Talk:Trojan War/Archive 3

Order of sections
Minus a tactics section (that I'll add tomorrow) this is pretty much my vision for this article. I'll also try to add references. I put non-fiction as introduction first and myth later. Please, before changing order please write why here. Ikokki 22:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No tactics, please--if you want to discuss Homeric warfare and its possible relation to history, go to Historicity of the Iliad.


 * We all agree that mythology is the focus of this article. That means the main part of this article is the story of the Trojan War, so I want the article to get to the narrative of the Trojan War as quickly as possible. And that's pretty fast. The introduction already contains material on the possible historicity of the war and its possible date. The sources section can be 1-2 paragraphs long.


 * Why do it this way? I imagine that many Wikipedia users will come to this article to learn the parts of the story of the Trojan War that aren't in Homer--they want to know about Philoctetes, the Amazons, the death of Achilles, etc. They'll want to know where we get these stories from, which means that we need to say specifically where each episode is told. The best way to do that is to include that information along with the narrative--e.g., give a summary of the contest for Achilles' arms and Ajax's suicide, and say that the contest was in one of the cyclic epics and Sophocles' Ajax is a famous version of Ajax's suicide.


 * Those users who want to know more about the possible dates of the war and its historicity will be patient enough to read through the article, or click through to Historicity of the Iliad. But someone who's just looking for a summary of the myths is going to be exasperated by off-topic stuff like the Dorian invasion. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Compromise Proposal
A Compromise sugestion: After the initial 2 paragraphs a Sources section with 3 paragraphs: One on the origin of the myth, one on the main sources (Homer and Kyklia) and One on later developments and Roman writers. Then the date section (saying that since this,according to the ancient Greeks, is either the last event of the mythical age or the first of the historical age these dates ae given). Then the myths, followed by historicity that will include data on contemporary sources but not numbers (since they will be included in Greek fleet gathers at Aulis). Any other suggestions? Ikokki 14:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this is a productive suggestion. However, I don't think your proposal for the "sources" section is workable (see my comment above).


 * The date section should follow the myths. Note that the introduction has two sentences about the date: "They believed that this war took place in the 13th or 12th century BC, and that Troy was located in the vicinity of the Dardanelles in what is now north-western Turkey." and "Those who think 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) which roughly corresponds with the burning of Troy VIIa." This is enough information for most readers, who are coming here for the myths of the Trojan War. The way the date section is currently written does not add much information to what's in the introduction; it's mostly a list, with no indication of how these authors obtained their dates or why one might be better than another.


 * On historicity, we've said several times that Historicity of the Iliad is the main article. This Trojan War article doesn't need to discuss "contemporary sources" like the Manapa-Tarhunda letter; they're covered elsewhere.


 * So, my proposed order: Introduction, Sources, myths, and a "historicity" section that combines the current "date" and "historicity" sections. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The Historicity of the Iliad article says nothing of Telephus, nothing of the role of Lesbos and Tenedos, nothing of Aias's campaign against Aeneas, nothing of Achilles campaign in the Thracian penninsula. These events are included in all attempted reconstructions of the "true" Trojan War. Frankly, I don't even think they belong to the historicity of Iliad article, since by the definition it deals with the Iliad. Since they do belong to Wikipedia, if not in this article, where do they belong?

The date, which comes from the sources, is more related to sources than historicity. This is why it should be near sources rather than historicity. For the time being I will put the historicity down (but without the Date), and will keep on adding refernces to myths text, modifying it along the way to confront with the sources. Feel free to change the sources text as you will, I would like to see what your POV in the matter is. I will add to what you will modify (with references) from sources of my POV Ikokki 10:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My "POV", as you put it, is that the sources section should be as short as possible, so that we can get to the myths quickly.
 * If you want to deal with the historicity of non-Iliadic events, perhaps the best thing to do is to create a Historicity of the Trojan War article. The mythological section here is incomplete, as I'm sure you realize: it says almost nothing about Palamedes, for example. Full coverage of just the mythology should bring the article to around 50k, I think, and that doesn't leave a lot of room for discussion of historicity. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt there is anything to say about the historicity of non-Iliadic Trojan War events worth more than a footnote. Why, even the reconstruction of the myths is dodgy, much more their historicity. Name one example of non-Iliadic Trojan War lore with any however remote chance of historicity. dab (&#5839;) 19:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with you, but it does seem that there are some scholars who discuss the historicity of the Telephus episode: see Rutter's page on the historicity of the Trojan War. Rutter's discussion, though, connects the Telephus/Teuthrania stuff with the Aeolic migration, which is post-Mycenaean. I'm sure there are people who try to connect other parts of the Trojan War with history. It's clear, though, that most discussion of the historicity of the Trojan War focuses on the Iliad, simply because that's our best-preserved epic about the war. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There many major non-Iliadic events that are worth far more than a footnote, e.g. the Trojan Horse. The Iliad is the best preserved-epic, but not our main source of the whole conflict (most references so far I've added are from Apollodorus), just of the 51 days it talks about. For the last 10 days or so I've been adding mostly references but also some extra text to the mythological section (something I hope is appreciated). The way I see it the mythological section will end up over 30 paragraphs long. Not adding a 4-5 paragraph section on historicity even at the end makes the article seem unbalanced. As it says at WP:SIZE Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage; certainly, size is no reason to remove valid and useful information. Attempts since the 20th century to reconstruct events of the time should belong to the Historicity section.

A new Historicity of the Trojan War is probably warranted, but lets write a section here first as a summary of it. In general that what I've read is that the tale of the Trojan War reflects (among other things) the memories of a long term Achean expedition in the North Aegean which intended to bring it under the command of the Anax of Mycene.Ikokki 21:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Catalogues
Just because Apollodorus gives extensive lists of all of the suitors of Helen and later on all the suitors of Penelope, doesn't mean that this article needs to report them. Lists don't make for good reading, and these don't communicate much valuable information to the Wikipedia reader. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Apollodorus' lists are extensive but not complete. I agree, they do not make good reading. But IMO a Trojan War article needs a (partial at least) list of major Acheans and Trojans. I put the Acheans here as suitors (instead of campaigners later) and with an indentation so that exactly they can be skipped by a busy Wikipedian. There is going to be another, smaller, list of major Trojans when their army will gather. I would rather have these two lists far apart. I am aware there is a list of Trojan War characterts, but having a smaller here will give the Wikipedia reader an idea of just how many heroes were involved. Ikokki 16:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The Iliad
This article does not need a book-by-book summary of the Iliad. We can direct readers to the Iliad article with ; all that needs to be here is a concise summary. The summary in the Iliad article could use some beefing up, perhaps. Also, in English, it is now typical to refer to books by number, not by Greek letter. Remember that most of the audience does not know Greek, not even the Greek alphabet. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I did try to put up a concise summary of the action and nothing more. I hoped to put up a summary on the same par as the summary of mostly Apollodorus that I put up earlier. I put up book letter in case anyone wanted to go and find out where this action takes place. I preferred letter because it is prettier than the dry book one, book two, book three. In engineering and mathematics at least Greek letters are very well known though probably not their order. I always assume that the audience does not know Greek. If the letters are distracting delete them. As for the beefing up, I'll do it on the Iliad article on some later date. But any summary of the Iliad should include the wrath, the duel of Menelaus and Paris, the four battles and the savagery of Achilles if perhaps not in this extent. Ikokki 21:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I shortened the summary. It could, I think, be slightly longer (a sentence or two about the duel of Menelaus and Paris, another sentence or two about how savage Achilles is in his aristeia and his mistreatment of Hector's corpse, plus the gods' reaction), but it should not be much longer than it is now. Our basic audience is readers who are familiar with the general course of things in the Iliad, but don't know the rest of the Trojan War narrative. Those readers who do want to know more about the plot of the Iliad have a handy link to the appropriate article through, and that's the best place to summarize the days of battle, etc.

The Greek letters really aren't helpful for most readers. I know classical Greek, and the letters don't help me very much, I have to translate them into numbers before I can look up a reference. Most editions/translations of Homer published for an English-speaking audience use the numbers now, so it will be more helpful for readers of this article if we use numbers and not letters, though I see your point that "Book One" is not as aesthetically pleasing. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you assume that are basic audience has a familiarity with the events of the Iliad, at least a bigger familiarity than the one the film "Troy" showed? In my experience, even among Greeks who have done the Iliad in school many, 5 years later, don't even remember much save just how realistic Homer is in his wound descriptions. In any case I had put up the letters as a form of quick reference. Since you deleted it, we're gonna need new references now...Ikokki 22:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I imagine that many readers of this article have encountered the Iliad in a Greek mythology course or Greek literature course in college, and want to know more about the rest of the story of the Trojan War. But if the reader is not familiar with the Iliad, there's a link to an article that they can read...
 * The Iliad section doesn't need references. Unlike the rest of the article, this section is a summary of a single poem. Since we're summarizing the entire work, it's not necessary to supply references to precise passages, any more than a summary of War and Peace would need to give page or chapter numbers. If a reader needs to know what happens in which book, again, there's a link to an article they can read. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Wikipedia policy is to assume that the reader knows nothing of what he is reading. The articles are written for the general reader, not the Ancient Greek literature student. In the largest part of the world the Iliad is not part of the curicullum. In any case however minus two or three sentences that I'll add on Friday (that the army is gathered again for the first time since the original landing, a little on the duel and the ensuing first battle) I have no intention on changing.Ikokki 09:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)