenden Gärten zu Ninive – Die Lösung eines Rätsels?’, in Rollinger, ed. Von Sumer bis Homer, FS Schretter, Münster 2005, pp. 153-218)." These arguments, along with Berossus, is what Dalley refutes in the above mentioned quotes from her book published in 2013 and from what Dillery quotes regarding her statements about Berossus. So again, we can't just take things at face value, the whole premise of Dalley's book is that the legendary tales about the location being at Babylon are incorrect and that the true location is Nineveh. Regarding her book, the Literary Review states, "A learned and never less than gripping study... There remain plenty of scholars who still stick by the traditional attribution of the wonder to Nebuchadnezzar, but I suspect that, with the publication of this book, Dalley will be adding to her already heavy-weight roster of supporters... [When] the inadequacies of a received tradition are as glaring as they clearly are in the case of the Hanging Garden, it is a cause for celebration that there are scholars of the calibre of Stephanie Dalley to propose a convincing alternative." Universal Constants (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if a good way to build consensus here would be a request for comment? I'll set one up below. The Parson's Cat (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The consensus isn't built by the number of Wikipedia editors that chime in either agreeing or not. The consensus is based on the conjecture invoked by scholars. I've moved the request for comment to the top of this section as I've already added my comments. Don't create a new section chiming in with your own opinions, this section is for rebuttals; which have been provided by you, rebuttals of which have been thoroughly dismissed by me already. Like I said, the consensus is based on archaeological findings. The old legends that equated the Hanging Gardens with Babylon have been dismissed with newly discovered archaeological findings that answered many questions the legends themselves posited. The legends themselves are pseudopigraphical by all means anyways. Take for example the Babyloniaca of Berossus, Stanley Meyer Burstein writes, "In its original form Berossus' Babyloniaca is lost." That's not even consensus, that's pseudopigrapha, which not only violates WP:AGEMATTERS but WP:RELIABLE as well. Universal Constants (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I have reminded myself of the content of WP:CONSENSUS - I guess you'd also agree that this applies here. I think you're absolutely right that things aren't a vote of numbers, but on Wikipedia, it's about reaching a meeting of minds amongst editors. If two editors can't agree, it's a good idea to get the wider community to have some input. Though I disagree with some of your conclusions, I agree that it's important to be concerned with WP:AGEMATTERS and WP:RELIABLE - as a Wikipedia community we need to balance them and others such as WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV, and often it's as a community that we can do this. I felt that my proposed edits to the article treaded a good middle ground, avoiding making a hard claim for a Babylon siting, capturing the fact that Berossus has been challenged, and ensuring that the compelling Dalley hypothesis had strong and proper representation. I didn't feel that Hanging Gardens of Nineveh was a common name, but I did suggest Hanging Gardens as a compromise - it avoids locating the Gardens in Babylon, seems widely used, and doesn't seem contentious.

As for academic consensus, can I put forward my understanding of how this works, please? Academics are interested in ideas and debate, and things are published when they are (a) credible, and (b) throw new insights into a debate. Not everything in academia can be reduced to a matter of 'true or false' fact - there are some things that do constitute hard evidence, e.g. 'this item was found in this dig in this context' or 'this text contains pieces from another earlier text'. However, a lot of what arts and humanities academics to is to try to piece a picture of the truth together by proposing hypotheses that fit the facts, then trying to test them. It's very difficult to prove a hypothesis absolutely - sometimes a hypothesis can be disproved, but not always. A hypothesis that fits the known facts is plausible, credible and interesting. However, for something to be an academic consensus, it's necessary for almost all academics in the field to agree on something. The text you have referenced above is evidence of an ongoing academic debate - it appears that Bicher and Rollinger disagree, for example. A good academic literature review captures the whole spectrum of debate, making clear what the current 'hot topics' are.

I would agree that that this article needs to capture the up-to-date academic debates and the evidence for interesting hypotheses. I have not yet seen evidence that convinces me that there is a full consensus in the academic world, which is where we differ. I also think that the Gardens are of interest from a historical-literary point of view, and the way they have been imagined in culture over time. I know you disagree, but I hope you can understand where I am coming from? The Parson's Cat (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Mainly per WP:COMMONNAME. I think the article in its present form puts too much weight on Dalley's research, who is merely the latest of many scholars (e.g. Donald Wiseman) to make a guess as to the Gardens' location. We should wait a while to see whether her theory becomes the scholarly consensus. StAnselm (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very clear common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I originally proposed the move to Hanging Gardens to try to gain WP:CONSENSUS to stop an emerging page-move war. I am now convinced that there is little evidence to suggest any other WP:COMMONNAME than Hanging Gardens of Bayblon. I agree with StAnselm (talk) about undue weight. Let's discuss this afterwards - it's separate to the page move. The Parson's Cat (talk) 06:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, as I don't see a full consensus to change a centuries-old common name, and I would think prematurely siding with new research would run afoul of WP:SYNTH and WP:CRYSTAL.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per StAnselm. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, per above discussion, common name. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

References

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.