Previous discussion: one two (Mar 21 2006-July 11 2006)

Wikipedia footnotes

tables

citation templates

Wikipedia is not...

No original research...

Manual of Style

Disambiguation

What is the correct form for supporting the "orthodox" view on the subject? How should I present my support in the call for comment you have launched? I am still learning about wiki, you see. --5telios 08:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akhilleus. Thanks for your kind message. I will look into the article on Cyclopean structures when I have time, hopefully very soon! Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented there; if it is not all you would wish - you did ask for an independent opinion. Septentrionalis 18:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akhilleus. You're quite welcome. A very complicated subject I had found out. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 13:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your great works. I am not as I have said a professional Φιλολογος (thank God, else I'd be desparate for work) but an agricultural engineer. Unlike most Greek I recongnise that I do make mistakes and thank you for your input that balances the article for a Greek POV to a NPOV. Ikokki 09:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You told me that I don't seem to understand how bizarre Wilkens' theory is: "it's like saying the Old Testament came from India, or the War of the Roses actually happened in Italy." On the contrary; when I started reading Wilkens I was just as sceptical as you are and as probably anybody else would be. The difference is: I read Wilkens book completely before forming my opinion, got convinced and thus set aside my prejudice, cause that's what's going on.

Stating that a theory is bizarre is allright but you should never forget that once people considered the theory that the earth is round a bizarre idea too. This might seem a silly argument but it really isn't. 2600 years of believe (that Troy was in Turkey) are hard to blow away. You claim you do seem to understand how bizarre the idea is and in this line you show your prejudice, which is allright cause everybody is prejudiced, but also, and this is bad, you're unwillingness to overcome it. In order to form a decent opinion on a theory it's not the conclusions that should be judged by their probability or liability at first sight but the arguments that are given.

Nobody would argue that horses don't have the ability to speak, but most agree that there was a war around 1200 B.C. The question is: where did it take place? Though there are, apart from religious and mythical contents, inconsistencies in the descriptions of locations and distances it's been fair, I agree, to claim that the most probable location is Hissarlik. But now there is an alternative. Wilkens gives us probabilities that are far more convincing. The Cambridgeshire and Gog Magog Hills area with its thousands of bronze weapons found and many corpses , two war dikes, its rivers, and the wells all do fit the description, I repeat dó fit the description of Homer almost precisely.

I'm not claiming, as neither Wilkens is, that everything in his book is true, because a lot of it is hypothetical. But reading the book I got convinced against my prejudice.

And then there is this: Have you read the part of Wilkens book in which he mentions Cadiz as the probable location of Ithaca? It's very plausible!

212.123.163.102 06:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we stop posting on each others talk pages so this will be the last time;

"Amphi-" rather means: "with two items on different sides" like an "Amphora", which has two ears. Translaters, with the Greek island in their minds, ofcourse translated it into "sea-girted." See how 2600 years of thinking in one direction interferes with every aspect of dealing with the issue? Again, as you eagerly jump on every detail and refuse to read the whole chapter by Mr Wilkens, I mentioned the word "amphialos" only as a direction, not as proof. Consider it circumstantial evidence, o.k., but there's more than plenty of it.

I would like to thank you for your patience and the efforts you've made addressing me and I apologize for staying anonymous. I'm just an enthousiastic guy from Rotterdam, and I didn't bother registrating. Maybe I will later, for now, farewell Akhilleus, I sign:

212.123.163.102 07:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]