Talk:Trojan War: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:15, 25 May 2010 editValkyrie Red (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,801 edits →Returning the Infobox ← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:19, 26 May 2010 edit undoMiszaBot I (talk \| contribs)234,552 editsm Archiving 13 thread(s) (older than 60d) to Talk:Trojan War/Archive 5.Next edit →
Line 56:		Line 56:
	*]		*]
	}}		}}

	== My Rewrite of "The death of Palamedes" section ==
	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. ] ] 19:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

	===The death of Palmedes===
	Odysseus was sent to Thrace to return with grain but came back empty handed. When scorned by ] 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.<ref>According to other accounts Odysseus, with the other Greek captains, including Agamemnon, conspired together against Palamedes, as all were envious of his accomplishments. See Simpson, ''Gods & Heroes of the Greeks: The Library of Apollodorus'', p.251.</ref> An incriminating letter was forged, from Priam to Palamedes.<ref>According to Apollodorus ''Epitome'' 3.8, Odysseus forced a Phrygian prisoner, to write the letter.</ref> 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 ] drowned Palamedes, while he was fishing, and ] says that Odysseus and Diomedes, lured Palamedes into a well, which they said contained gold, then stoned him to death.<ref>Pausanias 10.31.2; Simpson, ''Gods & Heroes of the Greeks: The Library of Apollodorus'', p.251.</ref>

	Palamedes' father ] 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, ] with ], son of ].<ref>Apollodorus, ''Epitome'' 6.9.</ref>
	this crap is just shit go find something else <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	===Notes===
	<references/>

	===Comments===
	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? ] ] 19:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

	I like it. The grain tale is from ], 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!] 19:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

	== Questions on the "Trojan Horse" section ==

	What is the source for the following:

	#"Some have suggested that the Trojan Horse actually represents an earthquake that occurred between the wars that could have weakened Troy's walls and left them open for attack."?
	#The size of the crew of a ] being 3,000?

	] ] 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 ]'s ''Tactics'' ] 23:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

	:I have a question myself,
	:I thought the Trojan Horse was only filled with a handful of soldiers that waited until night to get out, then open the gates for the rest of the Greeks. Is that what happened? ] (]) 04:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

	== Footnotes and references ==

	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? ] 20:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
	:Hi Ikokki. Sorry it took awhile for me to respond, I've been busy. I understand the problem you were trying to solve, but I think the solution you chose creates other problems, in that it deviates from several Misplaced Pages best practices (as I understand them). Let me try to explain. Every work used as a reference should be listed with complete bibliographic information (author, title, publisher, year, etc.) in a section titled "References". Further, citations to a listed reference, (e.g. Smith, p. 30.) can be associated with a given piece of text by either inserting the citation (usually parenthetically) into the text (e.g. He was born in 500 BC (Smith, p. 30).) or by using a (usually numbered) footnote, whose text should be in a section titled "Notes" (which typically contains both explanatory notes as well as simple citations). Your edit created three sections: "Footnotes", for explanatory notes, "References", for notes which are citations, and "Sources", for references. Further you created two different numbering schemes, numbers in parenthesis for explanatory notes, and numbers in brackets for citations, (with no explanation as to the difference). I think all this will be confusing for the reader as well as other editors. Nevertheless, the problem you mention is a real one. One solution would be to use in-line citation instead of footnotes for simple citations, reserving the "Notes" section for explanatory notes. — ] ] 17:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

	::I'm not sure that there's a problem here. Currently there are 12 explanatory notes: 1, 89, 90, 121, 122, 123, 126, 137, 139, 142, 153, and 156. The references in these notes should be kept, but for the most part, the explanatory text can be eliminated or integrated into the main text. #1 can be eliminated; the crucial information can be integrated with the main text. #89 and #90 can simply be eliminated--the article doesn't need to have every single variation on the Palamedes story. #121-123 can be integrated with the main text. #126 can be eliminated, the bones of Pelops are very peripheral to the Trojan War. #137--doesn't need to be here, could be in ]. #142--already in main text. #153--already in main text. #156--can be in main text.

	::So there's no need for a separate section of explanatory notes. As I've said before, I think a lot of the references should be integrated into the text in various ways--supposedly one of the goals of this article is not only to make it clear that there are different versions of the myths that make up the war, but to make it clear where the different versions come from. If we've got different versions of the Palamedes story we should say '''in the main text''' what authors the details come from. ] (]) 18:24, 22 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. ] 19:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

	== was this Helen the whole reason for the trojan war? ==

	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?

	] 09:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

	:] No one is even certain whether there was a historical conflict on which the myth was based (although there's some evidence that suggests that there might have been). The oldest source text for the story is Homer's ''Iliad'', and in that Helen is clearly depicted as the reason for the war; although even Homer suggests that the Akhaians might have had other ancillary reasons for attacking Troy. Later authors have suggested other reasons, such as controlling trade routes through the ], but it's all speculative.

	:In short: if you're talking about the Trojan War of Homeric legend, then Helen was the reason. If you're talking about a real military conflict, then nobody knows. And if you're talking about the Trojan War as depicted in thousands of conflicting post-Homeric sources right up to the godawful movie ''Troy'', then you can pick and choose the version you like best. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:49, 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 ] movie? (ps: he was Macedonian)

	] 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.--] (]) 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.] (]) 12:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Ryan Tipton

	== Various modern representations? ==

	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.--] 05:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

	:Well, the choice of images isn't just based on "validity" — it's also based on lots of other factors, including notability, cultural weight and how well they illustrate the various story elements in the traditional (classical) narrative of the war. I'm not saying that an image from a recent film would necessarily fail to meet these criteria, but I do think that, for example, the red-figure fifth-century (BC) ''kyklix'' image of Achilles is a more culturally relevant representation than a publicity still of Brad Pitt.

	:If there's an aspect of the war that an image from a modern source could illustrate well, and the image chosen can satisfy the increasingly stringent ] requirements, it could probably be added; however, I would oppose ''replacing'' any classical images with modern ones. (I might be open to arguments about some of the Rennaissance and Post-Rennaissance art, but the argument would have to be a good one, covering both the artistic merit and the relevance to the article.) —] <small>(] • ])</small> 06:48, 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:
	#Achilles and Ajax playing board game (obviously it needs a proper illustration)
	#Chryses asking Agamemnon for his daughter
	#Ajax getting ready to commit suicide
	#19th century etching of the Trojan Horse

	Other than that I would not complain in advance for any changes] 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

	=="Infobox"?==
	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.")--] 20:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

	:It is apparently a ''really badly'' implemented version of the standard Campaign Infobox found in most articles which fall under the scope of the ]. For an example of how they should be used properly see ]. Its presence in this article is debatable, based on whether you consider the Trojan war ''fact'' or ''legend''. - ] (]) - 20:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

	::I agree that it's inappropriate for this article, and have removed it. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 21:21, 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. ] (]) 22:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

	:I know - but what are the odds that someone will edit an article without reading the talk page and bothering to dig through the talk page archives on the off chance that they're re-opening old issues that have been long settled? Say ... 99.9%? - ] (]) - 23:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

	::Someone definitely will, sooner or later ... maybe sooner. That's why one has all those pages on one's watchlist, huh? --] 20:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

	:::Yup. ] ] 01:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

	== GA on Hold ==

	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, ] ] 00:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
	*Fixed, I think. ] (]) 06:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
	*I added the "clarify" tag to the lead because of the first part of the sentence: "Those who believe that the stories of the Trojan War derive from a specific historical conflict usually date it to between 1300 BC and 1200 BC, usually preferring the dates given by Eratosthenes, 1194 BC–1184 BC..." How can they "usually" date it to between 1300 BC and 1200 BC while also "usually" preferring a date after 1194 BC? The author of the sentence must have intended something else. Unfortunately, I added the tag to the end of the sentence, so it seems to have been misinterpreted. ] 07:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
	**Sorry I misunderstood. The sentence was definitely contradictory, and I rewrote it. The candidates for the Troy of the Trojan War are usually thought to be Troy VI and ], and since the latter shows evidence of destruction right around the time ] said the war happens, that's usually the specific layer of the city identified as Homer's Troy. ] (]) 16:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
	***Thanks, that's great. I should probably have brought up the issue on Talk in the first place. ] 17:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
	*Also, I don't know how I missed these, but there are some citation needed tags in the Second Gathering section, the The Judgment of Arms: Achilles' armour and the death of Ajax section, the Returns section, and the Historical Basis section. Cheers, ] ] 23:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
	**I'll try to address those, but it will take some time. If anyone else has time to get to them first, feel free... ] (]) 23:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
	===GA Failed===
	I have failed this article's GA because the above points were not addressed during the duration of the hold. Cheers, ] ] 15:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

	== Thetis and Achilles ==
	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 Misplaced Pages would acknowledge as a "good article," then your quality control is a perfect joke.] 18:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

	:You're correct about the problem in this paragraph, and I've tried to rewrite it to show the variant accounts rather than to produce an original narrative synthesis. (The story that Thetis killed previous sons of Peleus is mentioned in the notes of Frazer and Hard on Apollodorus, so I'm not sure that it doesn't merit mention.) Incidentally, this article hasn't yet been acknowledged as a "good article".
	:Your ramark about Lycophron highlights a more general problem of which sources to use for "plot summaries" in articles on classical mythology. Even if we try to give a "generally accepted" version of the narrative, we have to ask "accepted by whom?". (Timothy Gantz in ''Early Greek Myth'' concentrates on the myths as known in the Archaic Greek period roughly to the time of Aeschylus, a cut-off point he acknowledges is arbitrary.) It could also be argued that a narrative synthesis from disparate sources constitutes ]. An alternative would be a purely source-based account, not in narrative order (Homer says X, the ''Cypria'' adds Y, Stesichorus claims Z, etc.) However, this would probably be annoying for types of reader who would prefer a continuous narrative; think of someone who'd read a modern allusion and wanted to find out about "Achilles' childhood", or who wanted to see how close the film ''Troy'' was to ancient accounts. ] 09:26, 15 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.] (]) 19:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

	== Fire beacons ==

	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. ] (]) 06:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

	:I don't think it's worth mentioning. I had a long argument with another editor about this; the discussion can be found in the archives. ] (]) 04:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

	== P.S.: Article Length ==

	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? ] (]) 06:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

	:A user with IP address ] made ] changes to the above entry by ]:

	: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. ''Telegony'', too) Any thoughts? ] (]) 06:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

	:--] (]) 22:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

	==Myth as fact==
	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. ] (]) 22:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

	:Well, the first sentence says "according to Greek mythology..." and the third paragraph of the lead talks about the historicity (or lack thereof) of the Trojan War. So I think you're misreading the text. ] (]) 22:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
	::Yes, those two paragraphs are fine, but the rest of the article still needs to say what is myth. Like starting sections with "In the ''Illad'' chapter x, we are told..." or something. ] might be helpful. ] (]) 00:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Well, it's ''all'' myth. Your suggestion about starting sections by referring to a particular source is good, but check the footnotes--there are sometimes multiple versions of each incident, so it's not as if there's a single source for most of the sections. ] (]) 02:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

	==GA on hold==
	Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the ] 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 ] to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.
	===Issues preventing promotion===
	(These issues must be satisfactorily addressed, in the article itself or here, before GA promotion can go ahead)
	*The first and third paragraph of "sources" needs a source.
	*"he envisaged the notion of Momus or Themis, which was to use the Trojan war" - This isn't clear at all. I know what you are trying to say, but try to make it clearer.
	*Inline cites should only ever come after punctuation, not in the middle of sentances. Full stops are preferred, commas acceptable. Otherwise they break up the text too much and make it hard to read.
	*I think that the following section highlights a significant problem with the article's current layout. "The storm caused the lovers to land in Egypt, where the gods replaced Helen with a likeness of her made of clouds, Nephele. The myth of Helen being switched is attributed to the 6th century BC Sicilian poet Stesichorus. For Homer the true Helen was in Troy." - The narrative voice needs to either a) explain all disputed parts of the story clearly in the sequence b) choose one narrative to describe and then discuss disputed parts later c) choose one narrative and use footnotes to explain disputes between sources. At the moment the narrative jumps all over the place and it makes for unecessary confusion for a reader.
	*I think the "him" in the following sentance is incorrect? - "He agreed and sent him Nestor, along with other emissaries, to all the Achaean kings".
	*Very short sentances like the following should be merged into the text blocks around them as they look untidy and lack context. This sentance especially is hard to understand where it is. "Pausanias said that, according to Homer, Achilles did not hide in Scyros, but rather conquered the island, as part of the Trojan War."
	*The first paragraph of "First gathering at Aulis" is very disjointed. Who are these people? Are they important? Why are they singled out for mention here?
	*"who had led a contingent of Arcadians to settle there. In the battle," What battle? I assume there was one but it shouldn't be an assumption, it should be explained - why did the Greeks attack them?
	*"Because the wound would not heal, Telephus asked an oracle, "What will happen to the wound?". The oracle responded, "he that wounded shall heal"." So what? What is the significance of this information? This happens quite a bit, where a reader is bombarded with random information about random people without context. Some context does emerge later, but its a bit too late. At the very least we should be told who Telephus is before we meet him.
	*"asking Agamemnon to help heal his wound, or kidnapped Orestes and held him for ransom, demanding the wound be healed." Again, very confusing narrative.
	*"Eight years after the storm had scattered them, the fleet of more than a thousand ships was gathered again." - What!? It took the Greeks eight years to reach Troy and ten years of fighting once there? That isn't the story I remember (and I have actually read the Iliad). Much more context required here.
	*"though this could be dramatic effect." - attribution needed here.
	*"he then wounded the gods" - who did?
	*For some reason, the "The Iliad" section is poorly referenced. This is somewhat bizarre given how heavy the referencing has been up to this point.
	*"According to an older tradition, he was killed by the Trojans who, seeing he was invulnerable, attacked him with clay until he was covered by it and could no longer move, thus dying of starvation." - attribution please
	*"Some have suggested that the Trojan Horse actually represents an earthquake" - attribution and further explanation please.
	*"The Odyssey" & "The Aeneid"- Not one source.
	===Other comments===
	(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)
	*The source presented in the lead is not really necessary. Citing items in the lead is not generally done for anything except direct quotes and thus is not fully needed here. The claim it cites is repeated in the historicity and the reference should be moved there (perhaps in place of the {{Tl\|Fact}} tag).
	*"Zeus came to learn from either Themis or Prometheus, after Heracles had released him from Caucasus, that, like his father Cronus, one of his sons would overthrow him." - This is just an example, but a lot of the prose is like this. The sentance is overlong and overcomplicated and will be jumped on at FAC.
	*I notice that you have referenced a lot of facts in the middle of sentances. I suggest that instead on simply providing sources, as in "Menelaus had left for Crete to bury his uncle, Crateus. Paris, with Aphrodite's help, kidnapped or seduced her and sailed to Troy", put a single note at the end of the sentance and in it explain which source said which fact, i.e.Proclus Chrestomathy 1 and Appollodorus (Epitome 3.3.) indicate that Meleaus was in Crete, while Hyginus (Fabulae 92.) and Homer (Iliad 3.441; Odyssey 4.261.) dispute the circumstances of Helen's departure, Hyginus indicating that she was kidnapped against her will while Homer claims that Paris seduced her." This is just a rather crude example, but it would certainly improve the layout of sources in the article, which at the moment can be rather distracting.

	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--] (]) 00:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

	:I don't think the problems you're talking about are going to be fixed anytime soon; the article is simply too large to work on easily, and the changes you're suggesting warrant a total rewrite. ] (]) 05:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

	::Yeah, I'm sorry to do this to you, its clear a lot of work has gone into the article, but it was just too confusing. If you want, I can take this to ] and see what they say, gain a wider opinion on the article. Its possible that I'm just being too harsh. In any case, good work so far and I wish you luck on improving the article. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:::No apology needed--I think most of your suggestions are useful, but since there aren't that many editors who actively work on this article, it's unlikely that they'll be addressed quickly. ] (]) 17:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

	::::OK, I left this up a week just in case but I'm going to have to fail it now. Don't be disheartened, the article does need a lot of work, but the work done already is all valid and all that is really needed is a change of direction. All the best--] (]) 10:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

	Does anyone happen to know an estimated death count? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== Semi-protecting the page? ==

	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?--] (]) 16:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:Yes, it may be time. The problem is however that IP's become vandal users with red linked names and they still vandalise. I would like to know if the overall vandalism rate still goes down when the new red linked name vandals are counted after semi protection has been applied. ] (]) 18:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	::There's one way to find out. My instinct is that a certain mymber will be put off by having to create a new id.--] (]) 18:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::I agree. But it would be nice if we could develop some statistics to prove it. ] (]) 19:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::Well, I've put in the request now.--] (]) 18:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Very good. Thanks. ] (]) 18:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::it is now semi-protected. Thanks to ].--] (]) 18:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Very fitting username. I hope we get some peace from the vandals. ] (]) 18:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::Yup.

	I've just re-nominated this page for another bout of semi-protection. The level of IP vandalism on this page is unreasonable. --] (]) 00:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

	{{Talk:Trojan War/GA1}}

	== The First Sentence ==		== The First Sentence ==
Line 273:		Line 74:

	== Returning the Infobox ==		== 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, ] 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.--] (]) 21:43, 24 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, ] 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.--] (]) 21:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:19, 26 May 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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 2 months

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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 9, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
June 30, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
January 21, 2008	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
January 29, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed
September 30, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Greece High‑importance

	Greece portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Classical Greece and Rome Top‑importance

	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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Mythology Top‑importance

	Mythology portal 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Classical

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

"Book reviews: Troy, the Olympic Games and Elias (Part 1)". BalkanAnalysis.com. May 30, 2004.

Archives

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)

Oh I didn't relaise the vandalism topics on here. It's fine. Don't really know why people find it funny to do that...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.102.108 (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Dagger (typography)

What's the †dagger for, please? --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:25, 8 May 2010 (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)

Yep, that was my guess but, as you say, it doesn't fit here. Support the deletion. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:07, 9 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)

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)

Deletion of editors' comments

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)

Categories: