![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I have rewritten "The death of Palamedes" section, to better (I hope) address writing from sources in our own words. I have reproduced my version below. I've also added a "Comments" section following for discussion. Paul August ☎ 19:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Odysseus was sent to Thrace to return with grain but came back empty handed. When scorned by Palamedes he challenged him to do better. Palamedes set out also and returned with a shipload.
Odysseus had never forgiven Palamedes for threatening the life of his son. So Odysseus conceived a plot. [1] An incriminating letter was forged, from Priam to Palamedes. [2] Gold was planted in Palamedes' quarters. The letter and gold were "discovered", and Agamemnon had Palamedes stoned to death for treason.
However, Pausanias quoting the Cypria, says that Odysseus and Diomedes drowned Palamedes, while he was fishing, and Dictys says that Odysseus and Diomedes, lured Palamedes into a well, which they said contained gold, then stoned him to death. [3]
Palamedes' father Nauplius sailed to the Troad and asked for justice, but was refused. In revenge Nauplius traveled among the Achaean kingdoms and told the wives of the kings that they were bringing Trojan concubines to dethrone them. Many of the Greek wives were persuaded to betray their husbands, most significantly Agamemnon's wife, Clytemnestra with Aegisthus, son of Thyestes. [4] this crap is just shit go find something else —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.67.70 ( talk) 02:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Comments? An issue I still have with the above, is I can find no source for the story about the grain told in the first paragraph. Where it is from? Paul August ☎ 19:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I like it. The grain tale is from Dictys Cretensis, it is attributed to that source by admiral Konstas (who says it is chapter 2 without giving line number), and Robert Graves mentions it but the Folio Society edition that I have does not have the notes! Ikokki 19:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
What is the source for the following:
Paul August ☎ 03:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
1. This text was there before I started woring on the article. I am not aware of the original source but I think that Graves mentions it as a bad theory, as does Karykas (I am not at home to confirm it) 2. Karykas mentions it, not just on his Mycenean book but also in his more general book on warfare from the neolithic to 146 BC. I thought it was properly marked. I am aware that the wiki article says that a helepolis had 200 crew but that was just the people manning it: If you put up those that pulled it you get 3,000. A Byzantine helepolis was even bigger, it had a crew of 3500, or at least that is what I read in one of the comments in my edition of Leo VI the Wise's Tactics Ikokki 23:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The most annoying thing when I read a book is going back and forth to the notes on the back in order to see if any of them have something interesting to say and to discover that while most are just plain references there a few readable ones. Ths is why I prefer books that put readable references in the bottom and split them from dry references in the back. This is why I split the references earlier. What is the nature of the objection? Ikokki 20:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with Akhilleus. Explanatory notes should be kept to a minimum and not get mixed with non-explanatory ones. Ikokki 19:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
or was it other reasons? Because i've played video games before and they said the reason for the trojan war was of Helen, was it true?
Pece Kocovski 09:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
To me, it is really, just a waste to massacre the trojans over a single woman. "godawful movie Troy"? Did this movie fail like the Alexander the great movie? (ps: he was Macedonian)
Pece Kocovski 23:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
There were three reasons that the Trojan war happened. The first was Helen, it's kind of like if someone stole your brother you would want him back. The second reason is along with Helen, Paris stole a lot of the Greek treasure and they wanted it back. The third was that the Greeks didn't really like the Trojans in the first place.-- Kangaroo2 ( talk) 18:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe another reason was that Agamemnon had been admiring trojan wealth and supposedly used Helen as an excuse for war. 71.243.213.136 ( talk) 12:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Ryan Tipton
Should modern day artistic representations (artwork, movie) of the Trojan War be added to the many pictures on this page? I believe an artistic or commercial representation is just as valid whether it's from the 10th century or the 21st, from an old commercial jar or a modern commercial movie. Just to spice up the article with variety. If you are to argue against this, I have this to say, neither ancient nor modern depictions hold any more validity, they are all just relatively simple caricatures.-- Exander 05:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I put up in early summer (Northern Hemisphere) most of the images here based on what was available at Wikimedia Commons at the mind. I don't mind if the top right image was removed (the only real reason I put it there was that by the time I had finished adding images it was the only one left) or some of the ones below but I would prefer if these were to stay:
Other than that I would not complain in advance for any changes Ikokki 23:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
geneally the war started because trojan prince paris stole greek queen helen,and ofcourse the king, melelaus dident like this
Is it really needed here? It looks utterly ridiculous ... "greece" victory? number of troops? Where all that nonsense came from? The latest movie? If the event did indeed took place at all, there were no even any city-states yet, named here as one of the combatants! (I wonder why any of those little tiny flags have not been inserted in that "infobox.")-- Barbatus 20:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This was discussed ad nauseam (meam, anyway) in the archives. The war is mythological, and so outside the scope of the MilHist wikiproject; even if there's some historical reality to the war, there's no way of getting real troop figures, commanders' names, etc. --Akhilleus ( talk) 22:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
In reviewing this article, I found just a few things. There are two "citation needed" tags in the Odyssey section, and a "citation needed" tag in the lead as well as a "clarify" tag in the lead. If these can be fixed, the rest of the article is amazing. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 00:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I have failed this article's GA because the above points were not addressed during the duration of the hold. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 15:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
This battle is widely believed to have taken place, even though a large amount of information available is legend. So why is it treated like a myth? If this is a battle, it should be within Wikiproject Military History and have a battle box.
What info box? Besides, my war info box was referenced with a reliable source.
The "warfare" section is more appropriate to the Iliad's entry, so I put it over there. Ifnkovhg 06:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is a mess of inaccuracies, clearly edited by amateurs who have no idea of how to evaluate ancient sources. The account of the "attempts" of Thetis to convey immortality upon her son Achilles is a nonsensical juxtaposition of contradictory sources, creating a narrative of repeated "attempts" that is unattested by any ancient version. The citation of Lycophron for fate other" six sons of Peleus is absurd: anyone who has actually read Lycophron's Alexandra with an ounce of comprehension would never cite this work for any isolated detail. If this is what Wikipedia would acknowledge as a "good article," then your quality control is a perfect joke. 139.179.110.34 18:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The sourced-based account is the only way to go. I could care less how annoying it is. Achilles' childhood does not exist outside of these mutually contradictory sources. He had no childhood that can be expressed biographically, because he was never a child. As for the Bibliotheke, by all means include Apollodorus – as a late and derivative source, clearly identified as such. But Lycophron is off limits unless you're prepared to draft an article explaining all the references in that nightmare of a gryphos (and it's likely that Apollodorus got his 'facts' from the Alexandra). Frazer is not an independent source: if it "merits mention," then mention it in the context of discussing Frazer's use and abuse of his classical sources. 139.179.110.34 ( talk) 19:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
In the historical basis section at the end: the mention of the fire beacons in Aesch. Agamemnon seems out of place with the rest of the section; is it worth mentioning? FWIW, Any Classics PhD will tell you that in the play, Trojan war = Persian Wars. Google "Xerxes fire relay" and you'll find evidence that Aeschylus' beacon relay is an allusion to a similar relay used by Xerxes in the Persian Wars. Ifnkovhg ( talk) 06:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
It's around 80k as it stands now, yes? Isn't that inordinately huge? I don't know the answer, but I've seen articles in the 70k range called too long. It seems to me that most of the sections after the The Sack of Troy could be truncated (Nostoi -- it has its own article) or even eliminated (Odyssey -- kind of a separate entity, it seems to me.) Any thoughts? Ifnkovhg ( talk) 06:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The article is written a lot like a short story, but since it is a historical war, it means the article says the Greek gods really did take part of war in Mycenaean times. For example, have a look at this sentence: The war originated from a quarrel between the goddesses Athena, Hera and Aphrodite, after Eris, the goddess of strife and discord, gave them a golden apple, sometimes known as the Apple of Discord, marked "for the fairest". There is no indication that this is myth, it states a reason for the war is if that is what historians and archaeologists have found. And the disclaimer The following summary of the Trojan War follows the order of events as given in Proclus' summary, along with the Iliad, Odyssey, and Aeneid, supplemented with details drawn from other authors. further down is too easy to miss, a reader is not likely to read the whole article top down. It would also benefit from saying which book/vase/other artifact says what part of the story. Narayanese ( talk) 22:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended a list of other comments which, whilst they are not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.
(These issues must be satisfactorily addressed, in the article itself or here, before GA promotion can go ahead)
(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)
There is more of the article to go, but I'm going to stop here because a) I'm tired and b) This article has serious fundamental problems which I feel the primary editors need to work on before I go any further. Basically the premise of the article is flawed. At least 90% of the text tells the "story" of the Siege of Troy. unfortunately it is clear that there is more than one version of this story and the text as it currently exisits seems to be attempting to appease them all, with the result that the article is unencyclopedic and confusing. What needs to happen, in addition to the comments above, is for the article to have a substantial change in tone. That does not mean it needs to be rewritten, but instead means that the differences between versions should be discussed at the point of contention in the text sequence. The historical writers who are in dispute should be named and the merits and differences discussed clearly. A narrative voice simply does not work alone here and has to be interspersed with more textual analysis. In addition, far greater weight has to be given to historical and cultural interpretation of the Trojan War and its influences elsewhere. This should be an article about the Trojan War, not a summary of it.
I am holding rather than failing this article because it clearly has had an enormous amount of work put into it, and all that work is perfectly valid, it just needs representing in a clearer and more developed way. If/when the problems already highlighted above have been dealt with, I'll be happy to finish the review and run over the new text (as long as work is continuing I'm happy to extend the time limit more or less indefinately, although if it goes on too long I might ask for a second opinion.) Well done on all the work so far and I hope this article can improve further. All the best-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 00:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone happen to know an estimated death count? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.213.136 ( talk) 12:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the history of the page, there has been no substantive edit to the page since 24th March. However, there is well over a screen's worth of vandalism (mainly by anon accounts) and reverts. So, will it save us all some effort if the page were semi-protected?-- Peter cohen ( talk) 16:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I've just re-nominated this page for another bout of semi-protection. The level of IP vandalism on this page is unreasonable. -- Pstanton ( talk) 00:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, I am afraid that this article has quickfailed GA. Please see the last GA review I did for this article, most of the problems have not been addressed and have to be before this has a chance of passing.
Thankyou and I am sorry the review was not more positive, if you disagree with my assesment then you are more than welcome to take the article to WP:GAR. I hope you have better luck next time, all the best.-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 18:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to the excellent Juliancolton, Trojan War has been semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks due to all the IP vandalism. We have two weeks to edit in peace, and by then hopefully the vandals will have moved on and gotten lives. -- Pstanton ( talk) 01:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that it's appropriate to have written that Paris "fucked" Helen. You may argue that its true, but I think "had an affair" or similar would be more appropriate. No, I'm not a middle-aged woman who complains loads, I a normally non-complaining 17 year old, but I feel that thats quite rude to write that on there.
One claims descent, not descendance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.50.139 ( talk) 13:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The term "presently" is one of those that has different usage and meanings in different varieties of English. (See [1] for an explanation.) It therefore swhould be avoided per Wikipedia:ENGVAR#National_varieties_of_English to avoid confusion.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 16:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Is the trojan war mentioned in the bible someone told me that priam is mentioned but im not sure please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.147.93 ( talk) 02:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
No, neither the Trojan War nor Priam are mentioned. --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Iliad and Odyssey are modern names for these two Epics. Weren't the original names for large sections, recited and published independently (e.g., Catalog of Ships, Fall of Troy)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.233.183 ( talk) 06:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
change Achaeans to athens they fought the athens first then troy. 174.27.209.55 ( talk) 02:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
What's the †dagger for, please? -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 09:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, when you guys unfairly removed the infobox from the article, you removed the image. Now I don't know about you, but that image looks quite good on the article and I would really appreciate it if you returned it.-- Valkyrie Red ( talk) 22:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I have read the above argument and I still think that there should be an infobox for this. Most of you may think that the even wasn't real, however, plenty of scholars have said that this event was real. The ruins of the city was even discovered. As for the facts and figures, Bettany Hughes Non-Fiction book Helen of Troy states all those listed. If you actually took the time to look through the footnotes, than you'd have read that.-- Valkyrie Red ( talk) 21:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I still don't see why there is no need for an infobox. An infobox's purpose is to provide the reader with an overview of the article, while the article is too explain the infobox's information. In the first sentence, this article states in Greek mythology, therefore the reader knows that this even may or may not be true. Why should you try to close an open clam?-- Valkyrie Red ( talk) 02:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Foolish remark on your part Akhilleus. Saying that no one thinks the Trojan War existed is complete bias, and doesn't maintain a neutral point of view on your part. Bettany Hughes, as I have stated earlier, is a historian who has written a book regarding the war, as well as created documentarys. Finding one person is all I need to do to counter your "no one thinks" claim.--
Valkyrie Red (
talk)
11:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Now, since you two seem to think that an infobox should only be used for 100% proven conflicts, please, do show me the Wikipedian article that states this.-- Valkyrie Red ( talk) 11:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Now, since you two seem to be stuck on the fact that infobox's should only be used for 100% proven conflicts, please, do show me the Wikipedian page that says this.-- Valkyrie Red ( talk) 11:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Once again an ignorant remark posted. There is plenty of evidence that states this war was real, not legendary. You are letting your own personal opinions judge your support. You are one of the people that sees this war as being fake.
But, going to the military box, the article states the following "A military conflict box, may be used to summarize information about a particular military conflict....". Where exactly in that sentence (let alone article) does it state that the conflict has to have been proven real 100%? To save you time, my fellow editors, it doesn't. We can all agree that this "event" was a conflict of some kind, whether or not it has been completely proven (which is divided). Therefore, a war box is allowed to be used.-- Valkyrie Red ( talk>) 19:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)>
What exactly do my past offenses have to do with this? I am not edit-warring. Just having a conversation with you editors.
Now, you have completely ignored my statement. A war box may be used for any conflict, not just proven ones. Therefore, a war box would be allowed for this.--
Valkyrie Red (
talk)
20:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
All right, I'll drop this. No wonder conservapedia was created. This website really is full of bias.-- Valkyrie Red ( talk) 22:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I hate to burst your bubble, but to most people that is all that really matters. I know its all I cared about when I was an undergrad. I'm not going to go to war over it though; if consensus is to make it harder for visitors and the unknowable to find the important information far be it for me to suggest a way to improve the article for everyone's benefit. TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
So basically your only argument for not having the infobox is that you personally think that it detracts from the article, which in turn is a weak argument. I think a new consensus has been reached, no?-- Valkyrie Red ( talk) 14:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Edward130603 has said that the infobox in Attack on Pearl Harbor leaves out some of the most important information in the article (strategic blunders, whether on the part of the Japanese or Americans I don't know). In other words, even in an article about a historical battle, the infobox is not suited to summarize all of the important facts covered in the article. If the infobox doesn't present useful information to the reader, the only argument for including it is WP:ILIKEIT—in other words, no argument at all.
By the way, I'd like everyone to look at this comment by User:Kirill Lokshin, who at that time was the coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject (he's now a member of the Arbitration Committee). Kirill Lokshin said that fictional battles don't fall within the purview of WP:MILHIST, and that the Trojan War, as a mythological event, falls under that category. I'd consider the former coordinator of the MILHIST project an authoritative source on which articles belong in the project's scope. This whole argument was settled back in 2006; why do we have to have it again now? --Akhilleus ( talk) 17:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately sir, Tom Star is the new military history coordinator and we're going by his word, not the previous one. If a fictional event such as One Year War can have an infobox, then why can't the Trojan War? Currently, the only argument that you've provided for not having an infobox is I don't like it.-- Valkyrie Red ( talk) 02:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Although the Trojan War has a lot of mythological aspects, it is not quite on par with something like Titanomachy. On the other hand, it is very similar to something like Battle of Banquan and Battle of Zhuolu (both battles are more or less legendary). They both have infoboxes, further showing that mythological battles can definitely have infoboxes. Infoboxes just help to summarize. They aren't the only things that readers look at, but they do give easily understandable basic info that readers would likely want to see.-- Edward130603 ( talk) 00:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to disappoint you Mr. Akhilleus, but that is only one side of the coin. Perhaps a look at this article should help clarify the picture for you.-- Valkyrie Red ( talk) 17:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Akhilleus, lol yes I have read the article. Yes, it is indeed not "all mythology" (although I don't think I ever said that). Note that "almost everything from that time period is considered legendary", as quoted from the Battle of Zhuolu, although there is historical basis. If there is no further opposition, I (or someone else) will reinsert the infobox. -- Edward130603 ( talk) 19:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Sure, umm I kinda just thought that we were done with the D part of BRD, since you guys weren't really saying anything. I guess I rushed it a little possibly. Please don't distort my intentions though, I didn't threaten anyone, just trying to prevent useless reverting/edit warring. I have no problem with a RFC, although those do often take a while. If you wish to, please go ahead and list it. -- Edward130603 ( talk) 01:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm getting the feeling that none of the infobox advocates have read much scholarship about the Trojan War or about the late bronze age. In fact, I'd say this is guaranteed by people's references to Bettany Hughes' book. She's a popular writer and TV presenter, folks, not a classical scholar. Take a look at what scholars who have investigated the historicity of the Trojan War, like Joachim Latacz. Dougweller already gave us a relevant quote describing Latacz's work, which I'm going to repeat: "Hughes draws particularly on the work of the Swiss scholar Joachim Latacz, whose recent book on Troy claimed that Homer’s epics contain authentic memories of a Trojan war. Yet not even Latacz argues that Helen — or the heroes who fought over her, come to that — ever existed as historical characters; and what Hughes nowhere acknowledges is that Latacz’s book was written as a response to scholars who ferociously disagree with his arguments..." In other words, Latacz believes that there is a historical basis for the stories about the Trojan War, but that doesn't mean that all the stories about the war are historically accurate. Latacz doesn't believe that Odysseus, Ajax, Achilles, Diomedes, etc. were real people, and I highly doubt that he believes the war lasted 10 years, or involved over 1 million combatants, as the infobox would have it. And this is one of the scholars who is most optimistic in thinking that Homeric epic reflects history. So let's try to understand that "historicity" isn't a simple on/off switch, but a matter of degrees. And saying that the Iliad might reflect, over a distance of at least 400 years, historical events, is a long way from saying that a Greek alliance, numbering hundreds of thousands, commanded by the king of Mycenae, attacked Troy. --Akhilleus ( talk) 04:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Mr. Cynwolfe, while I do commerate you for such a great idea, I have to ask you to take a look at the Wikipedian article for Infoboxes regarding a military action. To save you time, let me post what to you what it says "A military conflict infobox (sometimes referred to as a warbox) may be used to summarize information about a particular military conflict (a battle, campaign, war, or group of related wars) in a standard manner."
Now sir, could I ask you where exactly in that sentence it states that the military conflict must be proven 100%?-- Valkyrie Red ( talk) 17:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
(copied from above section by Edward130603)
Yes, this idea does sound like a good compromise in that it won't portray the war as something 100% proven. What do other editors think of this idea?. -- Edward130603 ( talk) 17:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
As I stated above, I support this. Valkyrie Red ( talk) 18:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Well that 3 for and none against. If no one has anything else to say, can we do this now?-- Valkyrie Red ( talk) 02:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but it is I think too soon to close this RfC. Among other things, I can't reply right now but may be able to later today, Akhilleus hasn't replied, it hasn't been listed at WikiProject Mythology, if this is the war infoxbox we are talking about it needs to be listed on the talk page for that, etc. Really, there's no rush, and considering there have been discussions before I think it's vital to get it right this time. I'm travelling, closing down my laptop (which just crashed as I was editing this earlier), so if anyone can add it to other appropriate pages please do this. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 10:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
All right, so we have 4 for 2 maybe and 1 against. I believe a consensus has been reached.
Valkyrie Red (
talk)
15:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there will be any problems with that. It appears that almost everyone thinks that an infobox could work here. Would anyone like to make a draft version for discussion before we (possibly) put it in the article? (That would give Akhilleus some more time to respond as well)-- Edward130603 ( talk) 21:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Trojan War | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Part of the Greek Epic Cycle | |||||||
![]() The Fall of Troy, by Johann Georg Trautmann (1713–1769). From the collections of the granddukes of Baden, Karlsruhe. | |||||||
| |||||||
Belligerents | |||||||
Achaeans (Greeks), led by the city-states of Mycenae, Sparta, and Argos | Trojans (also Greeks), and their allies in Anatolia | ||||||
Commanders and leaders | |||||||
Agamemnon Menelaus Achilles † |
Priam † Hector † Memnon † | ||||||
Strength | |||||||
1186 ships, carrying perhaps 70,000 to 130,000 men [2] [3] [4] | 16 contingents of unknown size [5] | ||||||
All accounts of the Trojan War come from literary sources, which in turn are based on earlier oral traditions. Although archaeological evidence proves both the existence of Troy and its destruction about this time, the extent to which the accounts contained in the Epic Cycle are based on actual historical persons and events is unknown. |
Here's an attempt to revise the former infobox along the lines that we discussed. I don't have a lot of experience with these, so I'd welcome your comments and suggestions. And Cynwolfe, I don't know how to insert your "narrative sources" line, although it sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I'd put it on the line after "result" and in the same format. If you can do that I'd be grateful!
I've included Mycenae and Sparta because they were the city-states led by Agamemnon and Menelaüs, and Argos because Homer uses Argives synonymously with Achaeans, and Argos was one of the major contributors to the war effort. For the same reasons, I decided to leave Nestor, Diomedes, and Ajax in the list of commanders, since each was not just a warrior but king of one of the city-states. I left out Odysseus because his force, like many others, was relatively small, even if his advice was very important.
P Aculeius (
talk)
23:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but this just illustrates exactly what I don't like about Infoboxes. Any reader who just looked at this wouldn't know it was not a real war.
Dougweller (
talk)
00:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Wow man, you have out down yourself. Awesome job P Aculeius. The only problem I see is that Nestor wasn't killed in the war. He arrived back safely as described in Book 3 of the Odyssey. Also, shouldn't Paris be listed as a commander? He played a key role in the war such as starting it for one thing and killing Achilles. I agree that the casualties line be removed.
For those of you saying that it will confuse the reader as to whether or not it was real, why don't we look at two facts. 1) I assume that people who read this article will have had some background information to have even known about the topic. That being said, it is safe to assume that readers will already have known that this war has a bit of controversy to it. 2) In the very first line of the article it says "in Greek Mythology. Another thing to point out is that this war does have truth to it. Saying that this war didn't exist is like saying God doesn't exist. There are two very strong sides to that.-- Valkyrie Red ( talk) 01:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
There are several things that strike me about the current box
-- Peter cohen ( talk) 10:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Readers will not be misled into thinking that the Trojan War is 100% proven and fact. If they were lucky enough to have read the first sentence, I'm sure they would pretty much understand the context of the Trojan War. I have no problem with using/making a new infobox that presents this war more as a narrative. Bronze Age as the date is fine in my opinion (although circa YYYY-YYYY is ok too I think). I think "Major Figure" is a good idea. Alternatively, we can say "Mythological Commander/Hero" for people like Agamemnon. If consensus is that the forces involved is unknown, we can put "Unknown" for that part. -- Edward130603 ( talk) 18:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Exactly: you argue that it will confuse readers into thinking that the war was a real conflict. Once again I posted a comment in response to this statement but you overlooked/ignored it. Let me rephrase what is said.
1) We can assume that people reading this article will have already had some sort of background knowledge regarding the subject. The only other way they could've gotten to this article is if they clicked on the random page button (but the probability is still high that they won't get redirected to this page. Therefore, they already would've known that the said conflict wasn't completely true.
2) The first sentence states "in Greek Mythology".-- Valkyrie Red ( talk) 19:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Valkyrie Red seems to have been tidying this talk page. I'm sure he/she has a good reason for deleting, by way of example, this post from long-standing contributor Paul August, but it seems relevant to current discussions. Generally speaking deleting other editors' talk page comments is thought of as, at best, poor etiquette—policy here. Apologies, of course, if I'm missing something or my interpretation of the page history is faulty. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 14:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
My apologies good sir. I was just trying to help clean up the talk page of useless posts. If that was wrong of me, then please, by all means rollback everything I did-- Valkyrie Red ( talk) 19:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Input still sought on the template, which is still just hanging out here on the talk page. I didn't do this just for the ouzo. Please comment above under the relevant sections, so we can finish this up and move on. If there's no further input within a day or two, I'm just going to do the best I can, and go live with it. And of course it can be edited after that, but at present the template still has place-holders. Note especially questions about the DATE and characters listed. Cynwolfe ( talk) 17:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The war
Setting:
Troy (modern
Hisarlik,
Turkey) |
Literary sources
Iliad ·
Epic Cycle ·
Aeneid, Book 2 · |
Episodes
Wedding of Peleus and Thetis · |
Greeks and allies
Agamemnon · Achilles · Helen · Menelaus · Nestor · Odysseus · Patroclus · Thersites · Achaeans · Myrmidons |
Trojans and allies
King Priam · Queen Hecuba · Hector · Paris · Cassandra · Andromache · Aeneas · Memnon · Penthesilea |
Related topics
Homeric question ·
Archaeology of Troy ·
Mycenae ·
Bronze Age warfare · |
As I sat down to draw up my ideal infobox for the Trojan War, it occurred to me that what's really needed is a Trojan War navigational template that pulls together the whole series of articles that relate to this main topic. I don't know whether anyone will like this idea, but could you hold off beating me senseless until you see my draft? It will arrive sometime in the next two to four hours. I hope.
Cynwolfe (
talk)
All right no. This has gotten way off topic. We were arguing for the addition of an infobox, not a navigational template.
Now, I have an idea. Perhaps we could include both an infobox and a navigational template. That way we could incorporate both our ideas and thus come with a perfect resolution. The infobox provides the user with the time, place, sides, major generals, etc.... while the navigational template provides all the other information that the infobox cannot provide. That way the reader can read both and see that the event was not completely real, but at the same time, not completely false. Sound good? Valkyrie Red ( talk) 22:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to drink some ouzo in honor of Cynwolfe. I think this template is very useful, and much more helpful to a reader than an infobox. Among other benefits, the template will lead the reader directly to other relevant articles. As soon as we sort out the "divine machinery" section I'd be in favor of adding this. --Akhilleus ( talk) 00:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Look guys, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with this template. In fact I love it. But it doesn't provide the reader with everything. Where's the time and where's the place? Where's the strength of each side. All I'm saying is that while this template is great, it doesn't tell some of the important facts of the war. I don't care where you choose to place the infobox, but please, at least include it somewhere in the article. Please.-- Valkyrie Red ( talk) 02:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I've changed Archaeology of Troy to Troy VII. It really ought to be Troy VIIa, but that just redirects to Troy VII. Problem is, that link will be unclear to readers with no background in this subject. There should probably be a link to historicity of the Iliad somewhere.
I'm still thinking about what to title the "divine machinery" section. If it's just a list of deities, maybe "gods". But there are a lot of gods involved in this. Should we list Scamander, for instance? And should this be exclusively a list of deities? --Akhilleus ( talk) 04:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
What's wrong with my compromise? Why can't both the infobox and the template be in the article? Valkyrie Red ( talk) 14:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
This is great! Thanks for putting in the time Cynwolfe. If we could incorporate some of Valkyrie Red's ideas, that would be ideal, but I support this box either way. -- Edward130603 ( talk) 15:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I was slightly surprised there was no article Wedding of Peleus and Thetis. This is something I may get to myself one day, because it's a subject of much art and also of one of Catullus's long poems. For now it links internally to the article. It could also go "Wedding of Peleus and Thetis." As noted above, if a major episode is plainly represented by one of the literary sources preceding, I omitted it as redundant. Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
These topic labels can be changed to "Greeks and their allies" and "Trojans and their allies." This would also allow for adding contingents such as Myrmidons (whatever people think best). Philoctetes could be deleted because he's represented under "literary sources" by the tragedy. Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Can't go live with the template in this state; please comment on the following questions (leave yeas and nays or comments immediately following each point):
Also, some episodes are missing from the list: gathering at Aulis, attack on Teuthrania/ Telephus (there's another one who could be listed as a character, but for which side?), death of Palamedes, Judgment of Arms. I'm not sure how to decide which ones to put in and which to leave out. --Akhilleus ( talk) 17:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Please leave the nuts of info you want included here. Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
In answer to the question of Akhilleus, this section may end up not working, but I'd like to give it a try during the development process because I think it's both important and of immediate use to students. We wouldn't have to include all the deities involved any more than we have to list the characters exhaustively. Just Olympians, maybe. I haven't yet reviewed the subject. Poseidon is something of a flipflopper, though. Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
|
The war
Setting:
Troy (modern
Hisarlik,
Turkey) |
Literary sources
Iliad ·
Epic Cycle ·
Aeneid, Book 2 · |
Episodes
Wedding of Peleus and Thetis · |
Greeks and allies
Agamemnon · Achilles · Helen · Menelaus · Nestor · Odysseus · Patroclus · Thersites · Achaeans · Myrmidons |
Trojans and allies
King Priam · Queen Hecuba · Hector · Paris · Cassandra · Andromache · Aeneas · Memnon · Penthesilea |
Related topics
Homeric question ·
Archaeology of Troy ·
Mycenae ·
Bronze Age warfare · |
Trautmann's painting is surprisingly obscure. I can't find a date for it (or not instantly). Could someone with better German give it a go? Otherwise I'll settle for "Mid-18th century". Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
"The Death of Priam" is the only one of these I think could work, because it announces "Greek warrior killing somebody" without the viewer having to know anything about it. But it also has lighting problems that cause whited-out portions. Below I plopped in a good-quality pottery image to show what such a thing might look like, but the subject matter, while relevant, isn't ideal to shout "Trojan War!" My personal favorite in terms of subject matter and educational value is the Mykonos Vase (thanks Old Moonraker), but graphically it isn't as strong because of the image quality. Cynwolfe ( talk) 04:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I have rewritten "The death of Palamedes" section, to better (I hope) address writing from sources in our own words. I have reproduced my version below. I've also added a "Comments" section following for discussion. Paul August ☎ 19:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Odysseus was sent to Thrace to return with grain but came back empty handed. When scorned by Palamedes he challenged him to do better. Palamedes set out also and returned with a shipload.
Odysseus had never forgiven Palamedes for threatening the life of his son. So Odysseus conceived a plot. [1] An incriminating letter was forged, from Priam to Palamedes. [2] Gold was planted in Palamedes' quarters. The letter and gold were "discovered", and Agamemnon had Palamedes stoned to death for treason.
However, Pausanias quoting the Cypria, says that Odysseus and Diomedes drowned Palamedes, while he was fishing, and Dictys says that Odysseus and Diomedes, lured Palamedes into a well, which they said contained gold, then stoned him to death. [3]
Palamedes' father Nauplius sailed to the Troad and asked for justice, but was refused. In revenge Nauplius traveled among the Achaean kingdoms and told the wives of the kings that they were bringing Trojan concubines to dethrone them. Many of the Greek wives were persuaded to betray their husbands, most significantly Agamemnon's wife, Clytemnestra with Aegisthus, son of Thyestes. [4] this crap is just shit go find something else —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.67.70 ( talk) 02:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Comments? An issue I still have with the above, is I can find no source for the story about the grain told in the first paragraph. Where it is from? Paul August ☎ 19:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I like it. The grain tale is from Dictys Cretensis, it is attributed to that source by admiral Konstas (who says it is chapter 2 without giving line number), and Robert Graves mentions it but the Folio Society edition that I have does not have the notes! Ikokki 19:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
What is the source for the following:
Paul August ☎ 03:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
1. This text was there before I started woring on the article. I am not aware of the original source but I think that Graves mentions it as a bad theory, as does Karykas (I am not at home to confirm it) 2. Karykas mentions it, not just on his Mycenean book but also in his more general book on warfare from the neolithic to 146 BC. I thought it was properly marked. I am aware that the wiki article says that a helepolis had 200 crew but that was just the people manning it: If you put up those that pulled it you get 3,000. A Byzantine helepolis was even bigger, it had a crew of 3500, or at least that is what I read in one of the comments in my edition of Leo VI the Wise's Tactics Ikokki 23:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The most annoying thing when I read a book is going back and forth to the notes on the back in order to see if any of them have something interesting to say and to discover that while most are just plain references there a few readable ones. Ths is why I prefer books that put readable references in the bottom and split them from dry references in the back. This is why I split the references earlier. What is the nature of the objection? Ikokki 20:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with Akhilleus. Explanatory notes should be kept to a minimum and not get mixed with non-explanatory ones. Ikokki 19:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
or was it other reasons? Because i've played video games before and they said the reason for the trojan war was of Helen, was it true?
Pece Kocovski 09:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
To me, it is really, just a waste to massacre the trojans over a single woman. "godawful movie Troy"? Did this movie fail like the Alexander the great movie? (ps: he was Macedonian)
Pece Kocovski 23:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
There were three reasons that the Trojan war happened. The first was Helen, it's kind of like if someone stole your brother you would want him back. The second reason is along with Helen, Paris stole a lot of the Greek treasure and they wanted it back. The third was that the Greeks didn't really like the Trojans in the first place.-- Kangaroo2 ( talk) 18:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe another reason was that Agamemnon had been admiring trojan wealth and supposedly used Helen as an excuse for war. 71.243.213.136 ( talk) 12:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Ryan Tipton
Should modern day artistic representations (artwork, movie) of the Trojan War be added to the many pictures on this page? I believe an artistic or commercial representation is just as valid whether it's from the 10th century or the 21st, from an old commercial jar or a modern commercial movie. Just to spice up the article with variety. If you are to argue against this, I have this to say, neither ancient nor modern depictions hold any more validity, they are all just relatively simple caricatures.-- Exander 05:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I put up in early summer (Northern Hemisphere) most of the images here based on what was available at Wikimedia Commons at the mind. I don't mind if the top right image was removed (the only real reason I put it there was that by the time I had finished adding images it was the only one left) or some of the ones below but I would prefer if these were to stay:
Other than that I would not complain in advance for any changes Ikokki 23:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
geneally the war started because trojan prince paris stole greek queen helen,and ofcourse the king, melelaus dident like this
Is it really needed here? It looks utterly ridiculous ... "greece" victory? number of troops? Where all that nonsense came from? The latest movie? If the event did indeed took place at all, there were no even any city-states yet, named here as one of the combatants! (I wonder why any of those little tiny flags have not been inserted in that "infobox.")-- Barbatus 20:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This was discussed ad nauseam (meam, anyway) in the archives. The war is mythological, and so outside the scope of the MilHist wikiproject; even if there's some historical reality to the war, there's no way of getting real troop figures, commanders' names, etc. --Akhilleus ( talk) 22:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
In reviewing this article, I found just a few things. There are two "citation needed" tags in the Odyssey section, and a "citation needed" tag in the lead as well as a "clarify" tag in the lead. If these can be fixed, the rest of the article is amazing. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 00:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I have failed this article's GA because the above points were not addressed during the duration of the hold. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 15:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
This battle is widely believed to have taken place, even though a large amount of information available is legend. So why is it treated like a myth? If this is a battle, it should be within Wikiproject Military History and have a battle box.
What info box? Besides, my war info box was referenced with a reliable source.
The "warfare" section is more appropriate to the Iliad's entry, so I put it over there. Ifnkovhg 06:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is a mess of inaccuracies, clearly edited by amateurs who have no idea of how to evaluate ancient sources. The account of the "attempts" of Thetis to convey immortality upon her son Achilles is a nonsensical juxtaposition of contradictory sources, creating a narrative of repeated "attempts" that is unattested by any ancient version. The citation of Lycophron for fate other" six sons of Peleus is absurd: anyone who has actually read Lycophron's Alexandra with an ounce of comprehension would never cite this work for any isolated detail. If this is what Wikipedia would acknowledge as a "good article," then your quality control is a perfect joke. 139.179.110.34 18:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The sourced-based account is the only way to go. I could care less how annoying it is. Achilles' childhood does not exist outside of these mutually contradictory sources. He had no childhood that can be expressed biographically, because he was never a child. As for the Bibliotheke, by all means include Apollodorus – as a late and derivative source, clearly identified as such. But Lycophron is off limits unless you're prepared to draft an article explaining all the references in that nightmare of a gryphos (and it's likely that Apollodorus got his 'facts' from the Alexandra). Frazer is not an independent source: if it "merits mention," then mention it in the context of discussing Frazer's use and abuse of his classical sources. 139.179.110.34 ( talk) 19:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
In the historical basis section at the end: the mention of the fire beacons in Aesch. Agamemnon seems out of place with the rest of the section; is it worth mentioning? FWIW, Any Classics PhD will tell you that in the play, Trojan war = Persian Wars. Google "Xerxes fire relay" and you'll find evidence that Aeschylus' beacon relay is an allusion to a similar relay used by Xerxes in the Persian Wars. Ifnkovhg ( talk) 06:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
It's around 80k as it stands now, yes? Isn't that inordinately huge? I don't know the answer, but I've seen articles in the 70k range called too long. It seems to me that most of the sections after the The Sack of Troy could be truncated (Nostoi -- it has its own article) or even eliminated (Odyssey -- kind of a separate entity, it seems to me.) Any thoughts? Ifnkovhg ( talk) 06:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The article is written a lot like a short story, but since it is a historical war, it means the article says the Greek gods really did take part of war in Mycenaean times. For example, have a look at this sentence: The war originated from a quarrel between the goddesses Athena, Hera and Aphrodite, after Eris, the goddess of strife and discord, gave them a golden apple, sometimes known as the Apple of Discord, marked "for the fairest". There is no indication that this is myth, it states a reason for the war is if that is what historians and archaeologists have found. And the disclaimer The following summary of the Trojan War follows the order of events as given in Proclus' summary, along with the Iliad, Odyssey, and Aeneid, supplemented with details drawn from other authors. further down is too easy to miss, a reader is not likely to read the whole article top down. It would also benefit from saying which book/vase/other artifact says what part of the story. Narayanese ( talk) 22:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended a list of other comments which, whilst they are not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.
(These issues must be satisfactorily addressed, in the article itself or here, before GA promotion can go ahead)
(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)
There is more of the article to go, but I'm going to stop here because a) I'm tired and b) This article has serious fundamental problems which I feel the primary editors need to work on before I go any further. Basically the premise of the article is flawed. At least 90% of the text tells the "story" of the Siege of Troy. unfortunately it is clear that there is more than one version of this story and the text as it currently exisits seems to be attempting to appease them all, with the result that the article is unencyclopedic and confusing. What needs to happen, in addition to the comments above, is for the article to have a substantial change in tone. That does not mean it needs to be rewritten, but instead means that the differences between versions should be discussed at the point of contention in the text sequence. The historical writers who are in dispute should be named and the merits and differences discussed clearly. A narrative voice simply does not work alone here and has to be interspersed with more textual analysis. In addition, far greater weight has to be given to historical and cultural interpretation of the Trojan War and its influences elsewhere. This should be an article about the Trojan War, not a summary of it.
I am holding rather than failing this article because it clearly has had an enormous amount of work put into it, and all that work is perfectly valid, it just needs representing in a clearer and more developed way. If/when the problems already highlighted above have been dealt with, I'll be happy to finish the review and run over the new text (as long as work is continuing I'm happy to extend the time limit more or less indefinately, although if it goes on too long I might ask for a second opinion.) Well done on all the work so far and I hope this article can improve further. All the best-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 00:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone happen to know an estimated death count? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.213.136 ( talk) 12:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the history of the page, there has been no substantive edit to the page since 24th March. However, there is well over a screen's worth of vandalism (mainly by anon accounts) and reverts. So, will it save us all some effort if the page were semi-protected?-- Peter cohen ( talk) 16:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I've just re-nominated this page for another bout of semi-protection. The level of IP vandalism on this page is unreasonable. -- Pstanton ( talk) 00:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, I am afraid that this article has quickfailed GA. Please see the last GA review I did for this article, most of the problems have not been addressed and have to be before this has a chance of passing.
Thankyou and I am sorry the review was not more positive, if you disagree with my assesment then you are more than welcome to take the article to WP:GAR. I hope you have better luck next time, all the best.-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 18:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to the excellent Juliancolton, Trojan War has been semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks due to all the IP vandalism. We have two weeks to edit in peace, and by then hopefully the vandals will have moved on and gotten lives. -- Pstanton ( talk) 01:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that it's appropriate to have written that Paris "fucked" Helen. You may argue that its true, but I think "had an affair" or similar would be more appropriate. No, I'm not a middle-aged woman who complains loads, I a normally non-complaining 17 year old, but I feel that thats quite rude to write that on there.
One claims descent, not descendance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.50.139 ( talk) 13:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The term "presently" is one of those that has different usage and meanings in different varieties of English. (See [1] for an explanation.) It therefore swhould be avoided per Wikipedia:ENGVAR#National_varieties_of_English to avoid confusion.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 16:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Is the trojan war mentioned in the bible someone told me that priam is mentioned but im not sure please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.147.93 ( talk) 02:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
No, neither the Trojan War nor Priam are mentioned. --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Iliad and Odyssey are modern names for these two Epics. Weren't the original names for large sections, recited and published independently (e.g., Catalog of Ships, Fall of Troy)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.233.183 ( talk) 06:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
change Achaeans to athens they fought the athens first then troy. 174.27.209.55 ( talk) 02:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
What's the †dagger for, please? -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 09:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, when you guys unfairly removed the infobox from the article, you removed the image. Now I don't know about you, but that image looks quite good on the article and I would really appreciate it if you returned it.-- Valkyrie Red ( talk) 22:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I have read the above argument and I still think that there should be an infobox for this. Most of you may think that the even wasn't real, however, plenty of scholars have said that this event was real. The ruins of the city was even discovered. As for the facts and figures, Bettany Hughes Non-Fiction book Helen of Troy states all those listed. If you actually took the time to look through the footnotes, than you'd have read that.-- Valkyrie Red ( talk) 21:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I still don't see why there is no need for an infobox. An infobox's purpose is to provide the reader with an overview of the article, while the article is too explain the infobox's information. In the first sentence, this article states in Greek mythology, therefore the reader knows that this even may or may not be true. Why should you try to close an open clam?-- Valkyrie Red ( talk) 02:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Foolish remark on your part Akhilleus. Saying that no one thinks the Trojan War existed is complete bias, and doesn't maintain a neutral point of view on your part. Bettany Hughes, as I have stated earlier, is a historian who has written a book regarding the war, as well as created documentarys. Finding one person is all I need to do to counter your "no one thinks" claim.--
Valkyrie Red (
talk)
11:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Now, since you two seem to think that an infobox should only be used for 100% proven conflicts, please, do show me the Wikipedian article that states this.-- Valkyrie Red ( talk) 11:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Now, since you two seem to be stuck on the fact that infobox's should only be used for 100% proven conflicts, please, do show me the Wikipedian page that says this.-- Valkyrie Red ( talk) 11:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Once again an ignorant remark posted. There is plenty of evidence that states this war was real, not legendary. You are letting your own personal opinions judge your support. You are one of the people that sees this war as being fake.
But, going to the military box, the article states the following "A military conflict box, may be used to summarize information about a particular military conflict....". Where exactly in that sentence (let alone article) does it state that the conflict has to have been proven real 100%? To save you time, my fellow editors, it doesn't. We can all agree that this "event" was a conflict of some kind, whether or not it has been completely proven (which is divided). Therefore, a war box is allowed to be used.-- Valkyrie Red ( talk>) 19:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)>
What exactly do my past offenses have to do with this? I am not edit-warring. Just having a conversation with you editors.
Now, you have completely ignored my statement. A war box may be used for any conflict, not just proven ones. Therefore, a war box would be allowed for this.--
Valkyrie Red (
talk)
20:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
All right, I'll drop this. No wonder conservapedia was created. This website really is full of bias.-- Valkyrie Red ( talk) 22:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I hate to burst your bubble, but to most people that is all that really matters. I know its all I cared about when I was an undergrad. I'm not going to go to war over it though; if consensus is to make it harder for visitors and the unknowable to find the important information far be it for me to suggest a way to improve the article for everyone's benefit. TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
So basically your only argument for not having the infobox is that you personally think that it detracts from the article, which in turn is a weak argument. I think a new consensus has been reached, no?-- Valkyrie Red ( talk) 14:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Edward130603 has said that the infobox in Attack on Pearl Harbor leaves out some of the most important information in the article (strategic blunders, whether on the part of the Japanese or Americans I don't know). In other words, even in an article about a historical battle, the infobox is not suited to summarize all of the important facts covered in the article. If the infobox doesn't present useful information to the reader, the only argument for including it is WP:ILIKEIT—in other words, no argument at all.
By the way, I'd like everyone to look at this comment by User:Kirill Lokshin, who at that time was the coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject (he's now a member of the Arbitration Committee). Kirill Lokshin said that fictional battles don't fall within the purview of WP:MILHIST, and that the Trojan War, as a mythological event, falls under that category. I'd consider the former coordinator of the MILHIST project an authoritative source on which articles belong in the project's scope. This whole argument was settled back in 2006; why do we have to have it again now? --Akhilleus ( talk) 17:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately sir, Tom Star is the new military history coordinator and we're going by his word, not the previous one. If a fictional event such as One Year War can have an infobox, then why can't the Trojan War? Currently, the only argument that you've provided for not having an infobox is I don't like it.-- Valkyrie Red ( talk) 02:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Although the Trojan War has a lot of mythological aspects, it is not quite on par with something like Titanomachy. On the other hand, it is very similar to something like Battle of Banquan and Battle of Zhuolu (both battles are more or less legendary). They both have infoboxes, further showing that mythological battles can definitely have infoboxes. Infoboxes just help to summarize. They aren't the only things that readers look at, but they do give easily understandable basic info that readers would likely want to see.-- Edward130603 ( talk) 00:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to disappoint you Mr. Akhilleus, but that is only one side of the coin. Perhaps a look at this article should help clarify the picture for you.-- Valkyrie Red ( talk) 17:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Akhilleus, lol yes I have read the article. Yes, it is indeed not "all mythology" (although I don't think I ever said that). Note that "almost everything from that time period is considered legendary", as quoted from the Battle of Zhuolu, although there is historical basis. If there is no further opposition, I (or someone else) will reinsert the infobox. -- Edward130603 ( talk) 19:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Sure, umm I kinda just thought that we were done with the D part of BRD, since you guys weren't really saying anything. I guess I rushed it a little possibly. Please don't distort my intentions though, I didn't threaten anyone, just trying to prevent useless reverting/edit warring. I have no problem with a RFC, although those do often take a while. If you wish to, please go ahead and list it. -- Edward130603 ( talk) 01:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm getting the feeling that none of the infobox advocates have read much scholarship about the Trojan War or about the late bronze age. In fact, I'd say this is guaranteed by people's references to Bettany Hughes' book. She's a popular writer and TV presenter, folks, not a classical scholar. Take a look at what scholars who have investigated the historicity of the Trojan War, like Joachim Latacz. Dougweller already gave us a relevant quote describing Latacz's work, which I'm going to repeat: "Hughes draws particularly on the work of the Swiss scholar Joachim Latacz, whose recent book on Troy claimed that Homer’s epics contain authentic memories of a Trojan war. Yet not even Latacz argues that Helen — or the heroes who fought over her, come to that — ever existed as historical characters; and what Hughes nowhere acknowledges is that Latacz’s book was written as a response to scholars who ferociously disagree with his arguments..." In other words, Latacz believes that there is a historical basis for the stories about the Trojan War, but that doesn't mean that all the stories about the war are historically accurate. Latacz doesn't believe that Odysseus, Ajax, Achilles, Diomedes, etc. were real people, and I highly doubt that he believes the war lasted 10 years, or involved over 1 million combatants, as the infobox would have it. And this is one of the scholars who is most optimistic in thinking that Homeric epic reflects history. So let's try to understand that "historicity" isn't a simple on/off switch, but a matter of degrees. And saying that the Iliad might reflect, over a distance of at least 400 years, historical events, is a long way from saying that a Greek alliance, numbering hundreds of thousands, commanded by the king of Mycenae, attacked Troy. --Akhilleus ( talk) 04:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Mr. Cynwolfe, while I do commerate you for such a great idea, I have to ask you to take a look at the Wikipedian article for Infoboxes regarding a military action. To save you time, let me post what to you what it says "A military conflict infobox (sometimes referred to as a warbox) may be used to summarize information about a particular military conflict (a battle, campaign, war, or group of related wars) in a standard manner."
Now sir, could I ask you where exactly in that sentence it states that the military conflict must be proven 100%?-- Valkyrie Red ( talk) 17:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
(copied from above section by Edward130603)
Yes, this idea does sound like a good compromise in that it won't portray the war as something 100% proven. What do other editors think of this idea?. -- Edward130603 ( talk) 17:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
As I stated above, I support this. Valkyrie Red ( talk) 18:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Well that 3 for and none against. If no one has anything else to say, can we do this now?-- Valkyrie Red ( talk) 02:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but it is I think too soon to close this RfC. Among other things, I can't reply right now but may be able to later today, Akhilleus hasn't replied, it hasn't been listed at WikiProject Mythology, if this is the war infoxbox we are talking about it needs to be listed on the talk page for that, etc. Really, there's no rush, and considering there have been discussions before I think it's vital to get it right this time. I'm travelling, closing down my laptop (which just crashed as I was editing this earlier), so if anyone can add it to other appropriate pages please do this. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 10:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
All right, so we have 4 for 2 maybe and 1 against. I believe a consensus has been reached.
Valkyrie Red (
talk)
15:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there will be any problems with that. It appears that almost everyone thinks that an infobox could work here. Would anyone like to make a draft version for discussion before we (possibly) put it in the article? (That would give Akhilleus some more time to respond as well)-- Edward130603 ( talk) 21:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Trojan War | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Part of the Greek Epic Cycle | |||||||
![]() The Fall of Troy, by Johann Georg Trautmann (1713–1769). From the collections of the granddukes of Baden, Karlsruhe. | |||||||
| |||||||
Belligerents | |||||||
Achaeans (Greeks), led by the city-states of Mycenae, Sparta, and Argos | Trojans (also Greeks), and their allies in Anatolia | ||||||
Commanders and leaders | |||||||
Agamemnon Menelaus Achilles † |
Priam † Hector † Memnon † | ||||||
Strength | |||||||
1186 ships, carrying perhaps 70,000 to 130,000 men [2] [3] [4] | 16 contingents of unknown size [5] | ||||||
All accounts of the Trojan War come from literary sources, which in turn are based on earlier oral traditions. Although archaeological evidence proves both the existence of Troy and its destruction about this time, the extent to which the accounts contained in the Epic Cycle are based on actual historical persons and events is unknown. |
Here's an attempt to revise the former infobox along the lines that we discussed. I don't have a lot of experience with these, so I'd welcome your comments and suggestions. And Cynwolfe, I don't know how to insert your "narrative sources" line, although it sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I'd put it on the line after "result" and in the same format. If you can do that I'd be grateful!
I've included Mycenae and Sparta because they were the city-states led by Agamemnon and Menelaüs, and Argos because Homer uses Argives synonymously with Achaeans, and Argos was one of the major contributors to the war effort. For the same reasons, I decided to leave Nestor, Diomedes, and Ajax in the list of commanders, since each was not just a warrior but king of one of the city-states. I left out Odysseus because his force, like many others, was relatively small, even if his advice was very important.
P Aculeius (
talk)
23:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but this just illustrates exactly what I don't like about Infoboxes. Any reader who just looked at this wouldn't know it was not a real war.
Dougweller (
talk)
00:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Wow man, you have out down yourself. Awesome job P Aculeius. The only problem I see is that Nestor wasn't killed in the war. He arrived back safely as described in Book 3 of the Odyssey. Also, shouldn't Paris be listed as a commander? He played a key role in the war such as starting it for one thing and killing Achilles. I agree that the casualties line be removed.
For those of you saying that it will confuse the reader as to whether or not it was real, why don't we look at two facts. 1) I assume that people who read this article will have had some background information to have even known about the topic. That being said, it is safe to assume that readers will already have known that this war has a bit of controversy to it. 2) In the very first line of the article it says "in Greek Mythology. Another thing to point out is that this war does have truth to it. Saying that this war didn't exist is like saying God doesn't exist. There are two very strong sides to that.-- Valkyrie Red ( talk) 01:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
There are several things that strike me about the current box
-- Peter cohen ( talk) 10:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Readers will not be misled into thinking that the Trojan War is 100% proven and fact. If they were lucky enough to have read the first sentence, I'm sure they would pretty much understand the context of the Trojan War. I have no problem with using/making a new infobox that presents this war more as a narrative. Bronze Age as the date is fine in my opinion (although circa YYYY-YYYY is ok too I think). I think "Major Figure" is a good idea. Alternatively, we can say "Mythological Commander/Hero" for people like Agamemnon. If consensus is that the forces involved is unknown, we can put "Unknown" for that part. -- Edward130603 ( talk) 18:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Exactly: you argue that it will confuse readers into thinking that the war was a real conflict. Once again I posted a comment in response to this statement but you overlooked/ignored it. Let me rephrase what is said.
1) We can assume that people reading this article will have already had some sort of background knowledge regarding the subject. The only other way they could've gotten to this article is if they clicked on the random page button (but the probability is still high that they won't get redirected to this page. Therefore, they already would've known that the said conflict wasn't completely true.
2) The first sentence states "in Greek Mythology".-- Valkyrie Red ( talk) 19:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Valkyrie Red seems to have been tidying this talk page. I'm sure he/she has a good reason for deleting, by way of example, this post from long-standing contributor Paul August, but it seems relevant to current discussions. Generally speaking deleting other editors' talk page comments is thought of as, at best, poor etiquette—policy here. Apologies, of course, if I'm missing something or my interpretation of the page history is faulty. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 14:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
My apologies good sir. I was just trying to help clean up the talk page of useless posts. If that was wrong of me, then please, by all means rollback everything I did-- Valkyrie Red ( talk) 19:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Input still sought on the template, which is still just hanging out here on the talk page. I didn't do this just for the ouzo. Please comment above under the relevant sections, so we can finish this up and move on. If there's no further input within a day or two, I'm just going to do the best I can, and go live with it. And of course it can be edited after that, but at present the template still has place-holders. Note especially questions about the DATE and characters listed. Cynwolfe ( talk) 17:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The war
Setting:
Troy (modern
Hisarlik,
Turkey) |
Literary sources
Iliad ·
Epic Cycle ·
Aeneid, Book 2 · |
Episodes
Wedding of Peleus and Thetis · |
Greeks and allies
Agamemnon · Achilles · Helen · Menelaus · Nestor · Odysseus · Patroclus · Thersites · Achaeans · Myrmidons |
Trojans and allies
King Priam · Queen Hecuba · Hector · Paris · Cassandra · Andromache · Aeneas · Memnon · Penthesilea |
Related topics
Homeric question ·
Archaeology of Troy ·
Mycenae ·
Bronze Age warfare · |
As I sat down to draw up my ideal infobox for the Trojan War, it occurred to me that what's really needed is a Trojan War navigational template that pulls together the whole series of articles that relate to this main topic. I don't know whether anyone will like this idea, but could you hold off beating me senseless until you see my draft? It will arrive sometime in the next two to four hours. I hope.
Cynwolfe (
talk)
All right no. This has gotten way off topic. We were arguing for the addition of an infobox, not a navigational template.
Now, I have an idea. Perhaps we could include both an infobox and a navigational template. That way we could incorporate both our ideas and thus come with a perfect resolution. The infobox provides the user with the time, place, sides, major generals, etc.... while the navigational template provides all the other information that the infobox cannot provide. That way the reader can read both and see that the event was not completely real, but at the same time, not completely false. Sound good? Valkyrie Red ( talk) 22:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to drink some ouzo in honor of Cynwolfe. I think this template is very useful, and much more helpful to a reader than an infobox. Among other benefits, the template will lead the reader directly to other relevant articles. As soon as we sort out the "divine machinery" section I'd be in favor of adding this. --Akhilleus ( talk) 00:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Look guys, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with this template. In fact I love it. But it doesn't provide the reader with everything. Where's the time and where's the place? Where's the strength of each side. All I'm saying is that while this template is great, it doesn't tell some of the important facts of the war. I don't care where you choose to place the infobox, but please, at least include it somewhere in the article. Please.-- Valkyrie Red ( talk) 02:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I've changed Archaeology of Troy to Troy VII. It really ought to be Troy VIIa, but that just redirects to Troy VII. Problem is, that link will be unclear to readers with no background in this subject. There should probably be a link to historicity of the Iliad somewhere.
I'm still thinking about what to title the "divine machinery" section. If it's just a list of deities, maybe "gods". But there are a lot of gods involved in this. Should we list Scamander, for instance? And should this be exclusively a list of deities? --Akhilleus ( talk) 04:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
What's wrong with my compromise? Why can't both the infobox and the template be in the article? Valkyrie Red ( talk) 14:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
This is great! Thanks for putting in the time Cynwolfe. If we could incorporate some of Valkyrie Red's ideas, that would be ideal, but I support this box either way. -- Edward130603 ( talk) 15:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I was slightly surprised there was no article Wedding of Peleus and Thetis. This is something I may get to myself one day, because it's a subject of much art and also of one of Catullus's long poems. For now it links internally to the article. It could also go "Wedding of Peleus and Thetis." As noted above, if a major episode is plainly represented by one of the literary sources preceding, I omitted it as redundant. Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
These topic labels can be changed to "Greeks and their allies" and "Trojans and their allies." This would also allow for adding contingents such as Myrmidons (whatever people think best). Philoctetes could be deleted because he's represented under "literary sources" by the tragedy. Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Can't go live with the template in this state; please comment on the following questions (leave yeas and nays or comments immediately following each point):
Also, some episodes are missing from the list: gathering at Aulis, attack on Teuthrania/ Telephus (there's another one who could be listed as a character, but for which side?), death of Palamedes, Judgment of Arms. I'm not sure how to decide which ones to put in and which to leave out. --Akhilleus ( talk) 17:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Please leave the nuts of info you want included here. Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
In answer to the question of Akhilleus, this section may end up not working, but I'd like to give it a try during the development process because I think it's both important and of immediate use to students. We wouldn't have to include all the deities involved any more than we have to list the characters exhaustively. Just Olympians, maybe. I haven't yet reviewed the subject. Poseidon is something of a flipflopper, though. Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
|
The war
Setting:
Troy (modern
Hisarlik,
Turkey) |
Literary sources
Iliad ·
Epic Cycle ·
Aeneid, Book 2 · |
Episodes
Wedding of Peleus and Thetis · |
Greeks and allies
Agamemnon · Achilles · Helen · Menelaus · Nestor · Odysseus · Patroclus · Thersites · Achaeans · Myrmidons |
Trojans and allies
King Priam · Queen Hecuba · Hector · Paris · Cassandra · Andromache · Aeneas · Memnon · Penthesilea |
Related topics
Homeric question ·
Archaeology of Troy ·
Mycenae ·
Bronze Age warfare · |
Trautmann's painting is surprisingly obscure. I can't find a date for it (or not instantly). Could someone with better German give it a go? Otherwise I'll settle for "Mid-18th century". Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
"The Death of Priam" is the only one of these I think could work, because it announces "Greek warrior killing somebody" without the viewer having to know anything about it. But it also has lighting problems that cause whited-out portions. Below I plopped in a good-quality pottery image to show what such a thing might look like, but the subject matter, while relevant, isn't ideal to shout "Trojan War!" My personal favorite in terms of subject matter and educational value is the Mykonos Vase (thanks Old Moonraker), but graphically it isn't as strong because of the image quality. Cynwolfe ( talk) 04:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)