Talk:Troy: Difference between revisions
OneClickArchiver archived Purple Prose to Talk:Troy/Archive 1 |
Daisytheduck (talk | contribs) →Hisarlık spelling: new section |
||
(43 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} |
{{Talk header}} |
||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1= |
|||
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=History|class=C}} |
|||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome |importance=Top}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Turkey |importance=mid}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Greece |importance=mid}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Anthropology |importance=mid}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Archaeology|importance=High }} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Ancient Near East |importance=mid}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Former countries }} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Cities }} |
||
{{WikiProject Cities |class=C |importance=High}} |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Northern_Arizona_University/Ancient_Mediterranean_and_Southwest_Asia_(Spring_2019) | assignments = [[User:ColeS777|ColeS777]] | start_date = 2019-01-14 | end_date = 2019-05-08 }} |
|||
{{Archive box|auto=yes}} |
{{Archive box|auto=yes}} |
||
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment== |
|||
==Metuboy changes== |
|||
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2019-01-14">14 January 2019</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2019-05-08">8 May 2019</span>. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Northern_Arizona_University/Ancient_Mediterranean_and_Southwest_Asia_(Spring_2019)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:ColeS777|ColeS777]]. |
|||
Metuboy has made a string of changes. He is a new user with a talk page - not much on it - and no UP. He starts out well putting in some pics that spruce up the sections. For that reason I think he is not a vandal. But then he removes a bunch of data from the box. I'm not intrinsically opposed to such changes but he gives no reason for his changes. They just happen to be a lot of the additions that I made. Metuboy, are you aware of this discussion page? Can you give us an idea of why you are doing what you are doing? For now I am putting back the deletions. This is not oppositional, only asking for a rationale. Thank you.[[User:Botteville|Botteville]] ([[User talk:Botteville|talk]]) 23:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 08:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)}} |
|||
I finished looking at Metuboy changes. Except for taking away most of the box and its data M. concentrates on picture layout. He brings in new pictures from commons. It looks good, except now the pictures don't have much to do with the text. I made but few changes. I suppose it is nothing I can't live with. Relevance is sacrificed for aesthetics. Maybe you can't always have both. Not enough pics for every aspect. Maybe someone else should comment. For the box, there is a lot of relevant data in it. I am opposed to cutting it, but as I say I would like to get M.'s reasons. An article should be both pleasing and informative. We need to keep the information.[[User:Botteville|Botteville]] ([[User talk:Botteville|talk]]) 03:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Hmmm, the infobox is much too long. Entries should be far more terse. That UNESCO nonsense at the bottom should be cut for a start, and the essays on the height and area. There are rather too many pics in the top half, and two few in the bottom. Any excess of useful images can go in a one-line mini-gallery. Has he finished? [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 03:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thanks for your speedy input. I don't know if he is finished or not. I see nothing more. In view of the fact that there are different ideas now I think we are justified in making changes. I expanded the box but I do not have any firm ideas on what should be in it. The box was intended to give scientific data such as physical dimensions. When you get a site like Troy, and not just a single famous artifact, the box can be pretty long. If we are going to cut it, there is the question of what should be cut. There might be some disagreement on that. I wouldn't worry about the cut data as we certainly will put that in elsewhere or in the [[Hisarlik]] article. It shouldn't be too far away, as people want to know, "hiw big is Troy?" Perhaps a question more relevant to your comment is what to do with the UNESCO site data. All UNESCO site boxes have this data. It was there before I started work. Do you know, is there a policy that UNESCO site boxes must have this data? I invite additional commenting from the community. For the pictures, well, I tend to agree with you. The pictures are pretty but some degree of relevance seems warranted. I note that your idea corresponds to mine about the concentration; i.e., a gallery. I started one of those for the walls but was limited by the disorganization of the pics in commons. I'm still working on commons organization so I have not been able to finish it. Well, the question as it is now developing is how to get an attractive AND informative lead-in. If you want to go ahead and try your hand with the ideas you mentioned I will not object. I welcome other comments. Meanwhile I will be working either in commons or some section of the article itself. Perhaps we will hear from Metuboy. This is live to him right now but later he will be forgetting all about it.[[User:Botteville|Botteville]] ([[User talk:Botteville|talk]]) 10:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::The UNESCO template is a disgrace and an outrage I gave up complaining about a decade ago, since the fanboys who added it everywhere couldn't see why anyone might want a few words describing or periodizing a site/building, but really needed to know what continent it was on, & the "inscription" date. All that is on the Unesco website of course. But no one will mind it being removed. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 15:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::After all this tension your reply gave me quite a belly laugh. I don't think that just because someone designed a template 10 years ago we are necessarily bound by it. Wikipedia is nothing if not innovative in presentation. That's the one area not tied to the experts in the field (whom I am really beginning to appreciate). I remember when a famous German administrator took a totally oppositional stand to side boxes (over 10 years ago). We see how that came out. Anyway thanks for communicating your true thoughts. For the pictures I do not know what to think. I will just leave that alone for a while, see what comes up. In fact I was done with the intro so ditto for the whole thing. I Still have not heard from Metuboy. Maybe he does not know we are here.[[User:Botteville|Botteville]] ([[User talk:Botteville|talk]]) 21:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Yes, if I had the energy I'd go round improving all X00 or X,000 WHS pages - I thought my efforts did get a couple of more useful fields added at [[Template:Infobox_UNESCO_World_Heritage_Site]] but I can't see them now. It really is a disgrace. Metuboy hasn't edited for 20 hours or so, but seems to have moved on. Anyway, there is consensus here to adjust his image changes. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 03:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::In fact, I see it's almost a decade ago I began my wholly unsuccessful attempts to sort the template out - see [[Template_talk:Infobox_UNESCO_World_Heritage_Site/Archive_1#Gives_altogether_the_wrong_information]]. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 03:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Yep, typical. To me the gist of the argument is what standard way to handle introductory data in all articles. To me it is more, how shall we design THIS article. Thousands of articles all done the same way are a bit boring. Earlier in my career here I used to experiment around a little to get a good-looking new design. Same problem. Students can't seem to think outside the box. They are looking for THE correct way to do it, an outcome of mass production. If you do things the way the teacher says to do it then you get an A. So Troy lay unexcavated further for 40 years even though there were serious questions. I'm not going to cast stones as I am not a guiltless party. The users standardized everything I did. I am not saying a standard article is necessarily bad. I confess my approach to this intro was pretty much reactive not proactive. How could I fix what was already there, etc. But, if you or anyone care to take a freer hand I've no obection. I will be concentrating on the missing stuff. I hope this reply is not too long.[[User:Botteville|Botteville]] ([[User talk:Botteville|talk]]) 18:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Ilium usage and inconsistencies == |
|||
==Maps== |
|||
We have a suggestion from an apparently new editor to simplify the maps. The Europe maps come out and the Asia map goes in, a change that he made without including a reason. Fellow editor, it is part of the policy to put in reasons for your changes, but we don't have to play that game just to be playing games. I got no opinions, except that the map of all Asia is awfully large, and that Ataturk acted on a preference for his country to be European rather than Asian. What do you think, interested community?[[User:Botteville|Botteville]] ([[User talk:Botteville|talk]]) 12:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Ilium |
|||
==Reason reminder== |
|||
The last few changes by fly-by editors, one unregistered, have not listed reasons for the changes. I agree with both changes but as I am working on this article still I would appreciate your following the convention and putting some sort of reason, please. It helps me and others evaluate the credibility of the change. In this last one I presume we don't need an explicit link when we have the blue link. Fine.[[User:Botteville|Botteville]] ([[User talk:Botteville|talk]]) 01:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC) |
|||
in the first paragraph this is shown as an alternative name for Troy, and given a Greek spelling (in brackets), but in the main article section on the name Ilium is said to be the Latin, and Ilion or Ilios are the Greek names for Troy. This all seems very inconsistent and should be corrected. |
|||
==Çanakkale Boğazı== |
|||
Unregistered user adds "Canakkale strait" without a reason. No history of any other changes. Since that is the Turkish name, it seems fair to me so I am not inclined to revert. To user: in the future please add reasons as is customary.[[User:Botteville|Botteville]] ([[User talk:Botteville|talk]]) 21:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
On the Ilium disambiguation page, in reference to Troy, is listed as Ilion (using the masculine Greek) and not as Ilium (using the neuter Latin) - this again seems inconsistent and should be corrected. |
|||
== Some serious problems == |
|||
Ilium is Latin, Ilion and Ilios are Greek. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/88.111.24.1|88.111.24.1]] ([[User talk:88.111.24.1#top|talk]]) 10:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
This article has some serious problems. It contains large sections that are almost completely irrelevant. For instance, there are the sections "Crimean War debacle" and "The 'Possidhon affair' and its aftermath," both of which are extremely lengthy and both of which seem to be completely off-topic. The sections are both talking about events going on the various Calverts' lives that have little to do with the excavations at Troy. In fact, the name Troy itself doesn't even occur once in either section. These sections need to be either removed entirely or drastically pared down. Some of the material could possibly be moved to the article [[Frank Calvert]], but it definitely does not belong here. There is absolutely no reason to have a whole massive section in this article solely talking about a case of insurance fraud involving Frederick Calvert, especially since that section contains almost no citations whatsoever. |
|||
:Fixed, thanks! [[User:Botterweg14|<span style="font-family:Baskerville;color:indigo">Botterweg14</span>]][[User talk:Botterweg14|<span style="font-family:Baskerville;color:indigo"> (talk)</span>]] 15:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Ilium, Ilion or Ilios are nowhere to be found in the Greek version of Iliada. Only Iliou. So, of you are fixing it, please fix it correctly, to reflect the original source. [[Special:Contributions/220.158.190.25|220.158.190.25]] ([[User talk:220.158.190.25|talk]]) 01:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::Eh? A quick search shows "Ilion" in the original text 86 times, including: <blockquote>καὶ νήεσσ' ἡγήσατ' Ἀχαιῶν ''' Ἴλιον''' εἴσω" (Iliad, 1.71)</blockquote> <blockquote>'''Ἴλιον''' ἐκπέρσαντ' εὐτείχεον ἀπονέεσθαι (Iliad, 2.113)</blockquote> <blockquote>ἔμμεναι: αἴσχιστος δὲ ἀνὴρ ὑπὸ ''' Ἴλιον''' ἦλθε (Iliad, 2.216)</blockquote> [[User:Botterweg14|<span style="font-family:Baskerville;color:indigo">Botterweg14</span>]][[User talk:Botterweg14|<span style="font-family:Baskerville;color:indigo"> (talk)</span>]] 02:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Wrong and inconsistent dates for the destruction of Troy VI == |
|||
On top of this, there is the very serious problem that this article says almost nothing about the role of Troy in mythology and literature outside the ''Iliad''. The ''Odyssey'' is only mentioned twice in the body of the article offhand. There's absolutely no mention of Sophocles or Euripides or any of the tragedies they wrote about the Trojan War. There is exactly one offhand mention of Aeschylus and there are only three offhand mentions of Vergil's ''Aeneid''. There's no mention of the whole medieval legend of Troilus and Criseyde. There's a lot of really important stuff that's being totally left out here and a lot of really irrelevant stuff that's being treated in utterly excruciating detail. This article needs a drastic overhaul. Unfortunately, I don't really have time to rewrite Wikipedia articles anymore so I'm leaving this note for whoever finds it. —[[User:Katolophyromai|Katolophyromai]] ([[User talk:Katolophyromai|talk]]) 12:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:The subject of this article should be fairly strictly restricted to the history and archaeology; there are plenty of other articles on the Trojan War, Epic Cycle, and "the role of Troy in mythology and literature". At 157 raw kbytes the article is far too long already; the last thing we need is more big topics added. I agree there is too much on the Calverts - this should probably go to its own article, with a brief summary left here. Personally, I think all the "search for/ excavation history of" stuff should follow rather than precede a concise account of the history of the city as now understood through the latest archaeology. Or even also floated off. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 12:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::I made a reply below but I will make one here also. I agree with everyone, more or less, even though I wrote much of the article. There is a pretty serious problem no one has mentioned yet, and that is the size of this topic. This is only one small article to summarize libraries of books. The best scholarly minds have been working with might and main on the topic of Troy since the Iliad was first published. We're supposed to put all that in this article? Gee whiz. To address the critic above, there is no "history of Troy." We wish there were. There are basically two aspects, the legend, which is extensive, and the archaeology, which also is extensive. I don't think the legend goes here, as Johnbod surmised. The archaeology has two aspects also, the excavation process and the object excavated. It seems clear, the article was intended to cover the excavated object. Usually such articles also cover the excavation, but they don't have to. So, we can have "Troy", "Homeric Troy" and "Excavation of Troy." It begins to appear that we will need at least those three. However, it does not have to be that way! It can be any way we want it to be. I know we are all very busy. No one wants to get entangled in such a large territory. There is no right or wrong here, only what we want. in contrast to scientific articles. I notice the Calvert stuff has been rightly moved to the Calvert article. Obviously I am setting up to come back. I was the most hung up there, so that is where I probably start. I just wanted to clue you in on the magnitude of the magnitude and the problem of the problems. As for the detail, I suppose Wikipedia would be very short and very useless (like most of the web sites) without any detail. That is what we are here for, the detail, the thing the devil is supposed to be in. That's all I have to say.[[User:Botteville|Botteville]] ([[User talk:Botteville|talk]]) 00:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
This article states: "Troy VI existed from around 1750 BC to 1300 BC", which is correct according to the current consensus (see Strauss 2006, Cline 2013 and others). But then is says "Troy VI was destroyed around 1250 BC, corresponding with the sublayer known as Troy VIh." This is inconsistent with the prior statement and does not agree with the current consensus (that an earthquake c.1300 BC is responsible for the damage to Troy VIh.) It ought to be corrected. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1702:28E0:EE0:75E3:BDC1:F666:EEC4|2600:1702:28E0:EE0:75E3:BDC1:F666:EEC4]] ([[User talk:2600:1702:28E0:EE0:75E3:BDC1:F666:EEC4|talk]]) 16:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== why is the "crimean war Debacle" and anything not directly related to Troy itself even in this article? == |
|||
:Good catch! If there's other mistakes, you can [[WP:Be Bold|be bold]]! [[User:Botterweg14|<span style="font-family:Baskerville;color:indigo">Botterweg14</span>]][[User talk:Botterweg14|<span style="font-family:Baskerville;color:indigo"> (talk)</span>]] 07:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Restructuring the article == |
|||
It seems completely extraneous and worthy of it's own wikipedia article <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:JKF011|JKF011]] ([[User talk:JKF011#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/JKF011|contribs]]) 21:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
I was thinking of reorganizing the article and wanted feedback first. I worry that the current structure buries some of the more important points (e.g. the archaeology of Troy VI/VIIa) and lumps or splits some things that would be more natural for readers to encounter in one place (e.g. texts about Wilusa with the archaeology of Troy VI/VIIa). Here's my thought: |
|||
I agree with this user and the other discussing the problems of discussing the Calvert family in this article. While this family was certainly important for understanding the excavation of Troy, they should not consume such a large portion of the text. The "Possidhon affair” section is entirely superfluous and unrelated to Troy itself, only tangentially through the Calverts. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:WorldlyBecket|WorldlyBecket]] ([[User talk:WorldlyBecket#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/WorldlyBecket|contribs]]) 19:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
* Site (current “Site Conservation” plus “Archaeological layers”) |
|||
== is this a Calvert Family article? == |
|||
* Expanded lead that covers things in a little more detail (e.g. mentioning Troy VI's lower town, but not the murex shells) |
|||
* Early Troy (current Troy 0-Troy V sections) |
|||
* Late Bronze Age Troy (current Troy VI-Troy VIIb2 sections, plus “Hittite Records” section) |
|||
* Greek and Roman Troy (current Troy VIIb3-Troy IX sections, plus “Classical and Hellenistic Troy") |
|||
* Excavation History |
|||
* Troy in Legend |
|||
Another worry is that the article is currently too detailed for some readers but not for others. For instance, someone could care about Troy VI's lower town but not about the murex shells. My first thought was to address this with a somewhat more detailed lead, but I also had the thought of splitting the article. [[User:Botterweg14|<span style="font-family:Baskerville;color:indigo">Botterweg14</span>]][[User talk:Botterweg14|<span style="font-family:Baskerville;color:indigo"> (talk)</span>]] 20:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
After 10 minutes of reading I know more about the Calvert family than Troy and I consider the majority of the information on the Calvert family completely irrelevant to the topic. Which should be Troy. Not the Calvert folk. [[User:MHCTruter|MHCTruter]] ([[User talk:MHCTruter|talk]]) 19:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:Now look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Troy0&oldid=933258342 the article as of 30 December 2019] which had less about Calverts. Do you want to revert to that? Or do you have no proposal? [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 01:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:I was also bothered by this content which i consider out of scope, so I have summarized it here and moved the bulk of the content to [[Frank Calvert]] [[User:Romnempire|romnempire]] ([[User talk:Romnempire|talk]]) 04:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::This talk section duplicates [[Talk:Troy#Some_serious_problems]], which gives +2 to this scope criticism [[User:Romnempire|romnempire]] ([[User talk:Romnempire|talk]]) 04:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm afraid the fault is mine. Originally there was not much on the Calverts. Calvert affairs of course are critical for understanding who Frank Calvert was, what was his relation to the site, and how Schliemann got it. I did a lot on Calverts but I suddenly realized it was way too much for the Troy article and properly belonged under the Calverts. I wanted to think it over so I stopped and got onto something else. Now, I fully intended to get back on Troy and change the material, but I got off on other things. I was hoping someone else would take a hand on it. So, I am quite glad you involved yourselves. I did thank you publically. At some point I WILL get back on the articles. There was more to say. Meanwhile I back you totally on this. I only request you do not delete any referenced material. This changing the location of material has happened quite a bit over the years. One tries to do a good job but says too much about topics that should have other articles, but don't yet. I used to split articles. Well ciao, carry on, good job.[[User:Botteville|Botteville]] ([[User talk:Botteville|talk]]) 17:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:Well, I really have only ever poked at the excavation history part of the article, the rest ie levels etc being the sort of contentious stuff I try to avoid. :-) So restructuring is fine with me. I would say that my sense is that the article is too long. Yes Troy has been excavated for maybe 150 years but I would say that there were only maybe 3 dozen actual seasons in that period. Anyway, a bit of tightening up would help the article I think, though I did just add a couple sentences so I guess I'm not helping things.[[User:Ploversegg|Ploversegg]] ([[User talk:Ploversegg|talk]]) 02:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
==Information from Rüstem Aslan of Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University== |
|||
::Do you have a "dream edit" you've been restraining yourself from making? I'm certainly willing to kill some darlings if they make the article better. [[User:Botterweg14|<span style="font-family:Baskerville;color:indigo">Botterweg14</span>]][[User talk:Botterweg14|<span style="font-family:Baskerville;color:indigo"> (talk)</span>]] 19:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
Seeing as Hisarlik is in a state of continual excavation I would advise that the page contains sections derived from recent publications of the current head of archeology Rüstem Aslan of Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University. As a “current and future studies” section perhaps. |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/2A02:A445:79E2:1:35E3:2E63:E4BF:9525|2A02:A445:79E2:1:35E3:2E63:E4BF:9525]] ([[User talk:2A02:A445:79E2:1:35E3:2E63:E4BF:9525|talk]]) 16:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't know who you really are but this suggestion sounds like a sales pitch. We could put more of Mr. Aslan's results and theories in if we knew what they were. I haven't seen much on the Internet, mainly the mere notice that he was taking over and that now foreign excavators were being excluded. I think you might be taking us for more glorified than we really are. We have to go by past publications, can't go off on our own. This is not a scholarly article or a scholarly source. I hope you are not Mr. Aslan, as then we would be obliged to ignore what you say totally, as one is not allowed to plug one's own stuff.[[User:Botteville|Botteville]] ([[User talk:Botteville|talk]]) 01:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'll look it over. Though I do remember that the site conservation is just a big advert so while I'm thinking of it ...[[User:Ploversegg|Ploversegg]] ([[User talk:Ploversegg|talk]]) 20:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
==Theories on timescales; 10 years in Homer vs 100 years in archeology== |
|||
Troy VI shows archeological evidence of destruction at 1275BC. Troy VIi (formerly called Troy VIIa) shows archeological evidence of destruction and fire at 1190BC. Are there any literary sources that aim to link the somewhat out of place and extremely long duration of the siege as described in Homer (10 years), with a conflation through the centuries afterwards, of the actual timescale of repeated destruction at Troy (100 years) ? |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/2A02:A445:79E2:1:F8E9:4B4A:2FF9:EDFB|2A02:A445:79E2:1:F8E9:4B4A:2FF9:EDFB]] ([[User talk:2A02:A445:79E2:1:F8E9:4B4A:2FF9:EDFB|talk]]) 02:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:You're taking these dates too seriously. Unless there are tree rings involved archaeological dates are only rough estimations; no one knows what the calendar dates really are. People like Blegen and other scholars just toted up the dates by a variety of sources and methods and expressed a preference if they were going to. Look up absolute dating and relative dating. But let's look at your language: "the somewhat out of place and extremely long duration of the siege." Who are you to conclude that? The scholars don't. Don't know enough.[[User:Botteville|Botteville]] ([[User talk:Botteville|talk]]) 01:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::My initial thoughts, some of which are minor |
|||
==History of Troy tag== |
|||
*the footnotes add basically nothing to the article. never have footnotes just to have them. anyway, can park stuff in refs |
|||
What do you mean, what history? Troy has no history, that is the whole point. I don't see any basis for calling this section unencyclopedic in content and style, and I don't see any explanation here. I do not think you looked up the blue links. The style is mine and I use the same style throughout. Did you get the right tag? If you're not happy with the detail, that is because there ain't any. We can't go to the town hall and look up the records of the founding fathers of Troy. Sorry.[[User:Botteville|Botteville]] ([[User talk:Botteville|talk]]) 01:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*no reason to have a Sources section here. Only maybe half of them are actually used in the article. I think this was from early Wiki days, now naming refs so you only have one entry is normal. so just have the usual References section |
|||
*the entire Additional Sources section needs to be completely redone, either as just a list or in some organized way that is actually helpful |
|||
*I think that the Historical Troy stuff should be blended in with the arch stuff. I agree with you that it is better to separate by periods vs levels. Levels make sense for archaeologists but nor regular wiki readers. you could either separate by periods Early Bronze, Middle Bronze etc or into the periods of the city that actually matter. really, could just call the section History or History of Occupation (old school wikipedia). |
|||
*be careful about making the led too long btw, its already not short. Some of the stuff there now can probably be cleaned outthough. |
|||
::::So I think I am mostly agreeing with your proposal[[User:Ploversegg|Ploversegg]] ([[User talk:Ploversegg|talk]]) 02:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Latest edits == |
|||
:::::I'm on the fence about this. While I appreciate where you're coming from, I think this would need to be done carefully in order to avoid making it harder to find information and diluting the archaeological information. I'm not fond of the idea of subordinating the archaeology to the "history". This doesn't mean that a merge of the type proposed cannot happen, but e.g. if there is a Late Bronze Age Troy section, I think it is important that it retain separate subsections for each of the layers and especially for "Hittite Records". On the other hand, splitting the article into separate articles and reducing this article to [[WP:Summary style]] would be very good. I'm wholeheartedly on board with this (Sidenote: sources that aren't used in the article, but are worthwhile, should be moved to a "further reading" section; this is an aide to readers who want to use WP as the start of their learning and allows future editors to incorporate them into the main article.) [[User:Furius|Furius]] ([[User talk:Furius|talk]]) 09:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:P Aculeius|P Aculeius]], my edits aren't POV, they're an extremely laborious attempt to bring this article in line with current scholarship. I appreciate you joining that effort and catching my errors (surely there's more). I also appreciate that part of your latest edit suggested a different way of addressing my concerns, as I did previously with one of your edits. Could we perhaps continue our work [[Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith|in that spirit]]? |
|||
:::::::I agree. Caution is indicated especially on one of the top visited ANE site articles. And yes, I like Further Reading sections both for their usefulness and as an on deck circle for possible future use as inline refs. I think the main problem is that this is one of what I call ANE's dinosaurs, article like Babylon, Nippur, and Ur that were created in the early days of Wikipedia and reflected archaeology as it was in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britanica. A lot of that has been weeded out over the years but you can still feel the leftovers of in varius site articles. And I always prefer an Archaeology section over Excavation History because it give you license to put some down in the weeds archaeology stuff so as to keep the History section readable but that is up to the editor. My base view on editing is to think of two wikipedia readers, the drive by reader and the serious reader. The former saw Troy on tv and was casually curious about it and the latter has to write a paper on Troy for a class. I try to make articles work for both of them.[[User:Ploversegg|Ploversegg]] ([[User talk:Ploversegg|talk]]) 14:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
Some comments: |
|||
::::::::I think I agree with all of this, though this might be a case where we discover what works along the way. But thank you for the discussion and for the ongoing edits! [[User:Botterweg14|<span style="font-family:Baskerville;color:indigo">Botterweg14</span>]][[User talk:Botterweg14|<span style="font-family:Baskerville;color:indigo"> (talk)</span>]] 16:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
* In retrospect, I agree with your removal of "fraudster", so thank you for that. I do recall Schliemann catching a fraud charge during his time in California, but you're right that it doesn't belong there without a reliable source. For similar reasons, I think we need to remove the reference to Schliemann using dynamite which you readded. |
|||
If I was gonna create a new article to house the all of the current Troy 0-Troy V sections, any suggestions on what the title would be? "Early Troy" is a little vague, but "Pre-Late-Bronze-Age Troy" sounds terrible. [[User:Botterweg14|<span style="font-family:Baskerville;color:indigo">Botterweg14</span>]][[User talk:Botterweg14|<span style="font-family:Baskerville;color:indigo"> (talk)</span>]] 16:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
* "''which Greek chronographers placed in the late 13th or early 12th century''" I prefer this this text to the previous, for reasons you can infer from my edit summary. I won't revert for now, but I'd like to be confident that it's accurate as a general characterization of what Greek chronographers thought, as opposed to just Eratothsanes and Herodotus. Do you know of a source that makes this claim directly? |
|||
:Dunno, but reading this [https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/viewFile/1692/1696] reminded me that Levels III to V were largely destroyed by the Classical foundations so a) they are barely worth too much mention and b) it is unknown whether the city was big or small because lack of stuff could mean it was poor or it could mean the greco-romans cleared away all the stuff.:-) [[User:Ploversegg|Ploversegg]] ([[User talk:Ploversegg|talk]]) 23:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
* For similar reasons, I'd like to keep the "better source" tag on the Iliad citation. |
|||
::How about [[Early and Middle Bronze Age Troy]]? I'm aware that Troy 0 includes the late Neolithic and a bit of the Middle Bronze Age is Troy VI, but I think it's ok to be a little vague. The alternative would be to call the article [[Troy 0-Troy V]], but that it not a user friendly title. [[User:Furius|Furius]] ([[User talk:Furius|talk]]) 00:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== 'foreign' alphabets == |
|||
* Regarding the caption, I agree that the "claimed to have" wording might sound too negative about Schliemann. But the article shouldn't state outright that the treasure ''was'' found there since scholars aren't sure. Similarly, it shouldn't claim that finding Troy ''was'' Schliemann's childhood dream. |
|||
[[User:Howard from NYC|Howard from NYC]] ([[User talk:Howard from NYC|talk]]) 20:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Botterweg14|<span style="font-family:Baskerville;color:indigo">Botterweg14</span>]][[User talk:Botterweg14|<span style="font-family:Baskerville;color:indigo"> (talk)</span>]] 00:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
I knew how to tweak my laptop to ensure requisite non-English alphabets were visible... problem not everyone does... where is there a wiki page to link to which details this? ought be a fairly common hassle for non-college student in need of those articles covering dead cultures or dust-coated dialects of living languages... someone already addressed it... yes? no? |
|||
::In the spirit of collaboration, let's see if we can agree on a way to address your concerns. I'll state at the beginning that I was only skimming the article based on another discussion occurring on Wikipedia, so I didn't go through it with a fine-toothed comb. These were just issues that stuck out to me. |
|||
== Unit? == |
|||
::*IMO it's fine to mention concerns about Schliemann's methodology and conclusions ''in the appropriate parts of the article'', but they don't belong in the lead. I'm not expert enough to say whether his use of dynamite was significant enough to warrant inclusion—but I do know that 19th century archaeologists frequently employed very destructive techniques, and it's important to discuss them in that context. Like your questions about his reputation for honesty, his judgment about which layer most likely corresponded with the Troy of the ''Iliad'', what his boyhood aspirations were, and whether the artifacts he attributed to his excavation actually came from Troy, these all might belong somewhere in Wikipedia. But we have to consider the weight of the discussions and their placement. |
|||
The description of Troy VI includes "a defensive ditch cut 1-2 into the bedrock.", without specifying a unit. Maybe meters? [[User:ManlyMatt|ManlyMatt]] ([[User talk:ManlyMatt|talk]]) 17:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::A discussion of Schliemann's background clearly belongs in the article about him, but what he did or didn't do in California seems to have almost no relevance to the article about Troy. Schliemann's archaeological judgments regarding Troy are fair game to discuss in this article; the fact that he was "a divorced man in his 40's" seems irrelevant, and likely to suggest to readers that his conclusions are less likely to have been correct due to flaws in his character or morals—not actually a legitimate basis for disputing those judgments ''in this article'', although they may be tangentially relevant in the article about Schliemann. |
|||
= Article's "quality" = |
|||
::*I seem to recall a long discussion—probably on the talk page, or one of its archives, of "Trojan War"—about the dating. And most of the dates favoured by the Greek chronographers seemed to fall within a reasonably short range. I may be wrong about the exact range, but I do know that Eratosthenes' dates fell within it, and became the most widely accepted, perhaps because Eratosthenes had a reputation for meticulous and logical reasoning. In this case, I was simply rewording the set of dates previously added; but that is flexible, and could be modified further, although I probably would exclude the outliers among the proposed dates and veer closer to Eratosthenes, without necessarily giving his dates as definitive. |
|||
There is no discussion about the article's "quality" without addressing the obvious issue: Hisarlik is NOT Ilion. The site has never been identified conclusively as the location of the city of Ilion. Homer's Troians have Greek names and speak Greek - even if only when interacting with the attackers. The "Troy VIh-VII" layers, which corresponds to the alleged period the war took place, are distinctly Anatolian, and the language - again, assumed, not conclusively determined - seems to be one of Anatolian languages, not Greek. In fact, the traces of possible Greek influence are few and far in between. Crucially, there is no evidence of destruction by war that should be present if there was a war as suggested by Iliada. The only destruction detected in the period's strata is from an earthquake, which is normal in Anatolia. It is highly seismically active zone. |
|||
::*I'm not sure what better source there can be for the ''Iliad's'' description of Troy than the ''Iliad'' itself. In fact, that's the very best source possible. It may be that you can find other scholarly works that ''summarize'' the description—but they're really not necessary for a general description of the work's contents that nobody is likely to dispute. You're familiar with the ''Iliad'' and presumably some of the literature discussing it; do you regard the description as controversial? If the description accurately describes what the ''Iliad'' says, then a citation to one or more relevant passages should be fine. If it's likely to be disputed, then feel free to put a "better source" tag back on it—but other editors may disagree, and remove it (I will defer). |
|||
As the article depends on the city to be Ilion of Troia, its quality also depends on that identification. And since no war destruction has been identified, the city clearly cannot be claimed to be the Ilion of Iliada, without delving into other, significant, details given by the epic that simply do not exist in Hisarlik. |
|||
::*The caption isn't the right place to debate whether the treasure actually came from Schliemann's excavation of Troy. You might consider rewording the caption so that it doesn't appear to comment on whether Schliemann accurately represented where the treasure came from. It'd be perfectly fair to discuss the treasure and what Schliemann said about it, and what other archaeologists have said about it, in the body of the article—as long as the discussion itself doesn't appear to be taking sides, or only presenting one point of view. This is the same issue with whether Troy VIIa should instead be called "Troy VIi", or at least viewed as a continuation of Troy VI (two slightly different issues)—it's an academic dispute, and the way it was phrased went beyond that and seemed to be saying that the ones who favoured "Troy VIi" were right, but unjustly forced to use the wrong terminology—really not a neutral way to present the debate. |
|||
So speaking about the article's "quality" is a joke, to put it mildly, for as long as we call the city something that it, based on existing archaeological evidence, clearly is not. Doing so is deceptive and manipulative. The city is a fantastic discovery but by claiming falsely that it is a mythical Ilion we are stealing its true history and are building a fake one around it. We are turning a myth into a religious belief by inventing "evidence" through "interpretation", the most deceptive process that exists in science. Time to cut that demagoguery and return to cold, hard research. And only rely on evidence, not on a hearsay. Or, next, we'll accept that the 'bible' is a historical account confirming that there is 'god', disregarding the fact that the 'bible' never mentions such a creature. |
|||
::*I'll quickly mention two other things that I edited concerning Schliemann and his conclusions. First, we can't really prove what he did or didn't imagine himself doing in his childhood. You may or may not find his account plausible, but if there's a dispute worth having, it goes in the article about Schliemann, not about Troy; the argument about whether he really dreamed of finding Troy when he was a child isn't that relevant to Troy. As for Schliemann's identification of Troy II as Homeric Troy, I believe elsewhere we have (can't recall in which article) that Schliemann later concurred in Troy VIIa being the most likely. And that's what we expect from scholarship in progress: one's first impressions will often be based on incomplete information and analysis. We don't expect people to get it right the first time when they're blazing the trail, so to speak. So while it's fair to say that he initially thought that Troy II ought to be Homeric Troy, it's not really fair to use that as a criticism of Schliemann as an archaeologist: any other archaeologist of the same period might have reached the same conclusion, only to be proven wrong as more information came to light and enabled a more precise dating of the various layers. |
|||
Science and dogmas do not fit together. The "quality" of the "evidence" in favour of Hisarlik being the site of Ilion is extremely dubious and sketchy at best. [[Special:Contributions/220.158.190.25|220.158.190.25]] ([[User talk:220.158.190.25|talk]]) 01:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== David Adams photojournalist "heresy" == |
|||
::::Okay, thanks, so it sounds like we don't actually disagree very much about the article. Unless someone writes a well-sourced "Schliemann" section that puts his shortcomings into context, I definitely agree that the article doesn't need to dwell on them. Where particular errors on his part are relevant in other sections of the article (e.g. dating of Troy II) I'm open to more charitable phrasing, though what's currently there doesn't seem hugely uncharitable to me. |
|||
David Adams on History channel had a theory based on gold deposit distribution that since water levels were allegedly higher at the alleged period, there was a waterway to the east to where gold is more plentiful, so Troy is not in Turkey, which will upset many. Watch it for yourself. :-) Just had to mention it here ... |
|||
::::Regarding sourcing, I think this is a topic where we need to hold ourselves to a high standard. Given the enormous amount of scholarship on the topic, it's extremely easy to accidentally misrepresent a superceded idea as the current consensus, a resolved question as an open one, or a sexy talking point as an actual scholarly claim. These issues were rampant in earlier versions of the article, and I sometimes caught myself making similar mistakes during my rewrite. I'm not hugely concerned about the article's description of Homer's description of Troy, but I'd sleep better if there was a secondary source that used a phrase like "regional power". But I am a bit concerned about the ancient tradition's dating of the war. I only recall the dates suggested by Eratosthenes and Herodotus, and those might simply be more salient since they line up with Troy VI/VII. So in this case, I think a citation really is essential to make sure the text is accurately describing the tradition. I don't have these worries about the Troy VI/Troy VII continuity thing, since the Bryce reference flatly states that this is the current view, and the other reference seem to agree. But I've rephrased per your comment, to keep the nomenclature issue separate from the substantive one. [[User:Botterweg14|<span style="font-family:Baskerville;color:indigo">Botterweg14</span>]][[User talk:Botterweg14|<span style="font-family:Baskerville;color:indigo"> (talk)</span>]] 03:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/220.253.111.168|220.253.111.168]] ([[User talk:220.253.111.168|talk]]) 06:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Which, of course, is patent nonsense. [[Special:Contributions/2603:6080:21F0:6140:4550:9E4F:5CA3:A7F1|2603:6080:21F0:6140:4550:9E4F:5CA3:A7F1]] ([[User talk:2603:6080:21F0:6140:4550:9E4F:5CA3:A7F1|talk]]) 19:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Hisarlık spelling == |
|||
Is it spelt with a dotted or undotted i since one source says it spelt like Hisarlık and others with a regular i. [[User:Daisytheduck|Daisytheduck]] ([[User talk:Daisytheduck|talk]]) 01:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 01:08, 19 April 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Troy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
[edit] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ColeS777.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Ilium usage and inconsistencies
[edit]Ilium
in the first paragraph this is shown as an alternative name for Troy, and given a Greek spelling (in brackets), but in the main article section on the name Ilium is said to be the Latin, and Ilion or Ilios are the Greek names for Troy. This all seems very inconsistent and should be corrected.
On the Ilium disambiguation page, in reference to Troy, is listed as Ilion (using the masculine Greek) and not as Ilium (using the neuter Latin) - this again seems inconsistent and should be corrected.
Ilium is Latin, Ilion and Ilios are Greek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.24.1 (talk) 10:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed, thanks! Botterweg14 (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ilium, Ilion or Ilios are nowhere to be found in the Greek version of Iliada. Only Iliou. So, of you are fixing it, please fix it correctly, to reflect the original source. 220.158.190.25 (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Eh? A quick search shows "Ilion" in the original text 86 times, including:
καὶ νήεσσ' ἡγήσατ' Ἀχαιῶν Ἴλιον εἴσω" (Iliad, 1.71)
Ἴλιον ἐκπέρσαντ' εὐτείχεον ἀπονέεσθαι (Iliad, 2.113)
Botterweg14 (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)ἔμμεναι: αἴσχιστος δὲ ἀνὴρ ὑπὸ Ἴλιον ἦλθε (Iliad, 2.216)
- Eh? A quick search shows "Ilion" in the original text 86 times, including:
- Ilium, Ilion or Ilios are nowhere to be found in the Greek version of Iliada. Only Iliou. So, of you are fixing it, please fix it correctly, to reflect the original source. 220.158.190.25 (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Wrong and inconsistent dates for the destruction of Troy VI
[edit]This article states: "Troy VI existed from around 1750 BC to 1300 BC", which is correct according to the current consensus (see Strauss 2006, Cline 2013 and others). But then is says "Troy VI was destroyed around 1250 BC, corresponding with the sublayer known as Troy VIh." This is inconsistent with the prior statement and does not agree with the current consensus (that an earthquake c.1300 BC is responsible for the damage to Troy VIh.) It ought to be corrected. 2600:1702:28E0:EE0:75E3:BDC1:F666:EEC4 (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Good catch! If there's other mistakes, you can be bold! Botterweg14 (talk) 07:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Restructuring the article
[edit]I was thinking of reorganizing the article and wanted feedback first. I worry that the current structure buries some of the more important points (e.g. the archaeology of Troy VI/VIIa) and lumps or splits some things that would be more natural for readers to encounter in one place (e.g. texts about Wilusa with the archaeology of Troy VI/VIIa). Here's my thought:
- Site (current “Site Conservation” plus “Archaeological layers”)
- Expanded lead that covers things in a little more detail (e.g. mentioning Troy VI's lower town, but not the murex shells)
- Early Troy (current Troy 0-Troy V sections)
- Late Bronze Age Troy (current Troy VI-Troy VIIb2 sections, plus “Hittite Records” section)
- Greek and Roman Troy (current Troy VIIb3-Troy IX sections, plus “Classical and Hellenistic Troy")
- Excavation History
- Troy in Legend
Another worry is that the article is currently too detailed for some readers but not for others. For instance, someone could care about Troy VI's lower town but not about the murex shells. My first thought was to address this with a somewhat more detailed lead, but I also had the thought of splitting the article. Botterweg14 (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well, I really have only ever poked at the excavation history part of the article, the rest ie levels etc being the sort of contentious stuff I try to avoid. :-) So restructuring is fine with me. I would say that my sense is that the article is too long. Yes Troy has been excavated for maybe 150 years but I would say that there were only maybe 3 dozen actual seasons in that period. Anyway, a bit of tightening up would help the article I think, though I did just add a couple sentences so I guess I'm not helping things.Ploversegg (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have a "dream edit" you've been restraining yourself from making? I'm certainly willing to kill some darlings if they make the article better. Botterweg14 (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'll look it over. Though I do remember that the site conservation is just a big advert so while I'm thinking of it ...Ploversegg (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- My initial thoughts, some of which are minor
- the footnotes add basically nothing to the article. never have footnotes just to have them. anyway, can park stuff in refs
- no reason to have a Sources section here. Only maybe half of them are actually used in the article. I think this was from early Wiki days, now naming refs so you only have one entry is normal. so just have the usual References section
- the entire Additional Sources section needs to be completely redone, either as just a list or in some organized way that is actually helpful
- I think that the Historical Troy stuff should be blended in with the arch stuff. I agree with you that it is better to separate by periods vs levels. Levels make sense for archaeologists but nor regular wiki readers. you could either separate by periods Early Bronze, Middle Bronze etc or into the periods of the city that actually matter. really, could just call the section History or History of Occupation (old school wikipedia).
- be careful about making the led too long btw, its already not short. Some of the stuff there now can probably be cleaned outthough.
- So I think I am mostly agreeing with your proposalPloversegg (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm on the fence about this. While I appreciate where you're coming from, I think this would need to be done carefully in order to avoid making it harder to find information and diluting the archaeological information. I'm not fond of the idea of subordinating the archaeology to the "history". This doesn't mean that a merge of the type proposed cannot happen, but e.g. if there is a Late Bronze Age Troy section, I think it is important that it retain separate subsections for each of the layers and especially for "Hittite Records". On the other hand, splitting the article into separate articles and reducing this article to WP:Summary style would be very good. I'm wholeheartedly on board with this (Sidenote: sources that aren't used in the article, but are worthwhile, should be moved to a "further reading" section; this is an aide to readers who want to use WP as the start of their learning and allows future editors to incorporate them into the main article.) Furius (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. Caution is indicated especially on one of the top visited ANE site articles. And yes, I like Further Reading sections both for their usefulness and as an on deck circle for possible future use as inline refs. I think the main problem is that this is one of what I call ANE's dinosaurs, article like Babylon, Nippur, and Ur that were created in the early days of Wikipedia and reflected archaeology as it was in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britanica. A lot of that has been weeded out over the years but you can still feel the leftovers of in varius site articles. And I always prefer an Archaeology section over Excavation History because it give you license to put some down in the weeds archaeology stuff so as to keep the History section readable but that is up to the editor. My base view on editing is to think of two wikipedia readers, the drive by reader and the serious reader. The former saw Troy on tv and was casually curious about it and the latter has to write a paper on Troy for a class. I try to make articles work for both of them.Ploversegg (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think I agree with all of this, though this might be a case where we discover what works along the way. But thank you for the discussion and for the ongoing edits! Botterweg14 (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
If I was gonna create a new article to house the all of the current Troy 0-Troy V sections, any suggestions on what the title would be? "Early Troy" is a little vague, but "Pre-Late-Bronze-Age Troy" sounds terrible. Botterweg14 (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Dunno, but reading this [1] reminded me that Levels III to V were largely destroyed by the Classical foundations so a) they are barely worth too much mention and b) it is unknown whether the city was big or small because lack of stuff could mean it was poor or it could mean the greco-romans cleared away all the stuff.:-) Ploversegg (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- How about Early and Middle Bronze Age Troy? I'm aware that Troy 0 includes the late Neolithic and a bit of the Middle Bronze Age is Troy VI, but I think it's ok to be a little vague. The alternative would be to call the article Troy 0-Troy V, but that it not a user friendly title. Furius (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
'foreign' alphabets
[edit]Howard from NYC (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I knew how to tweak my laptop to ensure requisite non-English alphabets were visible... problem not everyone does... where is there a wiki page to link to which details this? ought be a fairly common hassle for non-college student in need of those articles covering dead cultures or dust-coated dialects of living languages... someone already addressed it... yes? no?
Unit?
[edit]The description of Troy VI includes "a defensive ditch cut 1-2 into the bedrock.", without specifying a unit. Maybe meters? ManlyMatt (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Article's "quality"
[edit]There is no discussion about the article's "quality" without addressing the obvious issue: Hisarlik is NOT Ilion. The site has never been identified conclusively as the location of the city of Ilion. Homer's Troians have Greek names and speak Greek - even if only when interacting with the attackers. The "Troy VIh-VII" layers, which corresponds to the alleged period the war took place, are distinctly Anatolian, and the language - again, assumed, not conclusively determined - seems to be one of Anatolian languages, not Greek. In fact, the traces of possible Greek influence are few and far in between. Crucially, there is no evidence of destruction by war that should be present if there was a war as suggested by Iliada. The only destruction detected in the period's strata is from an earthquake, which is normal in Anatolia. It is highly seismically active zone.
As the article depends on the city to be Ilion of Troia, its quality also depends on that identification. And since no war destruction has been identified, the city clearly cannot be claimed to be the Ilion of Iliada, without delving into other, significant, details given by the epic that simply do not exist in Hisarlik.
So speaking about the article's "quality" is a joke, to put it mildly, for as long as we call the city something that it, based on existing archaeological evidence, clearly is not. Doing so is deceptive and manipulative. The city is a fantastic discovery but by claiming falsely that it is a mythical Ilion we are stealing its true history and are building a fake one around it. We are turning a myth into a religious belief by inventing "evidence" through "interpretation", the most deceptive process that exists in science. Time to cut that demagoguery and return to cold, hard research. And only rely on evidence, not on a hearsay. Or, next, we'll accept that the 'bible' is a historical account confirming that there is 'god', disregarding the fact that the 'bible' never mentions such a creature.
Science and dogmas do not fit together. The "quality" of the "evidence" in favour of Hisarlik being the site of Ilion is extremely dubious and sketchy at best. 220.158.190.25 (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
David Adams photojournalist "heresy"
[edit]David Adams on History channel had a theory based on gold deposit distribution that since water levels were allegedly higher at the alleged period, there was a waterway to the east to where gold is more plentiful, so Troy is not in Turkey, which will upset many. Watch it for yourself. :-) Just had to mention it here ... 220.253.111.168 (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Which, of course, is patent nonsense. 2603:6080:21F0:6140:4550:9E4F:5CA3:A7F1 (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Hisarlık spelling
[edit]Is it spelt with a dotted or undotted i since one source says it spelt like Hisarlık and others with a regular i. Daisytheduck (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- C-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in History
- C-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in History
- C-Class vital articles in History
- C-Class Classical Greece and Rome articles
- Top-importance Classical Greece and Rome articles
- All WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome pages
- C-Class Turkey articles
- Mid-importance Turkey articles
- All WikiProject Turkey pages
- C-Class Greek articles
- Mid-importance Greek articles
- WikiProject Greece general articles
- All WikiProject Greece pages
- C-Class Anthropology articles
- Mid-importance Anthropology articles
- C-Class Archaeology articles
- High-importance Archaeology articles
- C-Class Ancient Near East articles
- Mid-importance Ancient Near East articles
- Ancient Near East articles by assessment
- C-Class former country articles
- WikiProject Former countries articles
- C-Class WikiProject Cities articles
- All WikiProject Cities pages