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

Cases of suspected sockpuppetry

CheckUser

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]

. . . for adding in the references in the Homosexuality in ancient Greece. Not that they will convince true believers. Haiduc 03:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add my thanks to the pile, whatever the outcome! -Smahoney 04:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that ratings will be useful to various entities sorting through the Wikipedia to create offshoots, printed versions, CD's what not. They are not without value. Of course, the problem is that they are to some extent subjective. For example, on looking over the category of "Top-importance Classical Greece and Rome articles" I find there the Parthenon (a mistake, perhaps it should be the Acropolis, but even that is a stretch), the agora (yes, markets are important but what is so special about the Greek market?), and Atlantis (with or without Atlantis the Greeks would still have been Greeks). By the same token, critical articles are missing from the category. The Eleusinian mysteries, for one. The Olympics. Pederasty, which in the opinion of Plato differentiated the Greeks from the barbarians. I agree with your implied critique that a ratings system can lead to disagreements among the editors. Let's try to use outside sources, whenever possible, for buttressing our views, so as to avoid tomayto / tomahto type arguments. I would rather not be bothered with them at all either, but if they are here, then at least let's be accurate. Haiduc 10:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the whole ratings concept, it is an obvious apple of discord and I too would much rather be rid of it. Until it is removed, I will make an attempt to straighten out at least the "top" section (which I actually started last night before receiving your last message). I'll certainly not resist any changes you might want to make (like restoring the agora to top importance).

Regarding pederasty, this exchange, and in particular its removal to "mid-importance," have led me to work on a new section in the article documenting the importance of the practice to the Greeks. Just today I came across a very lucid discussion of just that topic in Nick Fisher's intro to Against Timarchos. It is also on the web, here, in particular p.27 ("pederasty was widely held to have long been an essential element in Greek culture from Homer onwards"), though the whole piece is very well put together. Regards, Haiduc 11:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you remove the two forms of the Greek name because you think one or other is incorrect, or because you don't think both forms should be given? In either case, why do you think this? Adam 14:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Parthenon is a building which still exists and is located in modern Greece, and therefore has a modern Greek name. This is in a sense its "real" name, since that is what it is currently called by the people of the place in which it is located, and I presume it is also its official name, since demotic is now the official language of Greece. Therefore I think both names should be given. Adam 15:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any other policy I am not aware of that we can utilize here? Mediation and Arbitration don't seem to cover what's going on in the article, or do they? The fact that this has gone on so long is ridiculous. CaveatLector^Talk 00:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps your request will give him pause. Or us. Haiduc 03:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from User talk:Josiah Rowe): Josiah, thanks for exercising your admin powers, and for suggesting inclusion of the opinions of a "small but vocal minority"--you have an excellent knack for suggesting a reasonable compromise.

However, our problem editor is not citing Thornton accurately (I have his book, and have been checking the quotes). As far as I can tell he's getting his material from right-wing websites, especially the Greco report. I'm going to take out the Thornton citation, but I don't have anything better to replace it with right now--I don't want to link to the homophobic and racist websites that are pushing the line of argument Cretanpride is advocating. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I meant to remove that citation as well, but was working from an old version and didn't notice that it was listed in the "references" section as well. I'm about to post to the article's talk page about my attempt at a compromise wording. (I was tempted to put something in about how the scholarly consensus was not widely accepted in modern Greece, but decided that would be a bit too provocative.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akhilleus. In my opinion, asking helping to WP:RFI is often a loss of time; instead, I would advice you to ask help from the admin user:Dbachmann, an editor extremely competent in ancient Greek topics. As for me, for now I'll wait a checkuser control of User:Ellinas; if I find he's just another sock, I'll consider measures against him.--Aldux 13:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've been a voice of reason on this article for several months now. While I was on Wikibreak it looks like you were combatting the reappearance of one troublemaker who has been a problem for nearly two years. I've written a summary of "Editor X" at User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc. It's long so skim the bullet points for characteristic behavior. Some of the distortions (including footnote damage) remained in the article for months until I spotted the damage today. Durova 05:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]