Talk:Troy/Archive 1

Archive 1

episode of BBC's "Horizon"

Does anyone want to have a go at writing up some of the current theories summarised in a recent edition of the BBC's Horizon programme? A transcript is available online here [1]

Another page in their site even links to this very article! Timrollpickering 23:13, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

alleged/suspected/hypothesized/proposed Troy

In the light of the findings since 1996, this article is far too cautious about identifying archaeological with homeric Troy. Of course the "identity" is not complete, not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and the controversy should be noted. Since 1996, however, a strong majority of scholars identify (W)ilion and Wilusha, and for very good reasons. I will try to add sections concerning these recent developments. dab 18:42, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Opening doesn't make much sense

The opening of the article, "Troy (...) is not a legendary city, scene of the Trojan war" doesn't make much sense. Is that supposed to say "is a legendary city"? ~~

fixed it (it was vandalism. you can fix these things yourself, too) dab (ᛏ) 12:57, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Real Location of Troy

There is a very intersting theory that has its roots in geography and archeology, and puts Troy much closer to Greece... Check it out at: http://www.troya.com.mx/. The book was published in Croatian, and it is by no means a work of an amateur, R. Salinas Price is a scholar educated in the United States, more on his study on Homer at: http://www.homer.com.mx/index.html

Yugoslav Troy? Well, feel free to add it as an intriguing 'dissenting voice.' No "the real location"-style statements in the article, though, please. dab (ᛏ) 09:08, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to not mention that garbage at all in the article, also. Alexander 007 07:43, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Patton 117 reporting in, p[lease feel free to see the discussion below about how it was in England. go to the link before you bash it please.

sorry, but it's rubbish 68.19.1.160 (talk) 08:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Category

Ancient Troy was not exactly a Greek city, so I've modified the category to Trojans. Alexander 007 05:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

well, everybody speaks Greek in Homer. Plus, there is some evidence that there may have been a Greek upper-class that had imposed itself on the Luwian population, in Wilusa. But it's difficult to classify anything as "Greek" in that time anyway, there were only "Achaean" and "Danaans" etc. dab (ᛏ) 10:07, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Patton 117 here, Homer's story was about a celtic civil war, and was translated into greek so that the people he was telling the story to the greeks

still absolute rubbish, Patton 117 68.19.1.160 (talk) 08:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

see Alaksandu where I did a brief outline of said evidence. dab (ᛏ) 07:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Troy in England

Well it was written by the greeks from Homer's original versiopn which was translated from his native celtic tounge to greek

---

Has anyone ever read Iman Wilkins book where troy once stood, in it he describes why Troy would have been a Celtic City, and how the Aecheans, which means seamen, where warriors from central europe who banded together to capture the british celts tin mines so that the mainland europena Celts could make bronze at a cheaper price. the following link will lead you to the site http://www.troy-in-england.co.uk/

a typical case of pseudohistory. dab (ᛏ) 16:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

If you read it, the invaders are described as travelling over a wine dark sea called Oceanus. The Greeks would have called it the Ægean sea, which is a deep blue color as compared to the Northern Atlantic which is often described as being wine dark

Also, Achilles is noted as watching the sun rise over the sea and his barracks. Which means that an Asian landing site is out of the question which would put the shores on the west.

Achean is also a greek version of a CELTIC word that means Water Men There are seven rivers flowing across the Troad. there is also an eighth river called the Temese, which was the name for the Thames untill the 850's AD. the turkish plain has two rivers.

I would like to take the claim for creating this discussion, as i was not supposed to be working on this at the time due to the fact that i am taking a computer Apps class at this time. Patton 117

again, this is so far out on the lunatic fringe that it's not worth refuting. At most, if you must, insert a single sentence saying somebody came up with the idea. For anything more, create a subarticle dedicated to the theory. dab (ᛏ) 07:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

You remind me of the lunatic conservaties who say that Harry Potter is evil, and have never even read it. I, Patton 117, am a conservative who reads the books by the way.

I have read it, and it's not remotely believable. James 23:15, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Why not, i have read both the Iliad and Iman Wilkins book, and find it meshes

Mainly because it's based on questionable etymologies. James 04:31, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

So how do you explain the fact that Achiles was able to watch the sun rise over both the ocean and the soldiers barracks.

It has been proven in the last decade (you'd have to look it up) that the Troad west of Troy has silted in since 1200 BC. It used to be a bay with marshes exactly as Homer described with the Greek landing site on the western shore of this bay. Troy being on the east. To people who know even most rudimentary actual facts about the Iliad or history in general a location of Troy in England is beyond preposterous.

Also, I forgot to mention this, but greeks for centuries back have been of average height, average, complexion, with brown hair and brown eyes. Agamemnon is blond, as is Achiles. Traits that resemble the Celts more than the Greeks.

The Iliad is an oral poem, and as such inconsitencies and errors crept in over the several hundred years during which it was composed. Also, the person who "wrote" it was likely not there, so they would have no real idea on which side of Troy the camp was. Also, there's no concrete proof about what Greeks looked like over the centuries. Furthermore, there's nothing to suggest that blonde in the Iliad is the same thing as blonde today. James 05:09, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

what? I'm not saying anything is "evil". I am saying it is stupid. Nobody claims Harry Potter is a factual report. If you claim that this England business is fiction then no problem. The arguments are crap, man. Take a good look at the map of the Troas. See the bay? Is that a north-to-south coast facing west? I thought so. dab (ᛏ) 06:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Have a look at that map. The poem, in spite of being oral, contains exact knowledge of Greece and Anatolia. Now take a list at Trojan_War#Armies_on_the_Trojan_side. These are all historical peoples of Anatolia. What were the Phrygians doing in England? The Carians? The Lycians? etc.?? You may as well claim that the Greeks were really Eskimos invading the Aztecs. The theory is too kooky even to waste breath on it, sorry. Read some serious books about Troy. You seem to have no idea what is possible when kooks play with etymologies. Everything suddenly is Basque, or Sumerian, or Slavic, or Celtic. That's because these people have no method, something everybody else has been adopting for 400 years now, since Descartes. Sorry, but we do not have the time to educate whoever believes in such things about the 400 years they missed, short of saying, read it up. dab (ᛏ) 06:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Egypt is refrenced as not wanting to go to war with the Trojans, however, texts from egypt show that before Alexander, it was known by its people as Al-Kheb, which means, land of the Pharoahs.

Greek Women stayed home, same with the women of the cultures around turkey at the time. Saxon, Celtic and many other women of the north went to war with their husbands. Homer tells of Amazones, who speak some of the multitude of languagesspoken within Iliums Earthen Walls.

Patton 117, back again, I was watching the History Channel, and they where doing a show on Crypto Zoology, creatures with very little scientific proof that they exist, and thus disregarded. I would like to point out that the Mountain Gorilla, the Giant Squid, The Ceolcanth, and many more animals where thought to not exist, but as we know, all three have been proven to exist. So just because some one dissents from the majority doesn't mean he is wrong. Where would the world be if the Free French Military and the German Resistance, both of whom desented from the Nazi Parties in their countries, just agreed with their government durinmg WWII, it can be argued that the attempt on Hitler's life during the later part of World War II brought about the Allied Victory even sooner.

You can't just dismiss this theory so easily if you haven't even read the book. I can assure you it makes a hell of a lot more sense than Troy being in eastern europe. Iman Wilkins covers almost every aspect of the poems, from the vegetation and climate to the places where the regiments came from. I'm not asking you to believe it, but read the book first before being so skeptical.

You can't just dismiss the consensus that Troy is in Turkey if you haven't even read the massive body of evidence that this view is based on. Not just the Iliad, but ancient Greek geographers like Strabo, the Hittite texts that mention Wilusa and the Ahhiyawa, and the reports of modern archaeologists like Blegen and Korfmann. I can assure you it makes a hell of a lot more sense that Troy is in Asia Minor than in eastern Europe or England. Classicists have covered almost every aspect of the poems, from the vegetation and climate to the places where the "regiments" came from. I'm not asking you to believe it, but get at least a passing familiarity with the evidence before being so skeptical. One place to start is J.V. Luce's book Celebrating Homer's Landscapes, which exhaustively demonstrates how Homer's descriptions of the Troad and Ithaca reflect accurate geographic knowledge of both places.

Also, you might want to stop making elementary errors if you really want to defend Wilkins' "theory." Don't tell us that the Achaeans sail over "Oceanus." They don't come close to it. Don't tell us that Troy is in "eastern europe" when it's in Turkey. That's in Asia, which is a different continent, you know. Don't refer to "regiments," talk about the "Catalog of Ships," the standard way of referring to the list of Greek contingents in Book 2.

If you'd really like to convince us, instead of going on and on about how we're close-minded, try presenting some of Wilkins' arguments--in detail. Why don't you start with how he deals with the Hittite letters? Akhilleus 20:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the notion that ancient nations and societies were limited geographically to such small areas is rediculous. Most of Europe spoke Greek, including druids all the way in Ireland, because Greek influence and knowledge had spread much further than Greece. Conquest is not the only thing that spreads culture. Everyone in ancient Europe, regardless of their tribe or nationality, was effected by the Greeks substantially. The druids of Britannia would not have spoke Greek if they had not thought it an important language. Homer's epic clearly spanded across a much larger geography than merely a couple of seas in the Mediterranean, a geography that includes Egypt and Britannia. After all, did the Greeks not prove the world was round and approximately how large it was?

Look at America today. Geographically it is small, and anyone 2000 years from now that finds an intact map will conclude that America was just one of many nations. However, the reality is that America has military bases all of the world, but there is very little that will survive 2000 years from now to prove how powerful a nation America is today. Likewise, the Perians had farflung power all the way into central Europe, but had obviously not conquered Europe. The Franks imported an elephant for the king once, but does that mean that the Franks had to conquer India, or that the Indians had conquered the Franks.

The point is, everyone that was anyone in the ancient world knew of Britannia and its famous tin mines. There is no more evidence to prove that Troy on was England than in Turkey, but scholarly dogma and academic zealots in the name of "concensus" mislead the public all the time for their own ambitions or politcal agendas, which, after all, is human nature. Too many professors are too deeply rooted in Troy-in-Turkey to ever concede to other opinions, no matter how well-researched those opinions may be. There are 7000 year old conical pyramids in the Americas that historians refuse to acknowledge as any older than 2000 yrs, despite those pyramids being enshrouded in lava rock that is dated exactly 7000 years. (I read about this years ago, no online sources to report as yet.)

Troy in England does have some merit, and to simply dismiss it as fantasy is disgraceful to the discovery process. The Celts have legends of visits to Egypt, used as mercenaries by pharaohs, and whom helped to build Karnak. They even have legends of meeting Moses himself. They both certainly had a love of beer. The Britons used chariots, and Boadicea herself refered to Nitocris and Semiramis, the names of Eastern rulers far, far away from Britain. And, for crying out loud, they used chariots! When something is still a theory, as Troy being in Turkey still is, all researched opinions must be considered to find whatever facts can be found. That's how knowledge is acquired, not by saying "Impossible! The consesus is ..." Well, the consesus may be wrong, as has often proven to be the case.

As far as history is concerned, it's mostly speculation and heresay anyway. No one can claim that the Achaeans never were even close to Oceanus. Where you there? Did you attend Achaean bonfire parties and mingle with the natives? Did someone build a time-machine? Well, if the Polynesians could find Easter Island, the Achaeans could find Britannia. Jcchat66 21:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

~This is an absurd topic. To begin with, Homer was not a native Celt. Nowhere is there any proof that ancient greeks were indeed a fair race - they lived in the mediteranean for heavens sake! I merely bring this up because of things people mentioned as arguments in this topic. Also, note the images on walls found - dark haired people. I read that the mention of fair haired people - "xanthein" was not celtic fair - but light brown - which for greeks was as fair as they had seen. Note, also the statues found with original pigments showed people with dark eyes and mediteranean features.

This topic makes me wonder: How do we know whether the Parthenon marbles held in the British Museum will be used in the future to debate as to whether the marbles where ever in Greece to begin with - or whether the Brits were somehow the "original" Greeks? (As hitler ideology falsely once tried to suggest aryans were more greek than the modern day greeks) I merely bring this strange angle up to make the point of bizare discussions triggered by things that may be misinterpreted.

No, I don't believe Troy was in Britain. Why would a mediteranean race claim it as their cultural history of oral story telling if they weren't involved and then place it somewhere where it was not viable for themselves to have been? ApplesnPeaches~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Applesnpeaches (talk • contribs) 00:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Etymology of Troy, Troy and Aeoleans

Is possible that the Trojans of Homer were Aeoleans (a Greek tribe)?

Etymologically, the words Ilion, Ilus, Iliad, Aeolians, Aeolus, Hellenes, Helle, Hellespont are having the same origin/root.

Later, in 9th , 8th , 7th centuries B.C., Aeolians founded colonies in north-western Asia Minor (or Anatolia). Why not, plus, in 14th or 13th century B.C., when they were drove out of Thessaly by Achaeans etc?

In Homer's Iliad Greeks and Tojans communicated without interpreters.

In Iliad, instead, Carians (a people in south-eastern Anatolia) described as "hetero-glosi" (i.e. people of other language)".

So, perhaps, original Trojans were Teucrians (i.e. Thracians) and in 13th century B.C., when Troy was captured by Aeolians, then its name was changed to "Aeolium" (ie. Ilium = Ilion). Parallely with city-state, the neighbouring channel was named "Hellespont".

So, in Trojan War era, i.e. in 12th century, the city had two names ("Troy", of Thracian origin and Ilium, of Graeco-Aeolian origin).

--Ionn-Korr 16:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

If we are into etymologies, someone has proposed a connection with Basque hiri/uri ("city"/"town"), Iruñea (Pamplona) and Ilunberri (Lumbier, "new Ilun", "new capital?"))

Is there connection in Hellenes, Helen, Selene?

--Error 00:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

If these theories are accepted by serious scholars, that should be reported here -- with full bibliographic information. Even if they are widespread beliefs, they probably should be reported here (with information to help the reader judge their value). But Wikipedia is not a good place to discuss novel or speculative theories. --Macrakis 01:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

To Macrakis.

I saw your page. You are a Greek. I'm glad for it. Greeks are here, there and everywhere! Greetings for you, "sympatriotis". --IonnKorr 18:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

From Helen:

the name may then be from a PIE root *sel "to elope" and go back to a Proto-Indo-European abduction myth. The name is in any case unrelated to Hellenes, as is sometimes claimed (Hellenes being from the root *sed "settle").

--Error 00:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

To Error.

Surely, your proposal (or your viewpoint) is respectable. But, "Hellenes being from root *sed" is an extreme case. Perhaps, it's a atribraty conclusion.

This IE-root may be *hel-, or *el-, or *sel-, [or even *wel- (according to my opinion)], but not *sed-.

--IonnKorr 20:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

what do you mean? Hellenes is from *sedlenes "settlers", that's entirely unproblematical and about the only serious etymology listed on this page. And no, Helene is unrelated. I am responsible for Helen_of_Troy#Etymology. The sel- etymology (and the Saranyu connection) is debatable, but a serious and published possibility, but of course without the certainty of the sedlenes etymology of Hellenes. dab (ᛏ) 14:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Please keep your opinion out of this. Original Research has no place in wikipedia. Stick to information from citable references. --Victim of signature fascism 19:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what's up with the changes between User:Decius and User:Alexander007 (who appear to be the same person), but I do know that Wikipedia frowns on removal of other users' comments except in cases of libel or abuse. You are right that original research has no place on Wikipedia. Neither does rudeness or attempted censorship. We can all decide the value of a comment on our own. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Is this true, Ilion, Ilus, Iliad, etc. have the same root? What is that root? What does "Ilion" mean, or refer to? A place? Thanks... 74.100.137.109 (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

a "pellasgian" theory

My five cents:

Bekim Bacaj

If you read, than do it more carefully. The whole book of R.S.Price is based on the same reading error. His error question:"How could one see the arising sun from the Ocean if situated in Troy?"

1st Let us first clear this error. The Ocean is not an ocean. It's a Snake!

2nd Homer is not greek, -he is pellasgian Priest and a distant relative to Achiles.

3rd and the most repeated error throughuot the literal history, -there were no greeks during the Trojan War era.

I Ocean is a mythical snake (pellasgian mythology), it's not an ocean, its a river. The hypothetical river that encompases the whole world, = the edge of the world. The snake that bites its own tail. So the sun according to pellasgian mythology rises from the Ocean river and olso sets down on it.

II Homer was a pellasgian, his wocabulary and his beliefs are pellasgian, Achiles was a pellasgian too. Whole Iliad is focused only in the part where Achiles is the main actor. So nothing else matters to the author except of his relative and his compatriot antagonist Hector.

III It was pelasgians that were known as Helens and it was them who named the land (H)ellada. Greeks enter the Hellen mainland only after the destruction of Troy that is the center of the world civilisation destruction and the begginings of a "greek dark ages". It was almost the same duration period as of our dark ages. More than 7 centuries. No written materials exist douring this peroid. It took seven centuries for greeks to come out of the darknes and aquire whatever was saved from this destruction. The interest for adopting and cultivating pre greek culture was driven by the Persian kingdom rise and their warfares. It was only a question of time when persian army will attack the greek city states. So they begin cultivating history and pregreek cultural remnants of Hellen mainlands adopting them as their own and for their purpose. Only then the story of Trojan War has come to life again. So it was a Political and moral reason. It was adopted and revised. It recieved more critics than any other written piece today by homerians. But that didn't stop it. They had to convince the people that they won a war against this mighty land once and that they can do it again. They achieved it. Today we only have a reforged story of Homer about Iliad and an incomplete one. Yet again, it's a remarkable one.

Thank You!

I'm with you as far as The whole book of R.S.Price is based on the same reading error. His error question:"How could one see the arising sun from the Ocean if situated in Troy?". That's entirely true of course. dab (ᛏ) 09:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Notability of Wilkens, Velikovsky, et al.

Wilkens and Velikovsky are not notable, in my opinion. They don't belong in the article, nor do any other "alternative" location theories. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree — however, given the nature of Wikipedia, should we have a short sentence acknowledging that a few cranks opinionated individuals do argue for alternative locations, but are roundly dismissed by academic scholars? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be prudent, considering the wide range of Wikipedia's audience. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it should be included, given the nature of Wikipedia. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The article currently says, "A small minority of contemporary scholars argue that Homeric Troy was not in Anatolia, but located elsewhere: England, Croatia, and Scandinavia have been proposed. These theories have not been accepted by mainstream scholars." I think that's sufficient — do you disagree? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Then, where is Heinrich Schliemann? Am I missing something. Is there a reason he's not mentioned? I'll read again - but here's a link: http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/archaeology-myth-excavating-troy.html to a perfectly reasonable explanation of Troy, which this Wiki article should at least take into account.Levalley (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Troy and England

No, I'm not talking about Wilkins' crackpot theory. I'm talking about this text that I'm removing from the article:

A Trojan law mentioned by E.O. Gordon allowed queens as well as kings. This law was adopted by King Dunvallo Molmutius (from Brutus) in his code and is still in effect today in Britain.

This is inadequately sourced, and it was in the wrong place in the article. But there's certainly room on Wikipedia for the legendary connections between the Trojan kings and the kings of England. As long as we make it clear that there's no historical basis for this connection. So, if someone can provide some good sources for this material, let's put it in. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

the thing is mentioned on British Israelism, but I don't know if it has its proper article. We should discuss it in the context of the Aeneid, maybe add a "later legends" section. dab (ᛏ) 09:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Wilkens enthusiasm

User:212.123.163.102 left multiple copies of the following comments all over the page. In the interest of not silencing anyone, I'm going to consolidate them and put them here:

You are all wrong! Iman Wilkens is right on the money, Celts and troy are english, and the locations that Wilkens has described in his book, are almost spot on, some minor variations, but almost a perfect deduction of the real truth of troy.

Why do I say this? how do I come to this conclusion?

I have been a Royal Navy Diver most of my Adult life, and have been on salvage operations and deep sea dives all around the world, and always liked to read books by other like minded of the diving fraternity as a way of passing time when on board ship etc.

After reading Cusslers book, I was intrigued enough to convince a friend who is also an ex navy diver, to go and follow the trail described in Iman Wilkens book.

Its taken us over 2 years of research and diving, but we have located artifacts and evidence that prooves beyond doubt, that what Wilkens has written, is in fact, a very good account of the real Troy and the voyages.

Troy was in England, not Turkey or Croatia or anywhere else, and the Greeks are pretenders to the titles given by historians.

We have enough evidence now, and shall soon be approaching media and other interested parties, to announce these findings.

What we have discovered will blow the history books into confusion, and will make the Da Vinci Code look like a childs story book!

keep your eyes on the press!

regards

loz and mike —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.123.163.102 (talk • contribs).

Re:Questionable etymologies?

Homer catalog of ships and western europe a.d. 2006

Denmark: graea, now graerup; hyle, now hyllebjerg; thisbe, now thisted; arne, now arna; scandeia, now skanderborg; nisa, now nissum;

France: orneia, now orne; corinthe, now courances (corintia in middle-ages!); cleonae, now cleon; gonoëssa, now gonesse; helice, now elyseé; thronium, now trugny (trun in 1059); tiryns, now thury-harcourt (tirins in middle-ages!); hermione, now hermanville; river aurus, now aure; hyampolis, now Janville (hiemivilla in 1130); aetole, now etaules; pleuron, now ploëron; nile, now -nil (for example: mesnil);

Alsace: cyllene, now selé(stat); rhipa, ribeauville; stratia, now strasbourg; parrhasia, now barr;

Spain: pylos, now pilas; gerenia, now gerena; sparta, now esparteros; sidon, now medina sidonia; ortygia, now ortigueira;

Low countries: thessalia, now tessel; alos, now alost; boudeion, now boudinkerke; phulake, now flakkee; pyrasos, now braassem; iton, now etten; antron (near the sea), now antwerp; calydne, now calland; sume, now sumar;

Great Britain: adrasteia, now ardrossan; percote, now perth; practius, now pratis; axius, now axe; cromna, now cromarty; aegialus, now aigas; erythini, now ericht; halizones, now halezy; halube, now halabezack; maeones, now meon; hyde, now hyden hill; temese, now thames (temes in middle-ages); kaystrios, now caister; rhesos, now rhee; karesos, now car dike; grenikos, now granta; skamandros, now cam; simoeis, now great ouse; satnioeis, now little ouse; tenedos, isle of thanet (tanatus in ancient latin); lecton, now lexden; chryse, now grays, cray and crayford; cilla, now chilham; "silver bow", now the bow and silvertown; ilion, now ely. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.123.163.102 (talk • contribs).

Wilkens is the guy that wrote: "It also appears that Homer's Greek contains a large number of loan words from western European languages, relatively more often from Dutch rather than English, French or German." How crackpot can you get? Loanwords from languages that didn't exist? His etymologies are nonsense. Then there's the archaeological evidence: Homer's description of boat-building is the oldest such description and was long rejected as it was felt that it referred to boat building in Homer's time. More recent research shows that it does describe how the Greeks built ships at that time.

Michael Wood refers to several artefacts described by Homer:

1. The tower-shaped body shield associated with the character Ajax and found on the Thera frescoes (and obsolete by the time of the Trojan War. 2. The figure-of-eight shield found on various 13th century frescoes, eg at Knossos, Mycenae and Tiryns. 3. The silver-studded sword, known from 15th and 16th century finds. 4. Leg greaves found in Bronze age tombs, but not in Iron Age ones. 5. The boar's-tusk helmet - numerous representations and a full example from Knossos -- Homer's description was very good, even telling how the tusks are laid in rows with the curves alternating. 6, Nestor's Cup -- a cup matching Homer's description was excavated by Heinrich Schliemann Nestor's Cup And of course there the geological evidence from Kraft et al. The mailing list Where Troy Once Stood was set up to look at Wilkens work, and decisively demolishes it.--Dougweller (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Troy a Minoan city?

Troy is settled from about 3000 BC. The Trojan War is apperently 1180s BC when Myceanian Greeks attack the Trojans. The argument is that the "Trojan Greeks" appearently has the hegemony of local trade in this region. At East the Hittie Empire flourish but apperently they live in peace with Trojans.

The Minoan Civilization dissapear as the Myceanian Civilization emerge. However, the distinction is only beteen the island greeks and mainland greeks who has a lot of the same culture, in which the myceanians are controlled by the Minoans. Could it be the case that Trojans were apart of the Minoan Trade Federation, and as Myceanians conquered Crete after it has disasters and Santorini was destroyed by vulvano Thera leading to the dissaperence of the Minoans, the Mainland Greeks either assimilated or exterminated any opposition from Minoans.

As it would seem Troy may have been a Minoan City part of the Minoan Trade Federation. Once the Minoan Civilization collapse and falls into the hands of the mainland Greeks who takes control over the trade in the Ageanian Region, then Trojans still constitutes an obstical as they threathen mainland Greek trade supremacy, enforcing tolls etc on the Greek Traders. Agamenon needs to finish of the Trojans in order to wipe out the last Minoans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.165.42.243 (talk • contribs) 13:45, September 13, 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting suggestion, but if you want any of this to be included in the article you're going to have to provide a reliable source. Otherwise it's original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that no Linear A (Minoan) inscriptions have ever been found in Troy. There is no evidence that Troy was a Minoan settlement. Darkmind1970 11:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That's right. The only prehistoric writing so far found at Troy is a seal in Luwian. See Trojan language. Andrew Dalby 17:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Coordinates of Troy Archeological Site

Does anybody have a reference for the (very inexact) coordinates of (39°58′N 26°13′E)? I'm asking because I've checked those coordinates in Google Earth, but nothing there looks like Troy. But nearby there's a very blurry spot that resembles Troy at (39°57′24″N 26°14′20″E). I don't think the coordinates listed in the article are right. -- MiguelMunoz 19:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to whoever corrected the coordinates on the site. They now appear to be correct. -- MiguelMunoz 21:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

World Heritage Logo

The World Heritage logo is the first thing in the article - it should be moved somewhere more discreet. Patiwat 11:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Moonraker88 12:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ilium

This article states (in its first footnote) that Ilium was the usual Latin name for Troy, whilst Troia was a poetic name. Is there a source for this? as it appears to be contradicted by Lewis & Short's Latin Dictionary, which described Ilium as a poetic term! ( http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3D%2321459 ). -86.138.104.32 21:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Trojan war, which layer?

Troy VI: 17th – 15th centuries BC. Troy VIh: late Bronze Age, 14th century BC Troy VIIa: ca. 1300 – 1190 BC, most likely candidate for Homeric Troy.

Are the above dating of the layers correct or accurate?

According to Michael Wood's In Search of Trojan War, he proposed the so-called Trojan War should be happened at Troy VI rather than Troy VIIa. Wilusa(Troy) was sacked in around 1250BC. It's leveled again by a Greek king.

Around 80 years later, it was sacked by sea peoples in 1180BC which was shown in Troy IIa.

Carl Blegen suggested Troy VIIa was destroyed by earthquake but Wood doubted it because it's difficult to distinguish a city after earthquake in archaeological basis or Troy VI was sacked and earthquake happened very closely.

One evidence in Troy VIIa, pottery with distintive spiral pattern (L.H.III C) which only produced after 1200BC and never appeared earlier.Philip HK 05:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The controversial beaches of Troy

As I look at the picture purporting to be the beaches on which the Greek ships were drawn up, warning flags go up in my mind. The Greek ships were placed over the brow of a low hill on which the Trojans camped that night of the counterattack. The Greeks built a wall and a ditch to keep them out. In this picture there would have been no need of any wall because the Trojans and chariots would have tumbled down end over end and broken their necks all.

Well, all right, if you magnify the picture you see a flatter place near a point over the hill. I believe that place, if that is where it is, is questioned now. Various battlefield topography questions, such as how Troy can have been on a headland, and where was the harbor that must have sheltered Trojan ships from the strong Bosphorus currents (otherwise why would you dare to site Troy there) I believe have been more or less settled by geologic analysis. There WAS a bay there, and Troy WAS on a headland, and all that fine plain you see stretching to the sea was mainly the bay, which has silted in, rendering Troy useless for the purpose for which it was built. And so, that is why it was abandoned, and not for Greeks. It was rebuilt many times as long as there was a point to rebuilding it. Istanbul now has the strategic control once held by Troy. You would rebuild Istanbul but you would never again build at Troy, unless as a tourist town.

So, the Greek ships were inside the bay mostly on a beach long silted over. You can't get a picture of it. The plain on which they all fought was further south. I have put (or will put) in the external links a link to a site with a map reconstructing the terrain of Troy. Read Michael Grant, though, In Search of Troy. What you want to do about this I have no idea. Taking on this article is a big and thankless task. Right now I'm doing other stuff.Dave 22:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed the caption of the picture, which may go some distance to answer your concerns. There are a couple of issues with determining the location of the Achaean camp. One, of course, is that there may not have been a historical Trojan War; another is that many locations have been proposed, and you can still find people advocating one or another. The geological work you mention has pretty conclusively shown that Troy had a bay in the Bronze Age, and that's the most likely location for where the Achaeans placed their ships; but there's never universal agreement on questions like this. Another book to read on this question is J.V. Luce, Celebrating Homer's Landscapes. Luce participated in the geological survery, I think--at least he takes it into account in his book. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Troy in Finland

There is a theory in the internet, that speaks of Troy in Finland. It fits with the geographic descriptions of Homer.
http://www.estovest.net/letture/homerbaltic.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=troy+baltic+sea

There are also theories on the internet that state Christ didn't exist, that Bigfoot is alive and well, and that the Egyptian pyramids were built by ET's - all are crackpot wastes of server space and will never be qualified as Reliable Sources. Get it? 68.19.1.160 (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

"Panomphaean Zeus"

"The altar of Panomphaean (‘source of all oracles’) was dedicated to Jupiter the Thunderer (Tonatus) near Troy.)' This single obscure epithet in Iliad doesn't contribute any understanding of an aspect of Troy, certainly not its topography, and Juppiter Tonatus is even less relevant to Troy. The article is refreshed by being disburdened.--Wetman 06:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What about Thymbraean Apollo? --Peter cohen 19:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If Thymbraean Apollo increases the reader's understanding of Troy, relate him to the subject and include him. --Wetman 01:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

disambiguation page?

I went to the disambiguation page and it seems like there are so many cities, towns, words, concepts, etc. that involve the word Troy that the disambiguation page should be the first result for people searching "Troy", not the ancient city's page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinDuffy (talk • contribs) 23:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps the reader should be directed to Troy, New York, a place which certainly looms larger on some cultural horizons. --Wetman (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Wetman on this one. Are any of those other places even remotely as important? Why do you think they are called Troy in the first place? The disambiguation page for Berlin lists 24 North American places of that name, but nobody in their right mind would dream of making a simple name search lead there and not to the German capital. athinaios (talk) 13:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with having the place in Ionia come up first. Student7 (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's not in Ionia. But of course ancient Troy should be the main page. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(the one in the Eastern Hemisphere?  :) Student7 (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Easiest just to say Asia Minor, I suppose. Or "modern-day Turkey". --Akhilleus (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Aeneid?

Shouldn't we say that Romans descended from Trojans? I heard that a new DNA study found that similarities between aegean area and central Italy? and that etruskans might had spoken a form of semitic language?tartan 07:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dariusthefirst (talk • contribs)

What are your sources? We can't even discuss these ideas unless you can cite reliable sources for them. -- Donald Albury 14:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be the study abtracted here: Proc Biol Sci. 2007 Feb 13; : 17301019. What it's actually claiming is a link between the Etruscans- modern Tuscans (not the Romans as such) and the eastern Mediterranean area (not Troy). David Trochos (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And that theory (or something like it, with the ancestors of the Etruscans migrating from southeastern Anatolia, i.e., Lydia) has been around for a while (since Herodotus, it seems). Only the DNA findings are modern. The relationship of Etruscan to the Semitic languages is more or less dismissed in Etruscan language. -- Donald Albury 00:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And since Rome as a nation and Empire started in Rome and then spread by conquering surrounding areas, and Rome is not in Tuscany, an Etruscan origin seems unlikely. As for the language, The Etruscan Language An Introduction by Giuliano Bonfante and Larissa Bonfante seems to be a key work and states that it differs in structure from any known language. I'm unhappy anyway about using 'Trojan' in that way.--Dougweller (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The subsection on Troy in Later Legend does discuss Troy's connection with foundation myths including those of Rome and England.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Troy VI the actual source of Troy VIIa's walls?

My first post on wikipedia so bear with me:

I was just reading Andrew Dalby's "Rediscovering Homer" as well as Barry Powell's "Homer". Both these text claimed that the impressive walls described and actually pictured in the article were constructed during Troy VI and after the earthquake only partially rebuilt by the residents of a smaller Troy VII. It seems like the article should give more info on Troy VI and perhaps credit the pictured walls to that period.

Once I become more familiar with Wikipedia's system, maybe i'll reread those passages and make the changes myself--in the meantime I would welcome any comment or corroboration of this info.

Durandal211 (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, yeh. The Troy VI theory shares the limelight with the Troy VIIa theory. Blegen and all the Cincinnati scholars supported VIIa. Each new scholar who writes about these theories gets all the credit. For Troy VI Wood's In Search of the Trojan War used to be popular. There is seldom anything new in this field and the same arguments keep popping up over and over in every successive book and each author is regarded as avant-gard invalidating everything that went before, an idea formed from the concept of technological progress. All they are doing is rehashing the same stuff. The most significant new thing I have heard in forty years is the discovery that Schliemann's and Blegen's Troy was only the citadel, as part of the city circuit wall was discovered about where it should have been. It was long suspected and long overdue. That was from Cincinnati. So I would say, sure, sounds like a great Wikipedia project - you don't have that much space - and someone should give Troy VI equal time. But, you must be careful not to misrepresent Dalby as giving us anything new and not to imply that the VI theory is more up-to-date and represents any sort of progress. In this field the ideas that seem new and fresh are often 200 years old and the best works were done, I would say, long before the birth of the current round of authors. It's a trick of presentation - you always present them as the latest thing. There is no latest thing here except maybe once in a while a small archaeological discovery that no one notices or thinks in important. One word - if you are going to get into Troy VI vs Troy VIIa be sure to cover the date question.Dave (talk) 05:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Normally I hate many sequential changes to an article, but I particularly appreciated the sequence by Botteville/Dave. He told me what he was doing. Then he carefully edit summarized each change so I knew exactly what he was up to and why. Almost a classic demonstration of how to make a major edit to an important article. Thanks for walking me through that! Student7 (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I was in Troy in April of this year. The walls pictured in the article were identified at the site as belonging to Troy VI. Troy VI was also indicated at the site and nearby museum as Homeric Troy - TLichtyTexan, 8 June 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.104.244.6 (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Avoidance of chaos

I was just re-reading this article to see if I could help and the first thing I noticed is that "Homeric Troy" and "Homeric Ilios and Historical Wilusa" are on the same subject. Moreover, the latter section mentioned is nearly word-for-word the same as another article probably spun off from it on the historicity of the Iliad. Well, articles within articles do not appeal to me much and seem like a waste of space. I think the creator of the other article may have meant a move but succeeded only in a duplication, so I am going to finish that up for him. Now "Homeric Troy" has been there for a while and contains some facts but the other was obviously tacked on afterward. I don't think we need it even in abbreviated form as all the material is covered above or elsewhere. Moreover the add-on is full of weasel words, generalites, and is unsubstantiated by any refs. If that pulls any chains I do apologize. It needs to be taken on but right now I would like to improve THIS article so I defer that one. The material isn't going away; if you want to work on it just go to the article and do so. So, nobody get excited by my next changes as they are really only those of outline and arrangement.Dave (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Illustrations

I've moved things around so that the images are relevant to the section of text close to them and changed some sizes. Size and positioning looks reasonable on my machine. However, I'll be interested in how it looks on other people's screens.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

They look ok on mine, but the Cassandra picture is a bit overwhelming! I'm frustrated, earlier today I read something about Troia being agreed as the 'official' name to use but can't find it now!--Doug Weller (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the changes since my last edit are generally improvements. The oen thing I might change now is to swap the picture of the horse with the Troy II ramp one at the top. Troy II isn't legendary but it is something tourists see. What do people think?--Peter cohen (talk) 11:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tried an alternative move (and a couple of resizes). David Trochos (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Where Troy Once Stood

This famous book has indeed "not been accepted by mainstream scholars" but this doesn't seem to justify deleting its use as the only reference when its argument is discussed in the article. An unsummarized edit has replaced the neutral-toned original sentence with "Various fringe writers argue that Homeric Troy was not in Anatolia, but located elsewhere: England, Croatia, Scandinavia -and pretty much every imaginable place-". Would editors consider giving us the original version back, please? --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No more famous than the other books on other locations. 'Fringe' is perfectly correct, but I don't like the 'pretty much...' so I'll do something about that. I should point out that these things work both ways, there are no critical reviews of Wilkens' book because serious scholars have better things to do, so the book's article is mainly pro-Wilkens. --Doug Weller (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I've put the reference back as well. The deciding factor for me was that it does have it's own WP article. I hope that's OK. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Afterthought: perhaps I meant famous in the sense of "famously hilarious", but notorious is probably too strong.--Old Moonraker (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You really should not mark things like that as Minor edits, a minor edit is a copyedit, spelling, typo, etc. Doug Weller (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies: that was out of order. It wasn't intended though—I seem to have been conducting this whole edit on automatic. I was originally going to leave it for a couple of days! --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Why did you choose "England, Croatia and Scandinavia" as the "alternative" locations? I've seen websites that believe Troy was in Albania, Italy and so on; should I add those, too? The fringiness is of the one author per alternative theory magnitude so why shouldn't we clearly mention it? 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

this isn't the place to list this sort of marginal fringecruft. We may be forced to mention "almost" academic fringe like Schrott's "hypothesis" that Troy was in Cilicia, but that's already stretching things. Schrott's theory is idiotic, but it was at least refuted by some annoyed scholars. --dab (𒁳) 18:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This could be a place where alternative views are not just deleted, because there's no proof beyond any doubt about this location. Over 2500 years of tunnelvision regarding the origins of Iliad and Odyssey should be reconsidered.--Antiphus (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

They certainly do not need mentioning in the lead. Perhaps lower down the article.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it fit into "Troy in later legend"? Some of the claims there are beyond the fringe of the fringe theories! --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly a possibility.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not in the lead? This article goes on and on about a site in Turkey without proving the historicity of the location. This discussion about the location is not important enough for the lead? --77.249.34.13 (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about proving anything. It is about basing things on WP:reliable sources such as the writings of academics and the discussions of their work in secondary sources such as textbooks. If you can some up with a serious article by a professor of archeology arguing that Troy was on Mars with discussions in university ancient history textbooks, then it is worth giving space to it. If there is no such high-quality literature, on a par with the evidence of Troy being in the Hittite sphere of influence recovered from ancient texts, then it does not merit a mention, particularly in the lead. --Peter cohen (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC) (Ps please thread your comments better using indentation clearly and not disrupting the threading of other comments. I've had to move you comment to clarify things.)

Wilkens' book is pretty bad. I've done quite a bit of work on it, others have visited some of his claimed locations, he talks about 3000 year old versions of English, Dutch, etc. On the other hand, I wonder if the IP editor above has read this [2] (sorry, forgot to sign) Doug Weller (talk) 03:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

None of the alternative locations are notable (in the Wikipedia sense), and shouldn't be in the lead. I don't have a real problem with them being mentioned somewhere in the body of the article, but policy would support removing them entirely. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at WP:DUE. The Schrott hypothesis may deserve a brief mention under "alternative hypotheses" or something, because it got some mainstream media attention. Every other "alternative hypothesis" will need to be reviewed, and if and only if it received some academic or mainstream media attention, we can mention it. Where Troy Once Stood based on the information in the article would definitely not qualify. It apperas to have been completely ignored by academia. In fact, I must ask myself whether the article on the book itself passes Wikipedia notability guideline: it does not appear to be based on any notable independent third party sources. The "Troy was in England" thing is a complete non-starter, and I don't know why we are even discussing the thing here. dab (𒁳) 21:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The standard for inclusion in an article is lower than the standard for being the subject of an article: see WP:NNC. I don't think the long-standing, but brief, paragraph survived in the article because any editor believes in it (do they?) but because it's a theory about Troy in wide circulation. The existence of the theory has, I believe, achieved sufficient fame in some circles (and notoriety in others) to warrant inclusion. It seems to me to have a parallel with the stories of the kings of Wales being descended from Aeneas, taken up by Geoffrey of Monmouth and so into Shakespeare's histories. The heavily qualifying phrases, such "have not been accepted by mainstream scholars", or something even stronger (I believe "lunatic fringe" was once deleted as too strong, but a more encyclopaedic way of saying the same thing could be found) should of course be attached. If it remains, it could join the other wild accounts at "Troy in later legend". --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

this is precisely the question: is this thing "in wide circulation"? Has it "acquired fame", and if so, in which "circles"? It has some dubious fame on-wiki, because there was some trolling about including it in the past. If you can show this has any "fame" in mainstream media, anywhere, fine, but as of now the Where Troy Once Stood article does not appear to substantiate your claim. dab (𒁳) 22:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I do need to demonstrate the "circles" to make the point properly. In the meantime, it's made it into Fortean Times, if that counts for anything! Old Moonraker (talk) 23:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The Fortean Times article in question is here. The article makes it clear that the author has never read Plato nor Thucydides: he thinks they believed Troy wasn't in Asia Minor! --Akhilleus (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream author Tom Holland recommends Wilkens (briefly and with only a slight hint of mockery) in "Building a library" for The Independent newspaper [3]. I had high hopes when I found a Googlehit in the Times Literary Supplement, but it turned out to be a reader comment, rather than editorial material. WTOS is on the student reading list for the classics course at Haverford College, as a "dissenting view". Book Business magazine and BookFinder.com lists the work as number four in their respective lists of requested second-hand books [4], but the latest information is dated 2005. On the whole, I have to acknowledge that Wilkens has made but a small impact in the world outside of Wikipedia. --Old Moonraker (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you care so much to get this mentioned? The thing was covered in the Fortean Times, and mentioned in passing in an Independent column. I really don't think this counts for anything in a topic as vast as Troy: the literature on Troy compiled over two millennia of scholarship would fill libraries. Proportionally, Wilkens would have made a greater impact on the collected issues of the Fortean Times than on the body of literature concerning Troy. This is a tragedy quite typical of Wikipedia: many brilliant scholars of great merit go unmentioned because editors prefer to distract themselves over completely marginal red herrings. dab (𒁳) 11:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

All the above points are valid. The answer to Dbachmann's question is my perception of a parallel to the equally fanciful, but culturally very significant, folk myth of Brutus-son-of-Aeneas tale, above. Normally I would be in favour of trimming out all possible cruft from an article! --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

well, the Brutus legend is notable by virtue of being medieval. If there was a medieval legend of Troy being in England we should mention it. Alas Mr. Wilkens was born too late for this. Medieval literature is medieval literature, not "cruft". dab (𒁳) 13:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Distance of Troy from shore today

I changed the distance of the site of the ancient city from the shore from 15 km to 4– 6 km. I'm in the area now and looking at Google Earth and it is only 4– 6 kilometers from the shore. I haven't checked on the references provided, but that fact is clearly wrong as evidenced by this Google Maps lInk. It might be worth checking this information since it seems a bit contrived and geological transformations such as alluvial deposits building a shoreline do not generally happen so quickly in my understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indexheavy (talk • contribs) 18:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You're perfectly right about the distance- just over 5km to the modern mouths of the "Scamander"; as for the build-up of alluvium over 3,000 years, it could well be a combination of material washed down from the mountains and material from the Dardanelles that got trapped in the bay. Earthquakes may have influenced the situation too (though probably not much). David Trochos (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Language

I've noticed mentioned in several places in wikipedia (the article on the trojan language and a mention in this discussion page to name a few) that the language most likely spoken in Troy would have been Luwian. If so then wouldnt that make the Trojans not Greek at all? Luwain is only very distantly related to Greek and Greeks wouldnt have been speaking that language, other than individuals as a second language in the purpose of trade/diplomacy.Camelbinky (talk) 10:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoever suggested that the Trojans were Greek, or native speakers of Greek? It's true that the Iliad doesn't (I think) explicitly portray Greek-Trojan conversations being mediated by bilingual translators, but there are plausible explanations for that:

1 Omission of needless detail - even if translators were used, it would be pointless to shoehorn references to them into poetry composed for oral transmission at a time when listeners would know Trojans weren't native Greek speakers. Where translation was an issue worth mentioning (perhaps because it might seem surprising), it was - the Trojan Battle Order (aka Catalogue of the Trojans), which (incompletely?) lists the various Trojan allies, does say that several contingents spoke different languages (to the un-named Trojan norm) and had to have their orders translated.

2 Stylistic convention - I suspect that most other "classical" accounts of intercultural interactions don't bother to mention translation except when it was a particular issue.

3 Widespread multilinguality of the protagonists - for millennia, Troy prospered by controlling and presumably taxing international seaborne trade through the Dardanelles; to do that its ruling classes probably had to be able to speak the languages of the various traders involved. Likewise the Greek leaders would have diplomatic dealings with their various foreign peers and many may have learnt Luwian (or whatever). These leaders, exactly Camelbinky's "individuals [speaking] a second language in the purpose of trade/diplomacy," constitute most of those portrayed as conversing with "the other side."

4 General multilinguality - we largely monoglot modern English speakers tend to underestimate how multilingual cultures in other places and eras routinely are/were. Also, even the "common troops" in the Trojan War were probably not lowly spear-fodder from the most uneducated classes; but landowners wealthy enough to own armour and weapons, and with enough underlings to be able to leave their property safe while they were away.

The above assumes a degree of historical authenticity to the Iliad's description of the Trojan war, partly for the sake of the discussion, and partly because I think it likely. Your mileage may differ. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Having largely winged all that, I now realise there's a Trojan language article that is somewhat pertinent. Doh!. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Troy and the aminesian culture

Troy is a city which existed over 4000 years and known as the centre of ancient civilizations. Many years, people believed that it was the city in tales and never existed until it was first found. At this time it was known as Ilium or New Ilium. But everyone knows the story of it. All the lost civilisations are known as aminesian cultures; e.g. the Atlantis. The aminesian culture is a culture (or civilization) which despite of the existence of several generations doesn't leave any traces and rarely appears in myths or legends (Atlantis and Plato's dialogues). It creates its own distinct and unique tradition but vanishing doesn't leave any heritage. Extermination of it is usually quite sudden and quick (e.g. disaster, epidemic, enemy invasion) which makes all its traces blurred and eventually vanished in oblivion (nevertheless sometimes some traces of A.C. appears later in myths or tales). It is unlikely but possible that some aminesian cultures can exists even today (some still unknown African or Amazonian tribes, perhaps?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.9.47.122 (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an old comment, but letting it stand unchallenged in case someone 'new' browses these talk pages is probably not a good idea. Troy was NOT a "city" that existed for over 4000 years. That's utterly ridiculous. No city has ever stood for that long. Nor was it "the center of ancient civ's." Troy was a location where successive towns/citadels were erected over the centuries. Troy VIIa is the 'version' of Troy that most academics accept as the Troy of the Trojan War. The rest of the paragraph above is just myth and nonsense. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmsFan

How long in 1865?

Could someone clarify the fifth paragraph? It seems to be asserting that Frank Calvert excavated for many years in 1865. Possibly it should read "Beginning in 1865"? Cactus Wren (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed this. Thanks for the pointer. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Troy of Homer = a Luwian city

HEROES:

Paris (mythology) (Alexandros): < "Par-Ida" /Par = "pastor", "shepherd" , Ida = Mount Ida Paris Πάρῐς (nominative) , Paridos Πάρῐδος (genitive), Paridi Πάρῐδῐ (dative), Parida Πάρῐδᾰ (accusative)

Hector = Hektor: means "brother-in-law" (of Helen)

Hecuba = Hekabe: means "mother-in-law" (of Helen) , abe ="mother?"

Helen = Helene /Helena: "Strait" (this is "Dardanelles") <Ela-na Ela/Ila ="strait" ,-na = "having to do with", "place" Ela-na = "the woman of the strait" (in Luwian)

Ilium = Ilion (=Troy) <Il(a)-ion /Ila = "strait" (in Luwian) , -ion = "place" (in Greek)

also Hellespont < Hellespontos that means: "Sea of Helle (mythology)" In fact, the name of this Helle came from "Ela" = "strait" (in Luwian)

Helenos = Helenus: "Strait" (the male form of the same name!) <Ela-na

Priamus = Priamos: < Pria-uma = "the man in the castle" Pria ="castle" uma ="human" (in Luwian) ~ homo (in Latin/ the same root!)

Cassandra = Kassandra: <Kas-Andra kas = "temple" , andra = "priestess", "woman", "nun" (in Luwian)

more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Luwian_language#Luwian_Gods_and_Goddesses Böri (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Troy predominantly a Luwian city, but a good explanation to the ruler names can be found on this paper: The North Greek Affiliations of Certain Groups of Trojan Names, The Journal of Hellenic Studies Vol. 39, (1919), pp. 62-68 [5]. Also, you need to come with a good source analysing those names because some seem doubtful. Fkitselis (talk) 08:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Gods of Trojans = Gods of the (other) Greeks

How very peculiar, during an era that each ethnic group had their own God system, that the Trojans not only worshiped the same Gods the Greeks did (assuming that the Trojans were not Greeks) but that we get from the "mouth" of Homer himself (who I would like to think that no-one seriously disputes that he at least was Greek), that half of the Greek Gods were on the side of the Trojans!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.193.100.190 (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Homer supports the Trojans! He was from Smyrna(Western Anatolia). The Luwians of this region became Greeks after the Greek invasion of Western Anatolia... Zeus, Hera, Poseidon and Hades were "the real" Greek gods...At the beginning, Artemis, Apollon and Leto were the Luwian gods/goddesses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Luwian_language#Luwian_Gods_and_Goddesses

Böri (talk) 08:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• The Greeks began to conquer Western Anatolia (in fact, they conquered only the seashores!) between 1200 BC-750 BC. At that time Western Anatolian people = The Greek rulers + Luwian people (that began to speak Greek and forgot their own Luwian language!) Homer wrote the Iliad in 730 BC. In fact, he really supports the Trojans! And The Iliad ends with Hector's funeral! Homer was born in Smyrna (now İzmir). Today, we know that Homer was a "Greek" epic poet. In fact he was a "Hellenised Anatolian" man! He said many "good things" about the Achaeans in The Iliad, but he had to write these things because the Greeks were "the rulers" of Western Anatolia at that time. At the beginning, The Iliad was the epic poem of the Trojans and the other Luwian people of Western Anatolia. After the Greeks had conquered Western Anatolia, the Greeks adopted this epic poem and it became a "Greek" epic poem! Homer did NOT write The Odyssey! The Odyssey was a "real Greek" epic poem. (but they used the same characters. There was an influence of The Iliad on The Odyssey!) Böri (talk) 09:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Original Research, and somewhat lunatic-fringey at that. No place for this on the Talk Pages. 68.19.1.160 (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Karatepe

I have just deleted for undue weight a new section identifying the true Troy as Karatepe—this article is about the archaeological site in NW Anatolia. This doesn't mean that, given reliable sources, a brief reference and internal link couldn't appear in the "Troy in later legend" section. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

And again. Note on contributor's talk page again suggesting Karatepe. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

`

Sparta vs. Troy, not "Greeks" vs. Troy

The ancient Hellenistic world never used the word "Greek." This was a war between two Hellenised City States, namely Sparta and Troy. --Nikoz78 (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

But the invading alliance was drawn from all over what we would now call Greece, and for English-speaking readers the term "Greek" is probably more useful than "Hellenised". David Trochos (talk) 05:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that there were vassal-like Greek city states under Sparta's dominance and control does not change my point; namely, that it was a war between Sparta and Troy. --Nikoz78 (talk) 06:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a "reliable souce" indicating that, for example, Mycenae at the time of the Trojan War was a quasi-vassal state of Sparta? David Trochos (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually the word "Greek" was in use before the term "Hellen" according to many ancient sources (e.g Aristotle). I agree with David Trochos that the term is more easy for english-speaking readers to understand. Actually, if we wrote Achaeans, Myrmidones and Danaoi most people wouldn't understand they were Greeks. Apart from that the war was by no means a Spartan vs Trojan warfare. Have a look from which places in Greece the forces were collected and by who's command. Fkitselis (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, Nikoz78, I think you might have to stand corrected on this one. For the main question, the catalogue of ships at the end of Book II lists the states that fought at Troy. There was a supreme commander, Agamemnon of Mycenae. Under what terms is not clear. He had command of the Greeks at Troy, who were from states all over Greece, not just from "Sparta" as you put it. Menelaus commanded by virtue of being his brother, but this can in no way be interpreted as the rule of Sparta. Sparta may have been portrayed as the chief aggrieved party, but it is hard to see what all the other Greeks were doing there if not going to war against Troy. Moreover, it was not just Troy, but quite a few Anatolian and Balkan tribes as well. This was a general war of Greeks against Troy and its allies. What the relations were of all the other states to Mycenae is not clear either. I doubt if Agamemnon ruled any of them as king. Achilles felt free to remove his men from the war at will. Now, for some fine points. All Greeks in all surviving Greek literature are Hellenes. Period. As a historical convention, the term Hellenistic refers to the 4th and 3rd centuries BC. Before then it is classical. The world described by Homer is the Homeric world. The time to which he refers is the Bronze Age in Greece, or Mycenaean times. The Sparte to which the Iliad refers is not the classical one on the right bank of the Eurotas but the Bronze Age acropolis on the left bank. They were inhabited by different ethnic groups of the Hellenes at different times. What is a Hellenized city-state? I never heard of it. To me it would mean a state of a different ethnicity assimilated to the Greeks. Do you mean Hellenic city-state? My suggestion is (and I know you won't like it), before you venture these opinions, do your homework first. Sorry.Branigan 02:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Troy in Finland???

Troy, in cold-ass Finland??? Well, then. I suppose ol' Brad Pitt, Orlando Bloom and Eric Bana hath no need, pilgrim, for tropical tunics and TOGAS!!! This sounds like old 20th. Century Nazi\WASP propaganda to legitatize the non-existent nordic orgins of civilization, when every high school kid knows (those who weren't "kracking-the -wood", like I occasionally did) know that civilization did not reach Finland until "Der Terrible Zeit", when skilled German tribesman fled to Scananavia, mixed with the native figid-faced aboriginals there , later to become the Vikigs! This tripe has as much 'truth' to it as pompous 19th. century British scholars who laughably tried to puff-up the stature of their imperially tethered Scottsmen by lyingly insisting they were pregenitors of the DORIC enthic of Greeeks. What a sham!!! Just like the Anglos and scadanavians insistence that they are Arayans! See how racist eugenics IS-NOT-SCIENCE??? Special:Contributions/talk) 03:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Veryverser

Basically, I don't see why pseudo-history versions are mentioned. We know very well what Greeks meant when they said "Troy/Troas". There's absolutely no reason to mention such things in the article. If we do, it should be moved in an alternative views section and make clear that the geographic term "Troy" is certain. Fkitselis (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there enough material for a separate article, as suggested in WP:SS, or could Where Troy Once Stood be expanded to include this stuff? --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That's an article on a particular book. I'm not sure the Finland stuff is discussed enough in reliable sources. It isn't in the article now in any case. Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Insinuating that any pseudo-history is just a "Nazi/WASP" attempt at propaganda is as ridiculous as the pseudo-history itself. Comes off as more of an ax to grind against "WASPs" rather than an actual aversion to pseudo-history. Jersey John (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Digamma?

I believe the Greek for Troy, Ιλιον, has a digamma. Given that this isn't a real letter by the time of Homer, but at the same time does influence the sound and scansion of the word Ιλιον, does the digamma need to be included in the details of Troy's name in the introduction of this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howtheocritushadsung (talk • contribs) 10:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Separate Articles?

I find it odd that Homeric Troy and the supposedly historic Troy are included in the same article in such a way that a reader with little prior knowledge of the subject matter is bound to assume they are necessarily the same. The article needs to more clearly separate what we know with certainty from the various theories that abound. I propose the article should be divided into three (or four) separate articles: 1. Homeric Troy, because it is a fact that a city named Troy, whether real or not, is described in the Iliad 2. Hisarlık, because it is an archeological site in Turkey 3. Wilusa, because it is mentioned in Hittite documents (4. Proposed Sites of Historic Troy, because claims have been put forward about various sites that may or may not have some connection to Homeric Troy)

Obviously, these articles should mention the proposed links between these various names and places, but it is simply messy and dishonest to present 1-3 as the same place under the heading "Troy". I am not saying that they are not the same place, so please refrain from spamming me with what you consider evidence that they are. My point is that no one can seriously claim it has been proven beyond doubt that all three refer to the same historic place. All three do, however, have independent existence (even if one believes that Homeric Troy exists only as a fictional location in the Iliad) which is what should form the basis of separate, interlinked, articles to make the ongoing debate more understandable to readers unfamiliar with it. If this seems unacceptable to some, the very least that should be done is to specify in the introduction only that Troy is the central location of the Iliad. The claim that Hisarlık and/or Wilusa is the city Homer referred to as Troy should be put forward in sub-sections, not the introduction. Regardless of any one person's opinion on the matter, I think all should be able to agree that in the name of academic honesty and clarity, the article should not start by claiming that Troy, Hisarlık and Wilusa are the same historic place.Maitreya (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, remember me? Maybe not. I'm really off of here but I could not resist this one. As a sometime classicist I thought I might answer this. I can see your point of view all right. In a sense I agree, but I guess it hinges on your concept of what "proof" is. When you are dealing with ancient history, nothing is more tenuous and elusive than proof. When is something to be considered prooved? I wish I knew. I think generally in this topic proof follows preponderance of evidence. No one should expect all evidence to agree, it seldom does, especially between archaeology and written history and literature. In this case the big picture, the general circumstances, does point in the direction of a single major city in the region, which the various classical sources chose to call by related names. There were not two or three Troys, only one. That fits everything we know. After decades, centuries of search, enough evidence accumulated to point directly at Hissarlik. The geography of the Iliad gives the same result, and the Iliad IS geographical, in case you may not have noticed. Moreover, if the Hittite records are NOT talking about some major city at the location of Hissarlik, it is hard to know exactly what possible location they WOULD be talking about. As a result, the entire field, just about everyone in it, accepts the idea that there was one city of Troy and it appears in all these different forms of evidence. Matching the literary evidence to the archaeological always was problematical of course and is not settled very clearly yet. It does seem to me that your proposal is an extreme measure, not the usual treatment of the topic. I do agree with treating each type of evidence sui generis, but this is an overall synthesis. No need to deny the accepted connections. You are too severe, too hard on the old boys. They've done the best they could for many generations. It is not to be just thrown out the window. Relax a little. Your standards are too high for the current state of the field. Best wishes.Branigan 01:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't remember you. Have we "met" before? As to the points you make, I'm willing to admit that my standards may be too high (although I think that's preferable to the opposite) and I've come to agree that there's no need for separate articles. I'm generally skeptical toward attempts to connect ancient myths with historical facts, especially by those who insist on literal readings of myths, but I'm willing to admit that Hisarlık was probably Homer's Troy. My point is that there is still an important distinction between "probably" and "certainly", which I think is made clearer in edits to the article since my last post, however. I would still prefer it be phrased along the lines of "a factual city and a legendary city" rather than "a factual and legendary city", but maybe I'm being too severe again.

To be honest, I guess my main remaining objection has to do with what's not actually stated, but seems implicit, in the opening line of the article, which is perhaps unfair. Fundamentally, I feel it's important to remember (and remind readers) that while Hisarlık and Homer's Troy may be the same geographic location, the factual city and the legendary city are not really the same place in a fuller sense of the word. Compare this to the Chanson de Roland. While it's fair to say that the Chanson is about a battle in the Pyrenees during Charlemagne's campaign in Northeastern Spain, which really did take place, the factual event and the fictional event have almost nothing in common except the approximate location. In reality, the historical battle and the fictional battle are entirely different events. This is not a case of a battle being misremembered long after the events, nor is it a case of a battle inaccurately portrayed by an author striving for historical accuracy, it's just that the real event was almost entirely irrelevant to the author and his audience, except as a "hook" for the story. It seems to me that the same is most likely the case with the Iliad, which is not to say that there's no historical basis for it, but merely that I think it's a mistake to assume that Homer portrays the "real" Troy, any more than the "Matter of Britain" portrays the real Britain. Maitreya (talk) 12:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess we have met now! Sorry for the delay. I don't log in all that often now. I'm not going to contribute new material but I can correct old. Usually I correct formats, since I've boon doing this for a while. If you don't do it, you forget it. I can agree with most of what you say. The degree to which the Iliad is historic is a well-known and long-standing problem. Of course there must be a strong mythical element, as supernatural events are not considered to happen by modern science. Whether or not they really do is a different story, but you could have no basis for postulating real supernatural events in the Iliad. What is different about the Homeric poems and the Iliad specifically is the wealth of geographical, socio-political and artifactual detail. Surprising items just keep turning up! A few of the big surprises are as follows. One of the big criticisms of the mismatch between legend and archaeology was the size of the original excavation. A football-field size layout could in no way account for the great city of Troy. Wouldn't you know it, more recent excavations turned up part of a circuit wall far from the previous excavation, which, as we see now, was only the regal citadel and most ancient city. And then there are the names. They ought to have been fictional for a fictional story. But, as luck would have it, some turned up in the Pylos tablets, which are historical documents. And then there is the language. How could the Trojans have spoken Greek when Troy was not a Greek city? As it turns out, a Luvian inscription turned up. Watkins was able to do a credible etymology of Trojan names to Luvian. In these continuing surprises I would say the Trojan War differs from the battle of Charleroi's rear guard at Roncevalles. Of course there are various cases. The problem is, we don't really KNOW what the case of the Trojan War is. The slow but steady arrival of new evidence unseats previous views. How exciting! You've concluded that the "real" events are only a hook for the story. I'm only replying, that is too much of a conclusion. Discovery of the real events is on-going. It is not a closed. Turkish government willing, who know what will turn up there in the future? But, you can't just rip up big chunks of the valuable countryside, unless you happen to own a coal or salt mining company. I have not looked at your revisions yet. I'm moving way too slowly on this. I do it for fun now not for the contention or the expectation of progress. If you don't expect anything from WP, you can't be disappointed. All in good time. I presume you'll be around. Nice to have met you. Respectfully,Branigan 09:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's really a major disagreement here. We both basically agree that there's a great deal we don't know about the Trojan War and much still to be discovered, our difference is mainly over how we should treat the subject matter in the meantime, so I won't bother you with an overlong reply. To clarify, I believe, as I previously stated, that it is most likely the case that Homer never intended to write a reliable history (in the modern sense) of the Trojan War. I do literally mean "most likely", however, not "certainly". Nonetheless, I feel a need to address one your arguments. In short, I don't agree with the assumption that a fictional story would necessarily use fictional names (and to be clear, I never meant to suggest that the Iliad is entirely fictional, nor is the Chanson) or that the presence of historical names necessarily suggests factual history. The Chanson de Roland also includes the names of several historical people who were in fact present during the battle or the larger campaign, including Roland himself. However, the people described in the Chanson are so heavily romanticized as to be almost unrecognizable and they're placed in a context very different from the actual historical events. The superficial appearance of "historicity" nonetheless adds to the attraction of the story. What I'm saying is basically that the presence of historical names in a story is merely proof that the author was familiar with those names. Like any literary tools, it's still entirely up to the author himself how they are used. Maitreya (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding various speculations on whether Homer was trying to write history or fiction: The Sibylline Oracles presents an interesting POV, accusing Homer of stealing most of his material from the names found in those prophecies, and rearranging them in a more fictional manner. But since Homer would still have to come after the book that he is plagiarising, the author actually presents this as one of the prophecies, i.e. something like "After me there shall come a man named Homer who will plagiarise these prophecies and rearrange them falsely". (That's not a direct quote, but a paraphrase from memory!) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason I'm so slow to answer the previous two is that I mainly agree. I like the way the article is set up now, but that does not mean there is not a better way. You might find it interesting that Calvet Watkins, the linguist (American Heritage Dictionary) believed "Homer" might be working with some verse forms and epithets as old as Indo-European. He was able to compare a verse or two with Sanskrit verses. It really is a VERY interesting question to a great many. I'm not sure if at our level we can really deal with it, at least in a single article. I've been looking for other Troy articles to put in "See also." Ciao.Branigan 21:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Era notation

Dougweller wants to switch era to Vulgar Era. The page had inconsistent era notation, which I fixed as per Wikipedia policy. Dougweller reverted. The secular Common Era should be used. Tanath (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This article's been using BC/AD for quite awhile now. Before Tanath's edit, there was one stray instance of BCE, which could have been easily corrected by changing that text to BC. Instead Tanath chose to convert the entire article to BCE, contrary to the policy s/he's citing. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

And I see that BCE was only used in the piped link to 1900 BCE Near East mass migration; it doesn't even appear to the reader. So claims of "inconsistent era notation" are false. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You claim it's contrary to the policy yet it clearly states that common era should be used. I may be mistaken somehow, but at some point while editing I did see mixed usage. I was searching the page while editing and may have hit the same thing a couple times thinking there were more instances of BCE than there were. I was unaware if the notation had been established or not, or of the establishment policy at the time, but the policy does say to make a section here and "state why the style is inappropriate for the article in question" in order to change it. I have done that (common era is secular and politically correct, and in line with Wikipedia's policy). Unless there is reason to use Vulgar Era notation I move that it be changed to Common Era. Tanath (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Tanath should probably read WP:ERA in its entirety. First, the guidelines state that either the BC/AD or BCE/CE convention may be appropriate. Further: Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. Here are the ways in which Tanath is not in compliance with the guidelines:

• You changed the era without first seeking consensus on the talk page.

Because the policy is to use common era (though apparently the era notation here is considered "established"). Tanath (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• You've stated a categorical preference for using a "secular" notation. To change an era style, the guideline requires a reason that is specific to the content of this article.

This is policy, I interpret this differently. Tanath (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• You claim to be editing for consistency, which is permitted without discussion per Use either the BC-AD or the BCE-CE notation consistently within the same article. But with the non-exception of the piped link Akhilleus pointed out, there is no internal inconsistency.

This is not a way in which I'm in noncompliance...? Tanath (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Changing the era style without being aware of the guidelines is perfectly understandable. But I hope this provides some clarification that wards off further unnecessary activity. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Please note, I do not want this article to be BC/AD, I would prefer that it be BCE/CE as I think it is more approriate. But my edit was in line with WP:ERA. Dougweller (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I take no position whatever on whether one is more appropriate than another. But Dougweller and Akhilleus are correct on the procedure. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's try this point by point. The first sentence of WP:ERA states: Years are numbered according to the Western Dionysian era (also referred to as Common Era). If you follow those two links, you'll see that the first is to Anno Domini and explains BC/AD. The second explains BCE/CE. The guideline further states that either may be appropriate. How on earth do you read that as a policy dictate to use BCE/CE? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Common Era is abbreviated CE/BCE. AD = Anno Domini, which is religious notation. Tanath (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

So have we cleared up the misunderstanding about what WP:ERA says? There's no preference in general for either BC/AD or BCE/CE. Both for Wikipedia and in scholarship, BC/AD can be used with content that isn't about religion. In this article, BC/AD is the established style (but I would point out that the AD notation you're concerned about doesn't even appear). If you want to change the era style, you have to give a reason why BC/AD is inappropriate for the article Troy. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

What? No, it says to use CE/BCE, as it should be. It's not that the content is or is not about religion, it's that CE/BCE should be used unless there's a reason not to. AD/BC is throughought the article... I have given reasons to change it, the AD/BC notation is religious (which is hardly consistent with NPOV), non-secular, and politically incorrect. It is use of AD/BC that needs to be justified. The only reason it seems to be disputed is that usage has been "established" but that's the problem isn't it? It's traditional and thus more common and will be "established" on most pages on Wikipedia, but policy is to use Common Era. Tanath (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"Politically incorrect"? GMAB! This ERAS issue has been talked to death on kilotons of archived pages more suitable than this one, with many thousands of people weighing in, and with a moderate preference for the traditional BC over the BCE activists (and with many reasons given having nothing at all to do with 'religion' or opposing religion), the compromise was to make both acceptable variants, but not to edit war, leaving the status quo unless there was clear consensus to switch notations on a given article's talkpage. Hence, this is a BC article until the contributors agree otherwise. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Tanath, I participated in drafting the current wording of the relevant portions of WP:ERA, so I can assure you that you are mistaken in your reading: the policy does NOT give preference to BCE/CE. In fact the Dionysian era convention of BC/AD is given first. Until you accept that both era styles are acceptable on Wikipedia, you run the risk of disruptive editing. You are further not in compliance with the provision that arguments for a change of era style should be specific to the article topic. You haven't mentioned the word "Troy," but are arguing against the use of BC/AD in general. If that's what you want to do, you need to go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Any further discussion of era styles in general here is off-topic and disruptive. Focus on this specific article, or drop it. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, it states "Dionysian era (also referred to as Common Era)", hence the confusion. I did not state that both aren't acceptable, but from my reading/skimming of it it seemed to imply that Common Era is preferred (which I think it should be) and Dionysian should be the exception. I'll take this issue to the appropriate place now that I know where it belongs. Tanath (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Ilion vs Ilios

@Davidiad

You removed my edit but are you sure? I've always been taught that Ilios was the Ionic greek form of Ilion. Although I can't find any sources on the net. Ilios (Ἴλιος) is also the masculine adjective form of Ilion (Ἴλιον) and Homer himself uses (Ἴλιον) Ilion. ((http://www.quora.com/What-was-The-Iliad-known-as-in-Ancient-Greek).

I'd like to see the whole Ilios vs Ilion thing cleared up. No city has two names that only differ by one letter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.62.254 (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I always knew them simply as alternate forms that were unrelated to dialect, but let me poke around for a source. There's every chance I'm completely wrong here.  ^davidiad_.: 20:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

While Homer does almost exclusively use Ilios (there's only one metrically guaranteed neuter in a disputed passage), I don't think I'd feel especially comfortable with our specifying a dialect without a reliable source. In antiquity Homer was cited for Ilios by grammarians, but Pindar and Alcaeus used the feminine and it pops up occasionally elsewhere, though it's hard to say whether the other instances aren't meant to lend a passage a Homeric air. When in the Andromache Euripedes slips into elegiacs—a meter strongly associated with Ionic—he uses the feminine the passage is Doric. LSJ doesn't specify a dialect, so I think we might leave it as is until we get a reliable modern source that does. I'm currently getting ready to move quite a distance and all my books are packed up, so if anyone can find a source on this in the meantime that would be great.  ^davidiad_.: 21:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

(Davidiad asked me to comment). I can't find much more about this either. According to this http://books.google.de/books?id=OGwp5_0AlcAC&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=Ilion+Ilios&source=bl&ots=jShPGRS3P6&sig=cQH7PAmcybS5XMcLXRagZtH3x0s&hl=de&sa=X&ei=YvoiULScLY3O4QSzm4CYBg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Ilion%20Ilios&f=false] commentary (Latacz, Basler Kommentar, p.55), Ilios (feminine) is the predominant form in Homer; Ilion in the classical tragedians. Not much I can add, I'm afraid. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The rise of modern critical history

The section on "Excavation campaigns" currently states that "With the rise of modern critical history, Troy and the Trojan War were consigned to the realms of legend". I think it needs to say when this occured (and perhaps what exactly constitutes "modern critical history"). Wardog (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Cry havoc, and let loose the dogs of war. You know what, wardog? I read that carefully and I do not think that is what it says. If it did say that, then your suggestions would be called for, of course. I think what the author meant was, Troy and the Trojan War HAD been consigned to the realm of legend, etc. So, what we have here is too much condensation, not enough use of all the English tenses. What he seems to have meant was, after the first archaeological investigations, Troy and the Trojan War were taken seriously again. Throughout the second half of the 20th century, my floruit, if it warrants the term, I never met in person anyone at all who consigned Troy and the Trojan War to total legend, and I did actually meet and even study with some of the knowns. Schliemann only dug Hissarlik because he thought it was Troy. By now you have read my UP so you know I am not going to fix it. The author should fix it. You may be able to stimulate him by putting a "Needs clarification" tag on it. Ciao.Branigan 22:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

How about the latitude and longitude? JKeck (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Supposed style changes objected to by Doug Weller

As I was in the middle of doing some needed correction to the formatting, Doug Weller sent me a message claiming I was altering the style, would I please stop. It needs discussion. Here is the message I left for Weller:

"No, Doug, you stop. I know exactly who you are and why you are doing this. As far as I'm concerned you are a high-level vandal and ought to be removed from WP forthwith. What right have you got to sabotage a public encyclopedia? I WILL open a discussion on this and on you. Why don't you confine yourself to your own absurd site? Who do you think you are?"

However Weller has called for a discussion. This is the first discussion.

First of all, the article has NO style for the references. Most of them do not follow any allowed format on WP. Pages are left off, publishers missing, dates omitted, links given to titled sites with no consideration as to whether they are encyclopedic. WP provides proper citation formats. This is not a question of style, but is a question of minimum WP standards. Doug knows that perfectly well. What, Doug, are you to force WP to give up minimum standards? This is a question of minimum standards and minimum information for a citation.

Second, Doug is not a proper administrator. He has his own site and has a vested interest in publishing his own works on Roman Britain. I do not know if any of you are familiar with "Wikipedia notes". This is a published site by a band of ex-administrators and others dedicated to bringing down WP. They tell you just how to do it. Doug is probably not a member as he is still an administrator, but anyone can follow their advice. Now, I've been following Doug ever since he insisted of removing some referenced material arbitrarily from an article I was working on. Doug on his site was totally anti-WP, then suddenly he joined and became an administrator. My perception is that he is interfering seriously in the development of WP. You should know also Wales was having such a problem with British administrators that he was considering measures to deal with it. Here is a classic case. Doug, get off WP right now! It is time someone stood up to you and that someone appears to be me. Your work here needs to be reviewed by the higher-level people. Meanwhile please refrain from downgrading these articles any further.

However wrong Doug may be to interfere in these edits, he did raise the question legitimately. Let's give him a resounding answer! Do you want references that can actually be used, that meet minimum WP standards? Is the entire WP policy just so much bunk to be ignored at will by some bullying pseudo-administrator? Standards! Standards! Are we wasting our time here? Who is with me on this? There are two votes here. One is for standards. The other is to remove Doug as administrator. Aren't you sick of arbitrary decisions you know to be wrong? Isn't it time you did something about it?Branigan 13:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Roman Britain?

User:Botteville seems to have me confused with someone else. I have no works on Roman Britain, let alone stuff I want published. I've never heard of "Wikipedia Notes" but that seems irrelevant. I've got a website but haven't done much with it for years - it's got general stuff on archaeology, on fringe/cult archaeology and other people's material on Roman Britain (none of which I've used here) - it's links, not discussion, no mention of WP. If Wales had a problem with British administrators it must have been a long time ago. He has a habit of calling people vandals, eg Talk:Britain (placename) which is best ignored and we've been in conflict at Talk:Pytheas (he signs himself Dave at times). Dougweller (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Dave/Branigan/Botteville has a habit of doing just that, launching conflicts with everyone and then sliding into a mixture of passive-aggressive and "I know what it should be like, what books to use, don't mess with me"-behaviour. He's like the wandering Jew, he turns up in one place (article) after another and tears it down. Strausszek (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Reference style

Reference styles should not be changed without a discussion first. I've just asked the editor doing such changes to stop - his response was to call me a vandal. Dougweller (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That is correct. What the adminstrator is NOT telling you is that this is not a change of reference style. Read above. He is also not telling you that we have had encounters before. This article has no reference style. All it has is references that are below WP standards. Weller knows that perfectly well. Why has he never insisted that they be corrected? I question his administrative judgement. This is my response. He already tried to block me from making it. I say to the WP public, do you want quality articles or not? Why is this man being allowed to block bringing the references up to standard? Take a look at my changes. Would you say those refs were up to standard before I put them in proper citation format? Le's hear it! If you want quality on WP now is the time to express it. Vote for quality! You'll be glad you did, especially next time you encounter DWeller in his fanatical campaign to rid the world of disagreement. See his site. You can look it up under Doug Weller. He's an American living in Britain. Well, Doug, personal terror should NOT be allowed on WP.Branigan 13:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Lol. All you had to do was start a discussion here, you know. I haven't block you from doing anything. And putting my personal details here is hardly helpful - they aren't secret but they aren't relative to this article. I'm surprised you didn't say that I was objecting because I'm a Yalie. The fact that you've had encounters with me and others isn't relevant either. It's perfectly possible others might think this is a good idea, I just think that there should be a discussion first. It seems a bit high-handed to just jump in and start making these changes, perhaps others would have other preferences. Dougweller (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Doug. What you say is not really true, is it? You ARE blocking me from legitimately correcting errors. If I try to make any changes now they will be reverted, and you KNOW that perfectly well. And these details are too relevant. The public should know they are dealing with man of very firm opinions on the subject matter, even though those opinions go way past the main stream. Moreover, you have been anti-WP. As I see it, you conflict too often with me and other well-qualified editors over material that is mainstream, just like correcting the errors in references. My perception is that you consistently choose the lower-quality path on WP, and I would like to know why that is. Why would you do that? Does your interest in publishing on the topics you concern yourself in have anything to do with it? I think the quality of the artcle for those working in the interest of public education is important, don't you? What others think is what others think. You wanted a discussion. I'm in no rush. Let's have it. For high-handedness, no, I reject that. The policy defines what is up to WP standards and what is not. The references in this article are not up to WP standards. Usually to correct an error is not a matter for discussion unless someone questions it. You questioned it so now we are having the discussion. Why do you think correct references are a matter of style? What style? Can you be more explicit there? I do not see any high-handedness. I think you behaved most high-handedly in the other articles we clashed about and the editors ought to know this is not our first encounter and that you encounter most frequently. You removed perfectly good, referenced material, and now you want to prevent me from correcting these references. Why? Usually people are glad to have my input. I've only encountered one instance out of hundreds where someone didn't want the refs changed. He had laboriously done the refs out by hand, but they were all correct, and all done the same way, so I could see his point of view. That is far from the case here. So, if you don't mind, please, can you tell me in what way correcting the errors is changing the style? And, why do we need discussions to correct errors? You called the shots as WP allows you to do. Now, how about explaining your call to the public? How is an error correction a difference in style? Do you imply we can refuse to correct the errors or what? While you are pondering I got other things to do and besides we want to give the others, whoever they might be, to express themselves. I will be back though when things have moved along a bit.Branigan 18:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Doug's right on this one. The version as of 28 January clearly uses long citations, and introducing short citations is a change in style. Personally, I prefer short citations, but that's not the point being debated. The policy's straightforward on this one - get consensus on the talk page before changing style. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's get the vote in. I do believe you are not addressing the point. What change of style? What straightforward policy? The point is first of all whether this IS a change of style. So far you have made a distinction between "long" and "short." You are missing the point, I do believe. The only way the references I have done can be "long" is if we repeat the book reference over and over, changing the page number only. That is NOT WP policy. The programmers went to all the trouble to find ways to avoid repeating the references over and over. "harvnb" is one of them. Moreover, it was used before in this article. Why do you think we should repeat the bibliographical information in every single reference? The long reference is given below. The short reference accesses it. The question therefore is not whether the ref is long or short, but whether repeated or not. What do you say, do you want repeated references? The policy is against it! Do you have some other criterion of style we can address? As far as the length is concerned, some prev refs were long, others short. I don't see it. There was no previous style and that is the whole point. The article is noteworthy for its errors and lack of style. I am saying, let us at least correct the errors. Do you have some objection to that? Are error-free references good enough for you or what? Frankly as it now stands if the vote prevents me from correcting the errors I would have to use tags to point out their existence. Is that what you want, and if so, why? Why, is the question I want to focus on! Why would anyone prefer a less quality article over a better one? That is the whole point with Doug. Take your time. We want time for all views to be contributed. I may not be back until more has had a chance to be said. I only got so much WP time. It looks as though this discussion is going to longer than the Trojan War. Please do think over what I have just written. Thank you.Branigan 17:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick check. I'm still here. This is my favorite project. I see nothing has been done on it. Certainly no consensus is evident. I asked for a definition of style; that is, what you mean by "change of style." I don't see any change of style. "Long" and "short" are not styles, but even if they were, the predominant "style" would have to be short. Once more, I'm concerned with correct citations according to policy. If I saw a style, which I have have often done, I would leave it. Well as you can see I no longer have much time for much more than this article. That's WP. I put in my time here previously. Anyway, not even a month has gone by. I wouldn't even think of resuming my corrections until either a consensus appears or a few months have gone by. Ciao.Branigan 23:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• This is really exciting: long rants and personal attack, from the editor who brought us this. I hope Branigan is done here. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

the notes issue

Thank you for your points of view. You think I rant. You think I attack personally. You thank me for what? Doug's user page? All right. What I do not see, however, is any address of the problem, no definitons of style, no recommended solutions, and no work on the article. It is hard for me to take you seriously. But, I will try. As you did not define style, or point out any consistent style here, I have to draw my own conclusions. What I am after here is the correct use and formatting of Wikipedia footnotes. Subsequently I will be interested in other things on this article. I don't think those who have chosen to respond even know what the word "style" means, and especially not what Wikipedia means by it. Well, we could scrawl nasties on the wall here all day. I would like to see you spend your time more productively so I am going to give you the opportunity to set a style. My intent is to correct errors. So, I am going to mark the errors that need correcting. Then you may correct them according to any style you please. What could be more reasonable? If you choose not to set a style, then after a decent interval I will feel that I may put the note in good format. I remind you that the policy is not to remove tags until you have addressed the problem identified by the tag. Frankly you have yet to convince me that, man to man, you are capable of any sincerity. All I see here is nothing. Is that what you are, nothing? Wikipedia depends on good faith. I don't see that here. Have you got any to show? By the way, this is the one article I have time for now. So, I am not going away. We are going find the limits of Wikipedia, let the chips fall where they may. If I'm off of here, then that is where they fall. Oh, Doug, I understand you are trying to be a writer. Have you really got time to oppose people on WP? Which would you rather do? Think about it.Branigan 01:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

We don't need a better source

We do need a better citation. But, come to think of it, this statement is irrelevant. So he published further work. So what? This is not about the scientist it is about Troy. I'm removing the irrelevant statement with the irrelevant source.Branigan 10:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

No, hold - the refs don't really go with the further work statement, they go with the geological work. It's a question of what exactly is being referenced. So, I'm leaving the refs in but putting them in the proper location. In that case we DO need a better source because only the abstract is referenced and you need a subscription to get the article. It is redundant anyway because the next ref gives us another article of his saying the same thing. I think if the author cites the journal ref properly that would be fine.Branigan 11:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, that is it this session. Eventually we will get this into a good article. Doug, I notice you really seem to be driving at corrections of content and literary style with some of these comments. I think you should feel free to tackle those yourself, if you are inclined to spend the time on WP. WP should not have to accept inferior work just because some editor did it. There are plenty of editors. WP does not recognize proprietary rights of its editors. No one owns an article.Branigan 11:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

No offense, but you seem a trifle unhinged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.90.184.135 (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

You do too mean an offense. Since you have chosen to be a liar, I will answer you with equal frankness. No appeal to good faith will move the likes of you. Whoever you really are, my suggestion is, you quit vandalizing WP and quit harassing the editors. I don't think you are amusing. Ordinarily I would not bother with non-entities such as you are, but, since this is the only article I have time for at this level, I'm drawing the line here. Think it over. Is this the kind of person you would like to be? By the way, I'm not back on the article yet, but I see but few have chosen to make any changes, which reveals the hypocrisy of your comments. I see the article and its editors have been targeted. I smell Wikipedia Notes, which I was on briefly. Either do something useful, or leave us alone. We're trying to produce a good product here. It will never take the place of good books but it seems to have a function. Just what is so bad about that?Branigan 23:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Check isbn

I was pleased to see the "check isbn," which is more in the spirit of correction. Here I agree there is a style question. If that is what was meant by change of style we could have saved time by mentioning it up front. I'm only marking errs right now but correction time will arrive. I think the err is mine in this case. The problem was originally use of two different publications of the same book. If we don't want 2 isbn's then we need to decide which! So, the page numbers have to be checked to make sure they are the same pages each case; otherwise, the right pages have to be in there.Branigan 23:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Real style diff

I've been asking for a definition of style, as I was asked to halt work until the style of the notes was discussed. For reasons I will not repeat yet again no definition was forthcoming. I guess I will have to do it. Now I have found a case where WP defined a style diff. See Help:References and page numbers. This diff concerns notes 28 and 29 on Schliemann's Troja. The editor appears to want to use different page numbers from the same edition of the same work. There are a few different ways to do this now. I've been using "harvnb." with the book listed in the biblio. Does not have to be done that way now. There's an "rp" that puts the page number after the footnote ref. One can also put the short ref in parentheses in the text instead of in the footnote. So, what style would you like to use? No big deal to change them all to be one way, as there are not that many notes. I'm not especially attached to harvnb. If none of you have a pref on which we can vote I will just go on with harvnb.Branigan 00:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Note 26 discussion

I would not presume to question whether Dartmouth's web site is an encyclopedic source. It looks good to me. However, our editor does not have the right url. The url for Lesson 27 should be the one. Now, the editor does venture an opinion. Troy VIIa, he says is most likely the one for the Trojan War. I think there is one other alternative, Troy VI. How about not phrasing it in exactly that way? Don't we want to say that it is a strongly held opinion in the field but not the only possible? Granted "most likely" does not represent a crusade to stamp out all views not approved by the editor, as you see sometimes on the Internet, but, might it not err a little on the opinionation side? Perhaps if you attribute it to a school of thought it would seem less personal? Or a sentence could be added to explain that Troy VI also has been proposed as the one? I don't believe the issue has been resolved for certainly certain yet.Branigan 00:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Latest on notes

Sorry to be away for a while. I'm not back yet. Need several hours of continuous time. I notice more attempted additions to the notes. I know Wikipedia programming language can often be daunting and it does take a while for the ordinary user to learn. My suggestion is, take the time and trouble to learn it before you try to make additions in it. If you can't better the article, is there much point in spending your time? For most of us time is precious. Someone is paying for this thing somewhere. It isn't ethical to just waste the money, as you are doing. Be that as it may, the article is no better, perhaps worse, than it was before. Still no discussion of style. The people who stopped me from working have added not one useful word, made no contribution at all. Their intent apparently was only to stop and insult me. I wanted you to see that. I note that vandalism is making a comeback, and now it includes "administrators" who got to be so by throwing in the required number of one-line stub articles. I don't think you could "administrate" your way out of a paper bag, but until WP discovers a method of sifting the bran from the chaff, I'm not wasting any more time, except for this article.Branigan 02:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

More note cleanup

Well, it is nice to stand off a bit, get a fresh view. I think I will do a little more now. On the notes, you have had plenty of opportunity to evaluate what kind of system you want. I will take it then I can proceed. I'll definitely keep you posted.

At the bottom there is a really interesting attempt to put in a template of some sort? Can't figure it out. Going to move it from article to here. I don't doubt it is a sincere effort but until you finish it, the article appears to become junk.Branigan 12:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The removed code is as follows. Not going to help you with it as I feel, if you are interested and old enough to work of WP, you should be able to follow through. If you need a sandbox, look up sandboxes in the help. A sandbox is a temp working area where you can experiment. When you get it looking good, of course, put it back in.Branigan 12:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

"{{Trevor R. Bryce. Anatolian scribes is Mycenaean Greece, Historia Zeitschrift fur Alte Geschichte Vol 48. Pages 257-264 1999. https://nhcc.ims.mnscu.edu/d2l/lms/content/viewer/main_frame.d2l?ou=1970954&tId=16008201}} {{Jan Driessen and Colin Macdonald. Some military aspects of the Aegean in the late fifteenth and early fourteenth centuries B.C. JSTOR VOL. 79 PAGES 49-74 http://bit.ly/138Tiut}} {{ed. “Iliad.” Wikipidia . N.p., n.d. Web. 04 29 13. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iliad>.}} {{Hittites.info. N.p, n.d. Web. 04 March 2013. <http://hittites.info/translations.aspx?text=translations/historical%2fApology+of+Hattusili+III+Translation.html>.}}"

Media external links

I removed these:

• Media
  • Richard Miles. "The Age of Iron". Ancient Worlds. 51:22 minutes in. BBC 2. Retrieved 20 November 201. {{cite episode}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |episodelink= (help)

• Film and television
• Helen of Troy (1956) - IMDb
• Helen of Troy (TV mini-series 2003) - IMDb
• Troy (2004) - IMDb

Naturally you want to know why. Well, the "age of iron" is no longer available. I have no objection to that sort of program and I have always admired the BBC. However, some things they give us for free and some not. The "age of iron" has gone out of the free category. This link does not even access it anymore. Tant pis.

The other three - well, really. Hollywood glitz comes to WP. These are works of fiction with little or no encyclopedic content. Imagine looking up Helen in Pauly-Wissova and seeing one of these advertisements! We don't need any universities; we can call the film companies. There is a second point also. These advertisements sell the videos thru Amazon. They are not giving them away for free. Now, I have never seen WP allow Amazon advertisements. We aren't selling the books and films here, at least not yet, and at least not with the hard sell. So, I think we must disallow these. Sorry, those are the rules. Other than that I recommend those films as great entertainment. Someone might want to do an article on cinema about Troy, but you still would not be able to use advertisements that sold the films.Branigan 01:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Djvu file

Schliemann's book was referenced as a web site at U. Georgia where the book could supposedly by viewed thru Djvu. On my system none of the site buttons worked. I supposed, as they advised, that I had to install the latest Djvu. Unfortunately they didn't mean that, but meant also all the other programs that load up your system with commercials and unintegrated software. After 1/2 hour and a shutdown I finally got my system back to where it had been. At that point the Djvu display appeared a full 20 minutes after I had requested it. I didn't even try to read the book. I don't think WP users want to waste a large part of their study time trying to get Djvu to work. I looked it up on Google and replaced the url with Google's pdf. No fuss no muss.Branigan 02:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The wood book

In specifying this book I put too many ISBN's in, which was rightly tagged by someone. As I recall the editors used a couple of different editions of Wood. Clearly the thing to do is select one edition and make sure all the Wood refs use its pagination, if that is different. However now I notice Wood has come out with a second edition. I guess he still searching for Troy. The second edition changes the 1st and last chapters and the biblio. So, fixing the refs to Wood's book is a little more laborious. If I defer it a little be patient.Branigan 02:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Such was the fame

Such is the fame of this line apparently from this article that a search for it turns up at least a dozen uses, including Google Mobile Reference. Most do not give WP credit. I can't find it in regular Google books, which means that at least in this check it does not seem to be plagiarism. Apparently, some WP editor wrote the section. If you find out any different, please tag the section for plagiarism, making sure to discuss it here, or add a reply to this section. WP is pretty well set against plagiarism.Branigan 09:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Logic problem

I removed these statements:

"According to Marcus Terrentius Varro, the gens Salentini descended from Idomeneus, see Grecìa Salentina.Jordanes described how the Goths sacked "Troy and Ilium" after they had recovered from the war with Agamemnon."

These do not fit the flow of the logic. The argument is that, following Rome's example, the dynasts of subsequent Europe devised mythical descents from the Trojans. They did indeed, but Idomeneus and his Cretans fought with the Greeks. They probably were Greek, as the Mycenaeans had taken over Knossos. So, Idomeneus is not a good example of a Trojan descent. For the Goths, well, they seem to have nothing to do with Euro-Trojan descents. After these isolated sentences, probably inherited from an earlier write-up, the argument resumes. Branigan 02:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Troy versus Hisarlik: confused

I just improved the infobox and a few images in this article among other minor improvements. While reading part of the article itself, I thought the distinction between Troy and Hisarlik is very confusing. Apparently they are the same site, but they have different articles? Doesn't it make more sense to merge them? Also, the intro of Troy it is written that: "Today, the hill at Hisarlik has given its name to a small village near the ruins... The nearest village is Tevfikiye." Which village is named after Hisarlik then? According to Google Maps Tevfikiye is indeed the closest village, and I don't see the name Hisarlik on the map at all. --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Why was John Lascelles' book removed?

Why was my reference and cite to Lascelles "Troy: The World Deceived" (ISBN 1-4120-5829-5) deleted? He argued that Pergamum was the actual location of Troy. Doesn't that argument fit under the alternative location section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottmatthewmcdonough (talk • contribs) 18:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

1. It was given undue prominence compared to other proposals. I have corrected that.
2. The theory is referenced to a self-published book, normally not considered a reliable source. Is there any evidence in a RS that this theory is taken seriously by anyone but the author? I have not found any reviews.

--Macrakis (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs here at all, unless it can be shown that it is a significant view per WP:UNDUE. I'm concerned that the main source giving him coverage may be our article. Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

We should review the other proposals in this section, too. Amazingly, Where Troy Once Stood even has its own Wikipedia article. --Macrakis (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's because there were a few comments on it in RS. Hm, just looked at it again and realised that I'm seriously not happy with some of the wording.Macrakis, do you want to discuss it at the article's talk page? Dougweller (talk) 10:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I took a quick look and made a few small edits. I don't think there's much to add. It is pseudoscience, but pseudoscience can be notable, based on reviews, best-selling lists, etc. Not sure if it meets those criteria, but apparently enough others do. Anyway, the goal is to report on the book accurately, and not confuse its perspective with our editorial perspective as an encyclopedia. --Macrakis (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Merger with Hisarlik article?

Given this article's acceptance that Hisarlik is the site of ancient Troy (a theory with which I very much agree!), should we simply redirect Hisarlik to here? That article, which I have been trying to make minor improvements to, is really little more than a pale imitation of this one. My apologies if I am retreading old ground here, but I haven't seen it (at least anything within the last few years). Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

While there is no doubt that the scholarly consensus is that it is Hisarlik is the location of Troy, the current article on Hissarlik seems long enough and specific enough that it should remain a separate article. It contains details about the excavation of Troy that could be spun off from the main article under the heading "Main article: Excavation of Troy" or "Main article: Excavations at Hisarlik". Since there is no modern village on top of Hisarlik, and it seems that even in Ottoman times the settlements were around, but not on the mount, there is no disambiguation problem. I would leave well enough alone, but if you want to move it to a new namespace, I would not object to that either. I would only object to a full merger. The current Troy article is only ~48,000 bytes so a split on size alone does not meet the WP:Splitting criteria based on size, but I do think it meets the criteria for a content split. The history of its identification and excavations, notable events in themselves, are a separate component of Troy's overall history. -Jpbrenna (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Wilusa

Why is "Wilusa" included in the summary as the Hittite name for the city? Last I checked, this was still entirely speculative and had by no means been confirmed as indicating Hittite knowledge of the legendary city.

--CimonT (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

LH III meaning, please?

Thank you for using terminology that needs explaining but doesn't search at all. The archeological world may consider this a given, but those guys don't really need Wiki, do they? If I had to guess, I'd say Late Homeric, but you are forcing me to ASSume. Searching "late homeric" turns up zilch. And, of course, this begs the question of what you mean by LH III A and B, or the meaning of LH I and II. They are all time periods? Which ones? What the hell are you trying to say?? Don't just throw terminology around assuming everyone gets it! At the very least, link the words themselves to the correct info. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helladic_period#Late_Helladic_III_.28LHIII.29 for instance. SOMETHING. Thetrellan (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done --A D Monroe III (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Too soon and a bit iffy

But [6]- I’m not sure about Zangger as a source. Doug Weller talk 20:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Change of default map

The default map should not be the map of Marmara. I understand instantly where the marked location is but I am sure that most of the readers are more familiar with the map of Europe than with the part shown now. I tried to change it but I get an error message so I wont apply the changes. I am still a noob and I don't want to screw up the article so please somebody change it :P Einserschüler (talk) 10:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Mis-labelling of maps associated with this article

I don't want to change anything, for fear of making a mistake (being an old user of Wikipedia but a very infrequent editor) but I was astonished to read the titles on two maps, 'Troy is in Greece' and 'Troy is in Europe'.

My dear father passed away many years ago, so he can't ask for a refund on my education, but when I went to school, Troy was in Turkey, not Greece, and was in Asia, not Europe.

My visit to Troy a few years ago didn't dispel these notions.

Surely someone needs to fix these errors ???

kerville — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerville (talk • contribs) 02:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kerville: are you refererring to the clickable maps? They show, for instance, Greece in relation to the location of Troy. Doug Weller talk 14:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Troy VIIa

Troy VIIa has now been reclassified as Troy VIi. Although Troy VIh was severely damaged by an Earthquake, it is clear that there is cultural continuity between it and the rebult/repaired city. Hence, the latter is now considered to be part of Troy VI rather than VII. It is still the level that is associated with the Trojan War. Bringing the article into conformity with this new consensus will require a substantial rewrite which I am not prepared to undertake at the present time, but may eventually do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4070:6240:1C5B:E934:455B:F062 (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I noticed the problem. I don't see any reclassification. There is no "new consensus." The main picture at the head of the box is in Blegen as Troy VI, so this question goes back to before late Blegen. As far as I can make out from Korfmann's Guidebook, it is not an either/or situation, either Troy VI or Troy VIIa, but is a both situation. This is what I am trying to say with the presentation on layers. There is no total replacement of cities from layers to layer, much if not most of the cultural elements get passed from layer to layer. New elements are of course introduced from time to time. The Troy VI wall, tower and gate was reconstructed or refurbished for Troy VIIa and served in both; that is, Troy VIi precedes Troy VIIa. Korfmann refers to the Troy VIi-Viia wall. In Viia houses were built along the inside of the VI wall. I will continue to look into it. This article IS a lot of work and needs a lot of work. It can't be done in a hasty review or in fly-by nasty comments by self-styled Wikipedia big shots and I will not be pushed on it. It IS my field of interest. By the way, Troy VIIb rather than a was and I believe is Cincinnati's choice for the 10th year of the Trojan War. But, there is some variation of the chronology and a lot of serious archaeologists prefer Troy VI. Certainly, for the ancestral background you would need Troy VI. VI and VIIa are fairly close. Ciao.Botteville (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

OK,a according to one table in my Korfmann source there is a suggestion by one author to eliminate VIIa by moving it into VI. There would then be VIIb/c but no a. It does not look as though it is generally accepted, so let's not overreact. It mainly affects us in the pictures. I notice Livius isn't saying too much. No need to go rewriting the whole article for some avant-garde idea. I will check it out and try to reach a balanced solution for us. This article is like a fly trap, once in you can't get out. But, it needs updating and improvement. Things at Troy move pretty fast after so long a stasis.Botteville (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The balance I reached is this. Like Korfmann himself I retained the more conventional classification on the grounds that the new material is yet unverified by journal article process. However I mentioned the new material as new material and left room for its further presentation by whatever hardy souls want to undertake it. Just to change entirely over, every reference, every implication, seems to me to be premature at this point. Korfmann's gone, he can't defend himself. Let's see how it plays out.Botteville (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Revisit

I worked on this in its earlier days and I am pleased to say that it has acquired much useful information. The organization however falls short of my original intention and what is worse people seem afraid to touch it now. After all it has such high visibility and so many contentiouss prima donnas have worked on it or have stopped anyone else from working on it. We have definitely reached a plateau. I have had a nice break now and there are some content and format issues I would like to address, as well as going on with my original plan. For formatting - well, the end sections seem to have gotten totally mixed up. The references also are pretty much mixed format. I had it on Harvard ref at one point. I think I will pick up there. For content, I wanted each Troy to have its own section. I realize now I will not get that unless I do it myself, so I will start to do that while I am addressing the format. This is a work-off-line-dump-in affair. I will certainly give what is there due consideration. On with the show (in slow motion).Botteville (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

You sure are into yourself. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

More on revisit

For the benefit of the reviewers: well, I started on it. The main content problem is, Korfmann changed the direction of the theory on Troy but the article has not fully adapted. Not only that but the site has a new manager now. I will be covering and referencing some of these changes. I know you have read in the literature all about the great attack on Korfmann by his colleagues concerning whether Troy was a commercial city. They all do that, it is a kind of game they are trained to play. I don't think one can take it too seriously. It only means they have plenty of money to squander on publicity games. Korfmann is taken quite seriously, but alas, he is gone now so he can't defend himself. Lycidas is dead, young Lycidas, and hath not left his peer. But, if Troy was not a commercial city, I'd like to know just what it was. All cities were commercial. Agriculture and herding were left up to the villagers. Anyway as I got into the article I noticed smaller improvements that could be made or should be made, so, I'm doing that also.Botteville (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Weller and Johnbod, my two favorite personalities. While I appreciate having other eyes on the article, there are certain implications. Are we having authorship property now? I don't think I'm the original Troy author, but if I were, would that give me some kind on lease on the article? I doubt it. Then there is the permission question. What, I can't work on the article without your permission? Since when?

But don't misunderstand me, I appreciate the work you experienced co-editors do. Johnbod, you are probably wondering what happened to my "Aegean Culture" initiative. It turned out to be more work than I could handle at the time. I found that, a number of definitions of "Aegean" had crept in, so you could always find references for your point of view. At the same time the view is still traditional that "Aegean" does not include Helladic and certainly not the Peloponnesus. The overwhelming part is that the traditional view prevails in a lot of articles. I found I would have to do a History of Mycenaean pottery and I did do a lot of work on that article. There were so many articles. I still intend to get back on that thread at some time, I just don't know when. So that is what happened to that initiative. Don't be insulted, but you aren't any righter now than you were then. Sometimes Wikipedia by chance gets lopsided in its view. Ciao. Knossos needs an initiative also, but that one has a watchdog that effectively blocks any work on it. So it hangs there, waiting for a champion to take on the Cerberus. Again, it's on my back burner list, but if I were to do it, taking on Cerberus, it would take all my time. Like everyone else, I got a life too.Botteville (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Monroe's SYNTH objection

Monroe! Are you following me around? How did you get here from Battle of Trafalgar? I don't especially like being dogged. I hope it does not continue. Now, for the objection. The statement about Patroclus probably was SYNTH. On the other hand your theory of image captions can't possibly be true. The reader needs to know something about why the image is there and what it represents. They are not disconnected. Just to throw in images randomly makes no sense at all. Do you have a help reference for your theory on captions? In this specific picture, it is developed in the article that the plain before Troy was for much of Troy's history an inlet of the sea. That is why I chose this picture. Therefore I am restoring that fact without the SYNTH. Ciao.Botteville (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Schliemann section straying from topic

This section having struck my attention for its vituperation though referenced, I rewrote some of it to achieve balance of point of view. There were some less formal complaints about the rewrites not being referenced and being MY opinion. The answer would be to put in some glowing refs to Schliemann, but that would expand the discussion of Schliemann's character. Having suggested it less formally, I now request the removal of the discussion of Schliemann's character, including the two negative references. This is not about Schliemann's life and character, only an introduction to his contributions at Troy.Botteville (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Removed paragraph inerted by non-user

"However these ideas may be some what politically driven as Trojans had greek names and worshipped greek gods and if are to believe the romans who believed their ancestors migrated to italy as refugees from troy, it would support that Troy was indeed a greco roman --ionian greek state...linguistics and basic archaeology in the area would confirm this..."

Hi. I do not mean to be insulting but your ideas are totally non-professional. Wikipedia-wise there are some practices broken. "Politically driven" is an unexplained and unsupported opinion of you alone. What are the ellipses? Are you quoting and if so whom? Those are some pretty big issues for which you would need references.

I can shed some light on the ideas you bring up. The possibility of Trojans being Greek was certainly considered in the 20th century, and rejected. For one thing, the writer or writers of the Iliad were Greek writing in a Greek milieu, so they would have Hellenized any names in another language. A lot of those names manifestly do not have a native Greek origin. This is such a big topic it would need its own section or article. I don't know what you mean by linguistics and basic archaeology "would confirm this." That is what we cover, linguistics and basic archaeology, and it confirms the way we have it. Also linguistics is pretty careful about its languages and what it related or not related to what. As for the gods, they are notorious for passing from culture to culture, as the polytheists were fond of making equivalents. For the Romans, the imperial ideology promulgated by Virgil is well-known. Virgil never says Aeneas spoke Latin at Troy or Greek either. There is no Greco-Roman-Ionian Greek culture or state. The mid-20th century idea that Greek and Latin are closely related went out the window in the latter 20th century. Well, I don't want to get too wordy nor do I wish to hurt your feelings. If you want to edit for Wikipedia you have to do better than that. I might suggest joining and biting the bullet but that is YOUR decision.Botteville (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Purple Prose

I excised several phrases that are non-encyclopaedic. Please discuss here before reverting the change, and explain how the phrasing highlighted meets Wikipedia standards (especially avoiding WP:PEACOCK):

The Calverts began to arrive. There was space in their hearts for all, though not in the hectic town. The Turkish building code required buildings of wood only. Periodically the town burned down. In the worst fire – in the window 1836 to 1838 – the family bolted out the door with nothing but the clothes they were wearing to escape a raging inferno. The same fire totally destroyed Lander's collection of books on the Troad, burned all the consular offices, and destroyed the Pasha's palace along with half the town. The flags of all the nations were flying next day above the smouldering ruins as the boom went on. In 1840 Lander suffered a tragedy from which he never recovered. His wife, Adele, died in her 40's, leaving three small children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Last1in (talk • contribs) 16:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Last1in: WP:EDITORIAL also says to avoid the word "tragically". Then there's "Meanwhile a greater question came to the fore. Throughout the Bronze Age the greatest power in Anatolia was the Hittites, with capital in central Anatolia. Why were there no links to them? How could the coastal states have avoided them?" Unencyclopedic. Who is asking these questions? Evidently the editor who added them. Note all the unsourced material - despite the fact he's been warned about this more than once. Doug Weller talk 17:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Who do you think you are, Weller? You aren't sitting in judgement on ME! I'm not a vandal but a serious editor. Your behavior on this is inexcusable. You complain about my being too wordy and then you go ahead and and be far too wordy yourself. I think you need to resign from administration immediateley, as you have no knack for it at all. You are not user-friendly. Furthermore, your frequent interferences are holding this article up. It has been bad for 15 years. What exactly is your goal here? You don't warn, you don't persecute the editors. This isn't personal. I've warned you about this before and you just ignore it and go on with your personal vendetta. What did I ever do to you? I object strenuously. You're supposed to be objective.

Now, for your excisions. Well, they are mostly of style. If you are looking for a fight there, I am not going to give it to you. The reason is that these are joint articles and you have as much right to determine the style as I. You have not said anything wrong as far as I can see, so let it stand. You want to write it one way, I wrote it another way. Neither one of us has the right to have it only his way. In fact I should thank you for condensing the material. Thanks. While you are looking back, you will see that I never argue with the wording unless the editor changes the meaning. There's always another way to say it.

For the sources, I am not done with this section. I do have sources. But you know, you always claim unsourced material, but you never say what. That is what the tags are for. You request a source. I put it in. In deference to your interest, I will do more on this section. The whole article needs me to get back to it. You will get your shot at it.Botteville (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Where do you get off taking this kingly attitude? Is your name James Wales? Does WP pay you a salary? Who made YOU king? I will put in there whatever I judge to be best for the article and I will do so up the the 3-reversion rule! What's wrong with you? Is this how you treat new editors, to drive them off? I've been on here longer than you. I don't need YOUR permission to put anything back. Naturally, if you had a valid reason I did not answer you could revert it, or if you can find another editor you can claim a consensus. Quit harassing me and follow the procedure. If you don't like it, too bad. If you think you can roll back everything I've done, by all means do it. If you think you can block me, do that! If you want the children to settle your supposed adult demeanor, put in for it! What ever you in your vicious hate think you can do to me, by all means get it done! Otherwise when next you answer I would expect a more civil and objective tone.Botteville (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Now, I am going on with this section. I cannot guarantee that it will not change. Ciao. For all your pompous talk I do not think you can do anything about it. Resign from the administration.Botteville (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Um, my last edit to the article was 11:26, 20 July 2019. So, no incisions. The rest of your comments about me are just as accurate. Note that the warning about personal attacks I just gave you had nothing to do with the ones above, but were about your edit summary on the article. That couldn't have been aimed at me because I hadn't edited the article. Also note that you have stated above that you are happy to WP:Editwar. You're very confused if you think you can't be blocked if you don't exceed 3RR. You're also wrong in suggesting I might block you. That would never happen, it would be a violation of my Admin rights. And if your talking about my "vicious hate" and "pompous tone" is you being civil and objective, I'd hate to be around you while you weren't being civil or objective. Doug Weller talk 13:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate you appreciation of your admin rights. I did mistake the other editor for you. What I found vicious about you is your previous remarks about my edits going back over a decade. If you can quit that personal attack we would do better. You should never warn or threaten or categorize. This is against the law and is a violation of civil rights. I have a right not to be harassed on the Internet. Treat me like a colleague and we will do better. For the rest of it, ha ha. This is the old jest, with friends like you I don't need any enemies. I wasn't saying I could not be blocked, only that you could not block me. Of course if you have scruples the comment should never have been made. People with ethics and morals do not bully and bluster. Many on here don't have those. You sounded like you were taking your hand at dominance. If that was just a slip-up, fine. I've made plenty of those. Meanwhile another editor outside the context has jumped in and made threats and blusters of her own. I don't approve but this person is a question mark as yet. Can she block? Does she block? Is she going to block? What else does she do besides threaten and block? I was thinking of creating a special section of my UP just for people who like to warn. Then you can all go at it. I think there are several more colors on those little dots. What I really mean by all of this is, if I am to be blocked I would expect it to be done by and objective and serious-minded person. Lots and lots of administrators have been removed for various reasons. If we are going to start blocking people we can't be rude to, well, WP will always be somewhat limited in quality, and always be controled by cliques. But, I have not been blocked yet. I'm assuming, not that I can't be blocked, but that serious-minded and competant administrators would do the blocking. If that is not to be true then I guess I really would give up on WP and abandon it as a waste of time. Deliberate provocation is not the way to go. Well, I'm going on unless and until stopped. Other things have come up in the article.Botteville (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Metuboy changes

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.Botteville (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2020 (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.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? 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.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. 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.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. 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. 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.Botteville (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

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?Botteville (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

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.Botteville (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

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.Botteville (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Some serious problems

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.

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. —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. 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.Botteville (talk) 00:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

why is the "crimean war Debacle" and anything not directly related to Troy itself even in this article?

It seems completely extraneous and worthy of it's own wikipedia article — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKF011 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldlyBecket (talk • contribs) 19:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

is this a Calvert Family article?

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. MHCTruter (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Now look at 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? 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 romnempire (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

This talk section duplicates Talk:Troy#Some_serious_problems, which gives +2 to this scope criticism 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.Botteville (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Information from Rüstem Aslan of Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University

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. 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.Botteville (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2021 (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) ? 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.Botteville (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

History of Troy tag

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.Botteville (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Latest edits

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 in that spirit?

Some comments:

• 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.

• "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?

• For similar reasons, I'd like to keep the "better source" tag on the Iliad citation.

• 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.

Botterweg14 (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

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.

• 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.

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.

• 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.

• 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).

• 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.

• 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.

I hope this adequately explains the edits and the reasons I made them. Hoping you will agree with them, and use my feedback as a basis for continuing to improve the article, P Aculeius (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

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.

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. Botterweg14 (talk) 03:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)