Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::Ah sorry, read a different comment. Anyway, you say that there's a difference between myth and fiction. Tell me, what exactly is that difference?] (]) 16:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
::Ah sorry, read a different comment. Anyway, you say that there's a difference between myth and fiction. Tell me, what exactly is that difference?] (]) 16:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Ah, now, VR, I don't doubt your committed interest and good faith at all, but I have to say, if you're seriously asking that question, that's one of the sources of difficulty in communications between the parties here. A fiction, like a novel, short story, or gaming scenario, is a deliberate creation of a specific time and place. It has an author or authors who had certain intentions in creating it. A myth, by contrast, is a narrative that accumulates out of a tradition, and usually has many variants, some of them contradictory; in the case of Greek myth, a myth also expresses religious beliefs (to which Akhilleus alluded above in regard to the divine purpose the war served). As the underlying theology changes, the myth changes to express those: this is one reason for variant versions. The Greeks also "narrated" myths via art, in particular as known to us through the durable medium of vase painting; the visual versions often don't accord with the verbal narratives we know, pointing to further versions of the story unknown to us. Although myth is usually regarded as nebulously oral in origin (and see the problems of the historicity of Homer himself), for us it's preserved in literary works, which is where the matter becomes complicated: a myth in a particular literary work is also a fiction. The way a Greek tragedian presents the character of Odysseus, for instance, can be wildly different from the Homeric Odysseus in either the ''Iliad'' or ''Odyssey''. Whatever theological meaning the myth may have had is therefore consciously manipulated by an individual author to suit his immediate purposes, whether these are aesthetic or a matter of adapting the myth to give it contemporary relevance. The Trojan War is an exceptionally complicated myth because it has so many variants (the story of Helen alone has many mutually contradictory versions), and also because Greek and Roman authors themselves regarded it as having historical foundation (they also disagreed on the degree of its historicity); and thus the term "legend" also comes into play. This is why constructing an infobox is, on further reflection, probably not a very useful exercise: whose version of the Trojan War will it represent? The questions P Aculeius asks point toward the difficulties. ] (]) 17:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Ah, now, VR, I don't doubt your committed interest and good faith at all, but I have to say, if you're seriously asking that question, that's one of the sources of difficulty in communications between the parties here. A fiction, like a novel, short story, or gaming scenario, is a deliberate creation of a specific time and place. It has an author or authors who had certain intentions in creating it. A myth, by contrast, is a narrative that accumulates out of a tradition, and usually has many variants, some of them contradictory; in the case of Greek myth, a myth also expresses religious beliefs (to which Akhilleus alluded above in regard to the divine purpose the war served). As the underlying theology changes, the myth changes to express those: this is one reason for variant versions. The Greeks also "narrated" myths via art, in particular as known to us through the durable medium of vase painting; the visual versions often don't accord with the verbal narratives we know, pointing to further versions of the story unknown to us. Although myth is usually regarded as nebulously oral in origin (and see the problems of the historicity of Homer himself), for us it's preserved in literary works, which is where the matter becomes complicated: a myth in a particular literary work is also a fiction. The way a Greek tragedian presents the character of Odysseus, for instance, can be wildly different from the Homeric Odysseus in either the ''Iliad'' or ''Odyssey''. Whatever theological meaning the myth may have had is therefore consciously manipulated by an individual author to suit his immediate purposes, whether these are aesthetic or a matter of adapting the myth to give it contemporary relevance. The Trojan War is an exceptionally complicated myth because it has so many variants (the story of Helen alone has many mutually contradictory versions), and also because Greek and Roman authors themselves regarded it as having historical foundation (they also disagreed on the degree of its historicity); and thus the term "legend" also comes into play. This is why constructing an infobox is, on further reflection, probably not a very useful exercise: whose version of the Trojan War will it represent? The questions P Aculeius asks point toward the difficulties. ] (]) 17:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Ah thank you Cynewolfe for that epic statement. It's always nice to see other editors but in to other people's business. So basically what you are saying is that fiction is a fake story deliberately told by an author(s) while a myth is a fictional story passed down from generation to generation as a tradition As for which Trojan War, the infobox shall represent the most common interpretation of the Trojan War. The article on the other hand, its purpose is to address the different versions. That is what everyone against the infobox fails to get. The infobox isn't meant to explain everything. It's just meant to create a brief overview of the situation.] (]) 18:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''No''' per my comments above. ] ] 13:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''No''' per my comments above. ] ] 13:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''"Veering toward doubtful."''' Me too now. I don't see that the proponents of the infobox are willing to recognize the validity of the issues raised ''contra'' or to be rigorous about how the material is presented. ] (]) 16:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''"Veering toward doubtful."''' Me too now. I don't see that the proponents of the infobox are willing to recognize the validity of the issues raised ''contra'' or to be rigorous about how the material is presented. ] (]) 16:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Revision as of 18:03, 6 June 2010
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Trojan War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Trojan War is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Misplaced Pages's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
The First Sentence
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.
Yes, sorry you caught that. You read a vandalised version of the article, which has now been corrected. You are quite right, that is not the tone that is used in an encyclopedia. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
If you're referring to the daggers in the infobox by characters like Priam, Hector, and Paris, it means that they die during the war. However, this infobox is inappropriate for a mythological conflict, because it gives the casual reader the impression that the war actually happened. I'm therefore taking the infobox out. This issue has been discussed before, and there's never been consensus that there should be an infobox here; in fact, there's been a consensus that the infobox doesn't belong. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:11, 9 May 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)
Readding the Picture
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)
This post might be more helpful if it noted which image had been removed. Here it is: Someone might want to dress it up with a caption before sticking it in the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Imaginative rather than informative, although the artist seems to have incorporated the Library of Celsus from Ephesus, just down the coast, into his burning ruins. I'm surprised there isn't a picture of the judgement of Paris anywhere. More relevant, perhaps, would be File:Akhilleus Patroklos Antikensammlung Berlin F2278.jpg, an image from the time of the myth (although not, of course, the time of the war itself), now adorning "Achilles' campaigns" lower down the page. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Returning the Infobox
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)
There's a Bronze Age settlement that was probably Troy (although there is no definitive evidence that the city was Troy—rather, circumstantial evidence establishes that it probably was Troy). There were widespread disturbances in the late Bronze Age that may have in some way inspired the myths of the Trojan War. However, that's a far cry from saying that the mythology of the Trojan War is historically accurate, or that there were actual people named Odysseus, Achilles, Priam, and so on. Sadly, the article doesn't do a very good job of explaining the relationship between history and mythology, but I doubt you would find "plenty of scholars" who would take the second book of the Iliad and confidently state the number of Greek forces in the war based on that. So, no, we shouldn't have an infobox that implies a mythological war actually happened. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:23, 25 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)
Because it's not an "open clam". No one thinks the Trojan War as told in Greek mythology actually happened. No scholar thinks that 866000 Greeks fought against 676000 Trojans + allies for 10 years. No scholar thinks that a person named Agamemnon led this war. In any case, the important material in this article is the narrative of the war—the Judgment of Paris, the abduction of Helen, the death of Palamedes, and so on. If you think an infobox should provide an overview of the article, that's what should go in there, not a dressed-up list of characters and some back-of-the-envelope calculations based on Book 2 of the Iliad. But no one's come up with an infobox to sum up narratives yet... --Akhilleus (talk) 03:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Akhilleus is correct. Modern scholars do not think that there was a Trojan war as describe by Homer, and there should be no infobox. Dougweller (talk) 06:21, 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)
Sorry, nothing new to bring to the discussion but may I reiterate a point already made, because seemingly it has not been grasped by some? This article is about a legend, not a war. Using the military conflict infobox to "to summarize information about a particular military conflict...in a standard manner" for a legend is using it inappropriately. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:49, 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)>
But no one agrees with you, so can we drop this? You aren't bringing up any new arguments, and presumably you aren't going to put it back against consensus. Dougweller (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I can't find a statement by Hughes saying that Homer's tale of the Trojan war is accurate, but did find "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. The entire fabulous edifice of her theme, in other words, has been raised on dangerously shifting sands." Suggesting that there was a war or wars that are the basis of Homer's tale does not make Homer's tale accurate. We are still left with a myth, and the only infobox that would be aoppropriate would be one for fiction. Dougweller (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I wish I'd looked at his talk page earlier, Valkyrie Red is just a couple of days off a 2 week block for "repeated disruptive editing and for treating Misplaced Pages like a WP:BATTLEGROUND." Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
"5 blocks so far, and each of them has been for the same offense". Patience in admins is obviously a very necessary qualification. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:42, 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)
But you are not having a conversation, you are simply repeating yourself. After a point such repetition becomes disruptive. You say an edit box can be used for any conflict, which would include fictional ones, everyone else disagrees. It really is time for you to drop this. Dougweller (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I think an infobox would be a good idea for this article. What's wrong with having one? Generally, infoboxes improve the appearance of articles and also allow readers to easily get some general info/overview. --Edward130603 (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Gentlemen, it has come to my attention that the infobox in the article has been removed on grounds that the article's war status is iffy at best. While it may seem to you to make sense to remove the military history infobox for this conflict I would invite you to reconsider you stance on the position. Many articles concerning combat and war that never actually exist already make use of MILHISt's infoboxs for the purposes of outlining basic information already found in the article (for an example, you can check out One Year War). I'm not going to pick a debate/fight over this issue, but I invite you all to consider that if this use is acceptable here then there likely will be no issues at all to your using the infobox in this article to summaries the war. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think One Year War is a good model for how to write this article. This isn't an article about anime, or fiction—it's an article about mythology. The "basic information" in this article is not the stuff that fits into infoboxes, but the story of the war. The editors who want to see an infobox in this article seem to think the most important thing about the Iliad is the body count. That's a remarkably shallow way to deal with mythology, literature, and art. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
You are missing the point: If an article on a war that exists only in a tv world can have an infobox then an article on a myth passed down through writings can have one too. Its not going to end the world if we re-add the infobox to the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
You're missing my point: a "tv world" is not the same as a body of mythology which was of central importance to ancient Greek religion, literature, and art, and inspired many subsequent cultures. The "war" this article covers is a story—and the infobox is not suited for summarizing a story. In fact, it detracts from the article, by picking out trivia such as the number of combatants and presenting it as the most important information the reader needs to see at the beginning of the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:22, 30 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)
Gee, thanks for showing what you think about good faith. How did you guess that those of us who don't want the infobox are secretly trying to make our articles worse? Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Umm no need for sarcasm........? It's just a different POV so don't get too defensive. A infobox really doesn't detract from the article, as most people read the lead as well. The infobox is just helpful for the average reader trying to get some sort of an overview. Btw, "The editors who want to see an infobox in this article seem to think the most important thing about the Iliad is the body count." If that were the case, then read Attack on Pearl Harbor. The infobox there mentions quite a bit about body count, but it does not mention the strategic blunders (which proved to be far more important than number of peeps killed / battleships sunk). Yet, no one's tried to take that infobox out based on how it highlights things that aren't the most important. --Edward130603 (talk) 18:44, 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)
Ah, Misplaced Pages, where history lasts 5 minutes. Valkyrie, if you think the only argument I've made for not having the infobox is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you need to read my posts once more. Although I will agree that one of the reasons I think there shouldn't be an infobox here is that I don't like the particular infobox that people keep trying to stick in... --Akhilleus (talk) 03:38, 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)
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)
Umm maybe I should clarify that to "further meaningful opposition". I'm gonna put it back in now so unless you have something new/better that you want to say against this move, I advise you not to remove it.--Edward130603 (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying that there is a consensus for it, and thus anyone removing it would be editing against consensus? Or is that some sort of threat? If we are in WP:BRD, I've just Reverted, so we need more discussion before doing anything more. An RfC? Dougweller (talk) 01:25, 4 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)
As someone coming from this fresh, could I ask a question? Is there perhaps a distinction being lost here? Let's just stipulate for a moment that the archaeology of the site identified as Troy indicates that the city was destroyed by military siege around the time of the traditional date for the Homeric war. It's definitely a minority or fringe view, however, to assert that details from the Iliad such as troop numbers and the names of commanders or other combatants should be taken as transparent historical facts of that conflict, or else we could list Apollo and Aphrodite as participants. Therefore, to highlight these factoids in an infobox conventionally used for historical conflicts would give undue weight to a fringe theory: "Coverage on Misplaced Pages should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it is."
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."
Valkyrie, please don't assume every Misplaced Pages editor is male. Also, you seem to be missing the point of my and Cynwolfe's posts. Every "fact" that would go into an infobox, even something as basic as the war being between Greeks and Trojans, is historically questionable; but the infobox doesn't allow for ambiguity, it simply reports everything as fact.
BTW, there is an infobox for fictional conflicts, but it barely differs from the normal infobox; and in any case, it works fine for battles found in modern fiction, but is ill-suited for mythology. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Akhilleus's statement that for the Trojan War "Every "fact" that would go into an infobox … is historically questionable." I would also assume that if troop strength or casualty figures were in doubt for a battle of proven historicity, the infobox would need to reflect that, and not simply present data as if it were unproblematic. Any "facts" that exist for the Trojan War apart from archaeology derive from literary sources with varying purposes, but not notably for the purpose of recording historical facts.
I also see Akhilleus's point that the reconstruction of a battle from a multiple-source mythological tradition differs from a battle presented in a single fictional source that is created by an individual. For me, the best use of an infobox is for stats: for instance, an infobox about a country, with stats about population, area, form of government, provides quick access to almanac-type info that easily meets verifiability requirements. That leaves the question of what kind of "facts" exist for the narrative of the Trojan War.
Elsewhere, in a discussion about a proposed mythology infobox that would present a series of deities, I used the perhaps unlikely example of a young student printing out such a box and using it as a study aid. An infobox on the Trojan War might be useful if it began with "Literary sources'", listing the Iliad, Aeneid Book 2, and other sources that contribute significantly to the formation of the tradition. Another element that always interests students even at the college level is how the gods align with the two sides; this may again appear frivolous, but in fact is of interest even to religious scholars because, for instance, it marks Aphrodite as an Eastern "Trojan" deity. If a box began with Literary sources and Divine aid (Trojan) / Divine aid (Greek) or something like that, it would be clear from the outset that we're dealing with a mythic battle. I'm not arguing for the value of creating such an infobox, only that if an infobox exists, it needs to represent the subject matter of the article in a way that's accurate, meaningful, and proportional. Using the same kind of infobox that one might use for the Battle of Waterloo would be a statement of equivalence, and that would give undue weight to a minority POV. Akhilleus has already pointed out that even scholars who regard the war as historical don't think the Iliad should be treated in the same way that one treats Thucydides as a source. But surely I'm missing something, given the vehemence of the discussion? This all seems pretty obvious. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Cynwolfe, I can only speak for myself, but in my case the vehemence results from the fact that this infobox discussion has happened several times already on this article, and the advocates of infoboxes are usually not well informed on the historicity of the Trojan War, and what historicity might mean when dealing with hazy, mythologized memories of the Bronze Age. Also, when people think that Bettany Hughes is a good source for a classics article, I get a bit annoyed... --Akhilleus (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
No. The Trojan War article can have an infobox, because it is technically possible for *any* article to have an infobox, but the article shouldn't have one. This is because this is a mythological war whose historical basis is extremely uncertain; even the identification of a particular city as Troy is a matter of probability rather than certainty, and whether that city was ever destroyed as a result of military action remains unknown. Whether it was destroyed by an alliance of Greeks is a matter of further conjecture. To put these conjectures in an infobox at the top of the article can mislead readers into thinking that the war, its date, its participants, and so on, are historically certain. The latest version of the infobox states that 866,000 Greeks fought against 676,000 Trojans; Misplaced Pages shouldn't be stating such improbabilities as fact.
I don't like the idea of using an infobox designed for fictional conflicts either. A casual/careless reader would still think such an infobox was giving historical information. More important, though, is that it would be picking out trivia from the article and overinflating its importance. The most important information about the Trojan War is the story; how do you fit the Apple of Discord, the Judgment of Paris, and the Judgment of Arms into an infobox? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes. An infobox's purpose is to provide the reader with a basic overview of the article, not to explain the article itself. The topic itself may be a bit controversial when it comes to factual evidence, but, as I have stated above a few times, the article regarding the use of Warboxes does not state that the military conflict must be proven 100%. It just says that it may be used for military conflicts. A look at One Year War proves my claim.
As a side note, Akhilleus (above me) states that the infobox may mislead the reader into thinking that the conflict was real. A look at the first sentence can easily dissprove that claim. As I said before, an infobox isn't the article. It just gives a brief overview.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
So is the infobox going to say that Zeus planned the war to rid the earth of overpopulation? Because that's part of the story... --Akhilleus (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, to divert Strife from the heavens to the race of mortals, according to somebody-or-other. If the infobox gives a brief overview of the article, shouldn't it (to repeat myself from the previous section) reflect the content of the article in a way that's accurate, meaningful (or useful), and proportional? I'm not sure I understand the attachment to the infobox, except from a graphics perspective: an article on a subject this often depicted in art needs something other than gray text at the top. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
No: the purpose of an infobox is to "unify... aspect that ... articles share and to improve navigation to other interrelated articles." (See Help:Infobox.) In other words, the overriding Misplaced Pages policy for use is one of commonality, and not summary. Nobody has explained what these interrelated articles, or their unifying aspects, are; there is no article with which a demonstration of commonality is required. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes. I have already stated my thought in sections above. BTW, I put up this RFC hoping for some fresh faces....to see what other wikipedians think. As for Old Moonraker, the location and people like Odysseus and Achilles are linked in the infobox (interrelated articles).--Edward130603 (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate (genuinely) the effort to enlighten me, but I remain puzzled: surely these can be dealt adequately by links, rather than warboxes. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
No to a "warbox". The first sentence of the lede gives the context as mythology; that's a reasonably accurate indication of content. Most of the remainder addresses an outline offered in Homer's Iliad - which is usually classified as epic Literature - and the contributions and commentaries of various other ancient sources; certainly a rich source for scholarly speculation (which needs expansion in the article) but just as certainly not to be taken on face value as history. Haploidavey (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't need to. That article describes a self-contained work of fiction: it explains itself and refers to itself without risk of contradiction, uncertainty or untidy variants. Fiction is not myth. That article's not related to this article. Haploidavey (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, the One Year War infobox begins with the heading "Depictions"; it announces at once that it deals with representations, not historical reality. Besides, that article's tagged with the "in-universe" warning, so it appears not to be a model for how to distinguish a fictional or mythical treatment from history. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
No for all the reasons above including those I've given myself. And an excerpt from my userpage, " A box suggests "this is the real deal," and if the real deal could be put in a box, then there would be no need for articles " Dougweller (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think that the article could reasonably have an infobox, and that it could improve the appearance and usefulness of the article. I don't think that the Trojan War needs to be proven to be a historical event in order to be treated as though it could have been. We don't really know any of the facts for certain; what we have are traditional accounts, which may or may not be based on actual persons and events. But that doesn't make the infobox any less useful. Certainly the Greeks considered the war a matter of historical fact, even though their accounts of the events vary.
However, that said, I think that the last version of the infobox is overdone and contains speculative (as opposed to merely uncertain) and unnecessary information.
If there's going to be a date, it ought to look like a date, not say "ten year war". I'd suggest Eratosthenes estimate and put "circa 1194-1184 B.C.", provided that the article discusses various other estimates as well.
The number of belligerents ought to be pared down to "mainland Greece" vs. Troy, or some suitable equivalent, as opposed to a long list of city states on each side, and it certainly shouldn't stop after two or three are named and then say "et al."
Not all of the individuals listed as commanders were really commanders or ought to be listed; they may have led the contingent from one city or island, but not every Greek hero would be considered a commander in the sense that word is used for an infobox. Perhaps limit it to Agamemnon, Menelaüs, and Achilles on the Greek side, and Priam and Hector on the Trojan side.
The number of participants doesn't seem to come from ancient sources, but modern speculation that, frankly, isn't credible. The number of Greek ships and troops mentioned in the Iliad doesn't come anywhere near that figure, if memory serves, and if I had to guess how many soldiers might have been involved in a war such as that described in the Greek epics, I'd say the figures quoted are at least ten times the size of the largest armies that might have been in the field. But unless there's some ancient source giving at least a rough estimate, it would be better not to estimate the number of troops at all.
The casualty figures probably ought not to be given. There's no ancient data on the number killed or wounded on either side. "Nearly all the Trojans" isn't a very helpful casualty figure and it doesn't sound like something that belongs in an infobox. At any rate, even if we assume, following tradition, that Aeneas and Antenor led two groups of Trojan refugees away from the ruined city, we have no way of guessing what percentage of the population they might have formed. P Aculeius (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Sir, that is an excellent idea! I'd approve of this straightaway. The only thing I truly disagree with you on is the commanders. If you are going to put a line between commanders and heroes, then soldiers such as Achilles wouldn't be listed, would they? I believe that heroes=commanders.Valkyrie Red (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this idea does sound like a good compromise in that it won't look like something 100% proven. What do other editors think of this idea?. --24.225.75.150 (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
No. A "warbox" is entirely inappropriate for this article. Such a box here could not help but be misleading. Paul August☎09:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Compromise Proposal
(copied from above section by Edward130603)
Yes, I think that the article could reasonably have an infobox, and that it could improve the appearance and usefulness of the article. I don't think that the Trojan War needs to be proven to be a historical event in order to be treated as though it could have been. We don't really know any of the facts for certain; what we have are traditional accounts, which may or may not be based on actual persons and events. But that doesn't make the infobox any less useful. Certainly the Greeks considered the war a matter of historical fact, even though their accounts of the events vary.
However, that said, I think that the last version of the infobox is overdone and contains speculative (as opposed to merely uncertain) and unnecessary information.
If there's going to be a date, it ought to look like a date, not say "ten year war". I'd suggest Eratosthenes estimate and put "circa 1194-1184 B.C.", provided that the article discusses various other estimates as well.
The number of belligerents ought to be pared down to "mainland Greece" vs. Troy, or some suitable equivalent, as opposed to a long list of city states on each side, and it certainly shouldn't stop after two or three are named and then say "et al."
Not all of the individuals listed as commanders were really commanders or ought to be listed; they may have led the contingent from one city or island, but not every Greek hero would be considered a commander in the sense that word is used for an infobox. Perhaps limit it to Agamemnon, Menelaüs, and Achilles on the Greek side, and Priam and Hector on the Trojan side.
The number of participants doesn't seem to come from ancient sources, but modern speculation that, frankly, isn't credible. The number of Greek ships and troops mentioned in the Iliad doesn't come anywhere near that figure, if memory serves, and if I had to guess how many soldiers might have been involved in a war such as that described in the Greek epics, I'd say the figures quoted are at least ten times the size of the largest armies that might have been in the field. But unless there's some ancient source giving at least a rough estimate, it would be better not to estimate the number of troops at all.
The casualty figures probably ought not to be given. There's no ancient data on the number killed or wounded on either side. "Nearly all the Trojans" isn't a very helpful casualty figure and it doesn't sound like something that belongs in an infobox. At any rate, even if we assume, following tradition, that Aeneas and Antenor led two groups of Trojan refugees away from the ruined city, we have no way of guessing what percentage of the population they might have formed. P Aculeius (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Sir, that is an excellent idea! I'd approve of this straightaway. The only thing I truly disagree with you on is the commanders. If you are going to put a line between commanders and heroes, then soldiers such as Achilles wouldn't be listed, would they? I believe that heroes=commanders.Valkyrie Red (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
Yes, with reservations. I support P Aculeius's carefully parsed suggestions, but only if the element "Major literary sources: Iliad; Aeneid Book 2" is added at the beginning. As a neutral party coming to this fresh and with no discernible dog in the fight, would P Ac be willing to keep an eye on the box as it develops? Cynwolfe (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I suppose I could try to keep an eye on it. Of course, the individual details would all have to be subject to review and consideration of the evidence and arguments. For instance, how to describe the Achaeans/Greeks as opposed to the Trojans/also Greeks (sort of/partly) in the belligerants list, whether Achilles and Hector should be listed as commanders because they were the pre-eminent soldiers in the field, or whether the ancient sources provide any consistent accounting of the overall size of either army. But that still seems like the most reasonable way to resolve this debate. P Aculeius (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that, but nothing new to add. Compromise as a concept is always good and, with Cynwolfe's concerns addressed, it should work here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:39, 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)
Maybe, veering to doubtful. The wording would have to be wonderfully precise and I still don't think this article should link to such a different species as One Year War. Let's at least wait for Akhilleus' response, as Doug suggests. Haploidavey (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Lol, species? According to you, both One Year War and the Trojan War are fictional events, so if One Year War can have an infobox, then Trojan War has every right to have one.Valkyrie Red (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah sorry, read a different comment. Anyway, you say that there's a difference between myth and fiction. Tell me, what exactly is that difference?Valkyrie Red (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, now, VR, I don't doubt your committed interest and good faith at all, but I have to say, if you're seriously asking that question, that's one of the sources of difficulty in communications between the parties here. A fiction, like a novel, short story, or gaming scenario, is a deliberate creation of a specific time and place. It has an author or authors who had certain intentions in creating it. A myth, by contrast, is a narrative that accumulates out of a tradition, and usually has many variants, some of them contradictory; in the case of Greek myth, a myth also expresses religious beliefs (to which Akhilleus alluded above in regard to the divine purpose the war served). As the underlying theology changes, the myth changes to express those: this is one reason for variant versions. The Greeks also "narrated" myths via art, in particular as known to us through the durable medium of vase painting; the visual versions often don't accord with the verbal narratives we know, pointing to further versions of the story unknown to us. Although myth is usually regarded as nebulously oral in origin (and see the problems of the historicity of Homer himself), for us it's preserved in literary works, which is where the matter becomes complicated: a myth in a particular literary work is also a fiction. The way a Greek tragedian presents the character of Odysseus, for instance, can be wildly different from the Homeric Odysseus in either the Iliad or Odyssey. Whatever theological meaning the myth may have had is therefore consciously manipulated by an individual author to suit his immediate purposes, whether these are aesthetic or a matter of adapting the myth to give it contemporary relevance. The Trojan War is an exceptionally complicated myth because it has so many variants (the story of Helen alone has many mutually contradictory versions), and also because Greek and Roman authors themselves regarded it as having historical foundation (they also disagreed on the degree of its historicity); and thus the term "legend" also comes into play. This is why constructing an infobox is, on further reflection, probably not a very useful exercise: whose version of the Trojan War will it represent? The questions P Aculeius asks point toward the difficulties. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah thank you Cynewolfe for that epic statement. It's always nice to see other editors but in to other people's business. So basically what you are saying is that fiction is a fake story deliberately told by an author(s) while a myth is a fictional story passed down from generation to generation as a tradition As for which Trojan War, the infobox shall represent the most common interpretation of the Trojan War. The article on the other hand, its purpose is to address the different versions. That is what everyone against the infobox fails to get. The infobox isn't meant to explain everything. It's just meant to create a brief overview of the situation.Valkyrie Red (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
"Veering toward doubtful." Me too now. I don't see that the proponents of the infobox are willing to recognize the validity of the issues raised contra or to be rigorous about how the material is presented. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
