Talk:Temple of Caesar

Format problems

Good article, but sections need to be incorporated together into fewer titled sections.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I did, and I tried to correct numerous format errors (use of first plural person, bulleted lists everywhere, wrong use of capital letters, typical confusion between tuff and tufa (I can continue for months...), but the creator of the article (labelling my edits as "vandalism"), clearly a newbie of Wikipedia, reverted everything... So I reverted it again to my Wikipedia-decent version, adding further wikification and cleanup. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear all, the problem here is that the content of the article has been changed too dramatically, that, this way, bad factual errors have been inserted and this can't be accepted! Let's start with the bad discussion about Tufa and Tuff.

A. In Webster's you read: "Tufa 1: TUFF 2: a porous rock formed as a deposit from springs or streams"
B. In all Classics Archaeology main handbooks this type of material is always, and I can say always!!!, and I can continue for months..., called "Tufa" and not "Tuff"!: see Stamper, Frischer, Claridge, etc., etc., etc., etc....
C. Here the list of the Ancient Rome Tufas: Cappellaccio (grey, soft and friable), Grotta oscura (yellowish, rather porous), Fidenae (yellowish with black inclusions), Monteverde (greyish brown peppered with white and darker inclusions), Anio (reddish brown tufa), Peperino (Ashy blue-grey, hard and compact).
D. The problem? the Wiki distinction between Tufa and Tuff is not completely correct and the articles Tufa and Tuff in Wiki should be re-thought/re-organized because, in reality, with the term Tufa, you should make a distinction between the Volcanic Tufas, called also, also Tuffs!, and the Calcareous Tufas, called simply Tufas. Volcanic and Calcareous Tufas have been always used for architecture and building, and actually some Volcanic Tufas resemble Calcareous ones (soft, friable, porous, etc.).

Now let's see Attilios' introduction factual errors, but I can continue for months... for years...:

1. In the frontal side of the platform there is a recessed semicircular niche and an altar that marked the site of the funeral pyre of Caesar. This strange detail, absolutely unique in the Roman architecture, was probably a result of the very narrow space then available on the Forum.

This is an error: No-one knows if this niche really existed or not: many scholars, principally of the old XIX cen. school, i.e. Stamper and Hulsen, say "yes, it exists", modern scholars, i.e. Frischer, Favro and many others, are against Stamper/Hulsen's interpretation and say "No it doesn't exist". Archaeological remains are extremely controversial and probably not correctly treated during the XIX cen. excavations: so no-one knows.

2. Even so, this temple's construction excluded the ancient Regia and the Temple of Vesta from the main square of the Forum

Another two big bad errors: the Regia had its main gates East and South (Hulsen and Frischer) and not West (i.e. temple of Caesar, Forum). The part of the Forum main Square West Regia was already used for a tribunal sub divo and for other sacred structures, puteal Libonis and probably another bidental: when the new Temple started all this structures were demolished and probably the mysterious niche (real or not! it is) was perhaps a demolished bidental or a demolished puteal. The Regia West Wall seems to have been completely closed and so there was the tribunal, in front of the West wall of the Regia. On the contrary, the Temple of Vesta, the main gate of which was East and, again!, not West, was never excluded from the main square of the Forum by the Temple of Caesar. Only in 19 BC Augustus built the famous Carrhae Arcus, i.e. Arcus Augusti, with its three main gates between the Temple of Caesar and the Temple of Castor, as a conjunction-building between the Forum Main Square and the Temple of Vesta.

3. It was with the Temple of Caesar that Augustus started the transition from private worship to public worship.

Another big bad error: gens Iulia considered themselves divine people and children of the goddess Venus through Aeneas and Iulus and this even many, many years before the birth of Iulius Caesar. Caesar, as a young man, delivered a famous speech about the divine Iulii and their mother Venus. They had public coins with Aeneas and the Palladium struck years before the birth of Iulius Caesar. Caesar himself was pontifex maximus, the most important priest in the Roman Religion, and received the first forms of public divine worship as the child of Venus through Aeneas.

4.,... 5.,... etc.

And I stop here. But I can continue...

MjMenuet111 (talk 14:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I can see where this is heading and it needs to stop before it gets started. This article has some MAJOR structural problems. I agree with Attilios that it needs to be 'wikified' before becoming consumed by details. The scholarly debate over the niche is a minor point, especially considering that the introduction fails utterly to meet the criteria of WP:LEDE. Anyone who's serious about editing the article will address this kind of thing before arguing about a pet point. The overall purpose of the article from a reader's POV should come first. Many readers don't make it past the introduction of an article; they're just looking for quick info. A strong intro is essential both in making the article useful, and in keeping its various pieces of info in proportion. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't add at all that content that Minuet attributes to me!! It was already in his article!!!! It seems he has identity problems. Anyway, I'm going to correct the errors. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Introductory section

As with any article, I'm sure this one has content that bears improvement, even though it seems thorough. My point is that it's time to think about the article as an article, and not to engage in talk-page debates that don't provide immediate benefit to readers of the article coming to it for the first time. The issues with the introduction really have to be addressed. Please review WP:LEDE; this is much more urgent than specific points that need to be subjected to verifiability tests. Observing the usual procedures of WP:V and WP:UNDUE will solve content debates. But the intro is in desperate shape, and must be made usable for the casual reader. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Cynwolfe for your words. I agree with a useful Introduction article and with the wiki-style revision. Anyhow, as I have already said somewhere else here, I will examine all your wiki-suggestions, add a new Introduction and finish adding data and fixings. And as I have already written here somewhere else, I appreciate the words of Attilios', not his words here, but in my talk page. And, apart from the discussion about Tufa/Tuff, all, all the classics scholars and archaeologists use the term Tufa or Volcanic Tufa, but not Tuff!, I will examine all his suggestions carefully in order to improve and wiki-fy this article.MjMenuet111 (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

And thank you for all the work you've done here. (Thanks also for trying to clear up tuff/tufa … I'm still not sure I have it straight.) Cynwolfe (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Tufa... Again

Here Webster's:
"Tufa 1: TUFF 2: a porous rock formed as a deposit from springs or streams"

Attilios, as you can see, in English Tufa and Tuff are synonyms, and I repeat it again: in architecture and in archaeology the building material is called TUFA!!! TUFA!!! and TUFAS!!! (pl.) and not TUFF. Please, see Stamper, Frischer, Claridge, etc., etc., etc., etc.

But I think you have even never read the Wiki article Tuff, because at the beginning of the article you read:
"Tuff is sometimes called tufa, particularly when used as construction material, although tufa also refers to a quite different rock."

That's why I say that the Wiki distinction, in this case, is weak and erroneous, because the general term is, first of all, Tufa (see Webster's Collegiate Dictionary).

The general term Tufa is used for two different, but sometimes similar, types of rock: the Volcanic Tufas, called also Tuffs, and the Calcareous Tufas, called simply Tufas.

Both Volcanic and Calcareous Tufas have been always used for architecture and building, and actually some Volcanic Tufas resemble Calcareous ones (soft, friable, porous, etc.).

Here again the complete list of the Ancient Rome TUFAS:

Cappellaccio (grey, soft and friable), Grotta oscura (yellowish, rather porous), Fidenae (yellowish with black inclusions), Monteverde (greyish brown peppered with white and darker inclusions), Anio (reddish brown tufa), Peperino (Ashy blue-grey, hard and compact).

MjMenuet111 (talk) 06:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't matter if you keep staying stuck to what your sources write. They are wrong, since here the volcanic rock you mean is called tuff in the Wikipedia article, so you MUST keep coherence with the current Wikipedia standard, since here you're working in Wikipedia, not in an archaeology site. Hope you understand that your sources are the wrong ones, simply because 90% of non-geologists confuse tufa with tuff. Hope it's clear. Good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Calm down everybody, please! Since there are two distinct meanings, which are liable to be confused whichever word is used, "volcanic" should certainly be added as a modifier, and the alternative term can be added in brackets. It is really childish to get so worked up over a simple point like this! Actually a simple Google books search on "tuff temple" shows no shortage of recent academic archaeological works that use "tuff". Other than that, the article has far too many sections, & many other style and language deficiencies. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Johnbod. It would be good to focus on the overall presentation of the article. Very short sections affect readability, for instance. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried to improve the situation, but so far always hampered by this obtuse editor. What he writes is good, but his style is a nightmare. It seems he never read, not even the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, but any encyclopedia at all. Further, the tuff matter is totally trivial. Since the Wikipedia article about the volcanic rock uses the spell "tuff", we simply have to stick on it for the sake of internal coherence. Ciao and thanks for help! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear All, my sources (Claridge, Frischer, Stamper, etc.) are the best ones! and the Academical State of the Art today.
Sorry again, that the great Encyclopedia expert man is not aware of this and says "your sources are the wrong ones": the shame is upon you, Mr. Whatever you are! I say, the shame is upon you!
Destroying content and insulting me this way and continously is suspect and, I'm sure, is not editing.
This type of job is encyclopedically called in another way.
MjMenuet111 (talk) 07:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

So keep living in your world of archaeology. Sorry if geology is different. Anyway, with your revert campaign you're going to have a short life here. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 08:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Please try to speak to MjMenuet111 civilly, Attilios; it will ease things considerably. Remember, being right doesn't give you the right to not be civil. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop with all the bolding MjMenuet. It makes your text somewhat more difficult to read. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding an image

I'm only adding an image of the front of the temple to this article. Frankcjones (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)