Talk:Sphinx (iconic image)

We need administrator help to make this move. There was an error made while making a disambiguation page. Stbalbach 23:59, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm not sure, so I won't add it to the main page, but weren't there also Sphinxes in Chinese sculpture and mythology?

Are you thinking of the lion-dog guardians with one paw on the pearl, or the young dragons? the idea of a human head on an animal's body seems very barbarian in Chinese culture, I think. Wetman 00:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Obviously this article needs a little reorganization. There are several sphinices (I think this is the proper plural, after the model index => indices), all of which derive from either the Greek Sphinx (whose name was then used to describe the Egyptian monument) or the Egyptian Sphinx (which then inspired the story about the creature Oedipus encountered). If nothing else, can a way be found where the first item in the section index is not "External Link"? Having that section header in first place makes the article look odd. -- llywrch 00:15, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think that sphinx in Greek connotes "the strangler" (cf. "asphyxiate"), and that the Greeks applied their archaic monster's name to the (unrelated?) Egyptian sphinx. What did Egyptians call a sphinx? The revived sphinx in the 16th century comes out of Roman arabesque/grotesque decorative painting, not directly from Egypt or Greece. Wetman 04:17, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The proper Greek plural is sphinges, but I think sphinxes is okay in English. Although if you feel daring you could go for sphinxen. Bacchiad 03:23, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ouch

Someone a comment in parenthesis into this crap about the Sphinx being of alien origin...we need to be more vigilant about this fanatical nonsense. The internet seems to bring out all the new age crazies.

I believe that in context the phrase you removed "(for the Greeks remembered the Sphinx's alien origins)" refered to the Sphinx originiating from somewhere other than Greece. As many now seem to assume that "alien" must mean extraterrestrial, that may not have been the best wording. -- Infrogmation 17:15, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Great Sphinx

Why is the Great Sphinx not a true sphinx? Is it not thought to be a lion's body? Or is there some difference between crouching and recumbent pose? Rmhermen 05:14, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

For Pseudoarchaeology and Parageology buffs

After I reverted a date to 12,000 (not a typo!) BCE, I received this uninformative geological report:

"I reccomend that you read about the geological studies about the sphinx prior to calling real science zany vs the preconcieved beliefs of the egyptologists that cannot reineforce their arguments with facts. Like it or not there are facts that support a construction date as far back as 12500 BCE. The mainstream egyptologists will not support that date as it throws "their" calander off so far that they would have to do some real thinking. BTW, Geology is far more factual than opinion - anybody's." (Folks can imagine my opinion... Wetman 02:53, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) )

Why is this info not in the article? I have reviewed the geological evidence myself, and know many history professors that accept it. What is the big deal? Also, why is this under a "talk" heading of pseudogeology? Has anyone provided a counterexplanation for the water errosion clearly visible at the base of the pyramid?

Splitting up the article Sphinx

For people with a short attention span and no genuine interest in the history of images or ideas, it might seem like a good idea to split Sphinx into numerous brief articles, so that any possible interconnections will be untraceable. I hope this won't be done as thoughtlessly as it was suggested. Leave the splitting for the individual Pokemon characters, please! They offer a fine example of how minute splitting can render Wikipedia subjects incomprehensible. Wetman 04:51, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree in principal, there are too many fragmented articles that disturbs comprehension, although once enough material accumulates it makes sense to have separate articles, with an umbrella article (like this one) that ties common themes and subjects together, similar to what was done with First Crusade or Middle Ages. But not until there is enough material to justify a split should one be made, and only when the top level article can contain a summary of the main points which are expanded in detail the offshoot article. Stbalbach 21:56, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Orientation of the Great Sphinx

"On the vernal equinox, the Great Sphinx points directly toward the rising sun." Any particulars would be welcome. --Wetman 19:39, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)