This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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. Paul August☎ 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 Palamedes 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.[1] An incriminating letter was forged, from Priam to Palamedes.[2] 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 Diomedes drowned Palamedes, while he was fishing, and Dictys says that Odysseus and Diomedes, lured Palamedes into a well, which they said contained gold, then stoned him to death.[3]
Palamedes' father Nauplius 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, Clytemnestra with Aegisthus, son of Thyestes.[4]
this crap is just shit go find something else —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.67.70 (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Notes
^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.
^According to Apollodorus Epitome 3.8, Odysseus forced a Phrygian prisoner, to write the letter.
^Pausanias 10.31.2; Simpson, Gods & Heroes of the Greeks: The Library of Apollodorus, p.251.
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? Paul August☎ 19:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I like it. The grain tale is from Dictys Cretensis, 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!Ikokki 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."?
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 Leo VI the Wise's TacticsIkokki 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? Geosultan4 (talk) 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? Ikokki 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 Wikipedia 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. — Paul August☎ 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 Trojan Horse. #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. --Akhilleus (talk) 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. Ikokki 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?
What is truth? 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 Bosphorus, 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. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 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 Alexander the great movie? (ps: he was Macedonian)
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.--Kangaroo2 (talk) 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.71.243.213.136 (talk) 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.--Exander 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 fair use 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.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 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 changesIkokki 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.")--Barbatus 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 Military History Wikiproject. For an example of how they should be used properly see Third Servile War. Its presence in this article is debatable, based on whether you consider the Trojan war fact or legend. - Vedexent (talk) - 20:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it's inappropriate for this article, and have removed it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 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%? - Vedexent (talk) - 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? --Barbatus 20:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
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, Corvuscoronoides 00:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Fixed, I think. --Akhilleus (talk) 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. EALacey 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 Troy VIIa, and since the latter shows evidence of destruction right around the time Eratosthenes said the war happens, that's usually the specific layer of the city identified as Homer's Troy. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that's great. I should probably have brought up the issue on Talk in the first place. EALacey 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, Corvuscoronoides 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... --Akhilleus (talk) 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, Corvuscoronoides 15:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Real battle?
This battle is widely believed to have taken place, even though a large amount of information available is legend. So why is it treated like a myth? If this is a battle, it should be within Wikiproject Military History and have a battle box.
I've reverted the addition of the infobox. Please see "Infobox?" above. Paul August☎ 02:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
What info box? Besides, my war info box was referenced with a reliable source.
See the discussion just above with the title: "Infobox?" Paul August☎ 03:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Did some pruning
The "warfare" section is more appropriate to the Iliad's entry, so I put it over there. Ifnkovhg 06:16, 8 September 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 Wikipedia would acknowledge as a "good article," then your quality control is a perfect joke.139.179.110.34 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 original research. 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. EALacey 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.139.179.110.34 (talk) 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. Ifnkovhg (talk) 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 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? Ifnkovhg (talk) 06:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
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? Ifnkovhg (talk) 06:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
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. Narayanese (talk) 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 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. WP:WAF#The problem with in-universe perspective might be helpful. Narayanese (talk) 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
GA on hold
Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria 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 WP:GAR 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[5] or Themis,[6] 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.[37] 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.[47]"
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.[51] 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,[54] or kidnapped Orestes and held him for ransom, demanding the wound be healed.[55]" Again, very confusing narrative.
"Eight years after the storm had scattered them,[59] 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 {{Fact}} tag).
"Zeus came to learn from either Themis[8] or Prometheus, after Heracles had released him from Caucasus,[9] 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[33] to bury his uncle, Crateus.[34] Paris, with Aphrodite's help, kidnapped[35] or seduced her[36] 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--Jackyd101 (talk) 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 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 WP:GAR 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackyd101 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
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. --Akhilleus (talk) 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--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone happen to know an estimated death count? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.213.136 (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
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?--Peter cohen (talk) 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. Dr.K. (talk) 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.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. But it would be nice if we could develop some statistics to prove it. Dr.K. (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've put in the request now.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Very good. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Very fitting username. I hope we get some peace from the vandals. Dr.K. (talk) 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. --Pstanton (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Trojan War/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi there, I am afraid that this article has quickfailed GA. Please see the last GA review I did for this article, most of the problems have not been addressed and have to be before this has a chance of passing.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:
Thankyou and I am sorry the review was not more positive, if you disagree with my assesment then you are more than welcome to take the article to WP:GAR. I hope you have better luck next time, all the best.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Page Protection
Thanks to the excellent Juliancolton, Trojan War has been semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks due to all the IP vandalism. We have two weeks to edit in peace, and by then hopefully the vandals will have moved on and gotten lives. --Pstanton (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
descendance
One claims descent, not descendance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.50.139 (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The term "presently" is one of those that has different usage and meanings in different varieties of English. (See
[1] for an explanation.) It therefore swhould be avoided per Wikipedia:ENGVAR#National_varieties_of_English to avoid confusion.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The Bible
Is the trojan war mentioned in the bible someone told me that priam is mentioned but im not sure please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.147.93 (talk) 02:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
No, neither the Trojan War nor Priam are mentioned. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Original Name for Iliad and Odyssey
Iliad and Odyssey are modern names for these two Epics. Weren't the original names for large sections, recited and published independently (e.g., Catalog of Ships, Fall of Troy)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.233.183 (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from 174.27.209.55, 11 May 2010
{{editsemiprotected}}
change Achaeans to athens they fought the athens first then troy.
174.27.209.55 (talk) 02:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Not done Now that's just not true at all. Algebraist 03:25, 11 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)
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 Wikipedia 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)
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)
What else do you have to say good sir?--Valkyrie Red (talk) 17:21, 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, Wikipedia, 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)
It's all mythology. Have you read the article? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to disappoint you Mr. Akhilleus, but that is only one side of the coin. Perhaps a look at this article should help clarify the picture for you.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 17:46, 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)
I wish you wouldn't, because I (or someone else) will remove it. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:05, 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've been up now for 18 hours, so unless someone else beats me to it it will have to wait until tomorrow. Dougweller (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
historicity
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 Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it is."
Compromise proposal: Create an infobox for fictional military conflicts. Cynwolfe (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
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."
Now sir, could I ask you where exactly in that sentence it states that the military conflict must be proven 100%?--Valkyrie Red (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Valkyrie, please don't assume every Wikipedia 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)
Support compromise proposal. But what info will be in it? --Edward130603 (talk) 17:50, 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)
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 tPhe 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)
As I stated above, I support this.Valkyrie Red (talk) 18:16, 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)
Well that 3 for and none against. If no one has anything else to say, can we do this now?--Valkyrie Red (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Let's give Akhilleus, Old Moonraker, and/or Dougweller some time to respond.--Edward130603 (talk) 03:01, 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)
That's exactly what I didn't say. Please re-read my comment. Haploidavey (talk) 14:28, 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)
Valkyrie Red, this discussion is every editor's "business", so you owe Cynewolfe an apology. As for your substantive comment, An "infobox" which chooses a single interpretation to represent will necessarily be misleading. Paul August☎ 19:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
All right fine, I'm sorry Cynewolfe. As for you Paul, no one thought it was misleading for a year. You're raising an issue that hasn't been a problem until you guys decided to bring it up.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
That no one chose to remove the box does not mean that it wasn't misleading. Paul August☎ 19:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Cynwolfe didn't say that calling the Trojan War a "myth" meant that it was a fictional event. We don't know whether it's fictional, and in fact the Greeks and Romans (in fact everyone before the present day) regarded it as a real event, even though they didn't know whether the kings and heroes were real people who actually did the things they were said to have done. The word "myth" is problematic because in its technical sense it doesn't imply that something is fictitious, but in popular usage people infer that it does. I believe that Cynwolfe is saying that it's myth in the sense that most of our knowledge of the event consists of tradition, rather than historical fact. Some of those traditions could well be true, but we can't really be sure.
For me the issue isn't whether the war is historical fact or merely potentially or debatably historical. The issue is whether there are enough relatively uncontroversial details to justify an infobox. I don't see any problem with listing Agamemnon, Menelaüs, or Priam as commanders/leaders, or listing things like force sizes or casualty figures as "unknown". The issue of the historicity of the myth can be treated in the article. But I think that as the conflict was one of the defining events of classical history (irrespective of its actual historicity), it deserves to be treated similarly to historical wars. P Aculeius (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, which is why we're choosing your proposal as a resolution.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
At the moment it isn't clear to me that there's a consensus behind my proposal. P Aculeius (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, that's what I meant.Valkyrie Red (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
No per my comments above. Paul August☎ 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. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
All right, so we have 4 for 2 maybe and 1 against. I believe a consensus has been reached.Valkyrie Red (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't see a consensus about the content of a box. Above you say that "the most common" version of the war should be used; therefore, the infobox should clearly indicate that it represents the version of the war in the Iliad. I wonder whether you're aware of how the Iliad ends? Are you aware that it ends with Hector's funeral, and does not bring the war to a conclusion? That there is no victory narrated, no note of triumphalism? No Trojan horse in the Iliad? As for your reaction to what I said about "myth," hey, you asked the question. Again, I can only say that if you're sincerely saying you don't understand these distinctions, then that's one reason the parties to this dispute are having trouble communicating. Akhilleus, Paul August, P Aculeius, and Haploidavey have all demonstrated here and elsewhere in their WP contributions that they do understand the issues involved in presenting this kind of material. I only know you, Valkyrie Red, from this discussion, and I assumed when you asked the question "what's the difference between a myth and a fiction" that you were making a good-faith effort to understand how other editors were using the terms and making distinctions. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Along with the proposer, P Aculeius and Cynwolfe, I don't see that there exists a clear consensus for this, along with Dougweller it seems too soon to decide this, and along with Edward130603, I'd like to hear what Akhilleus and Dougweller have to say. Paul August☎ 16:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
@Cynewolfe: Sir, I am aware of how the Iliad ends as I have read it. However, we are discussing the Trojan War, not the Iliad. The Iliad is just one part of the war. We are going by version given to us from the Epic Cycle consisting of the Cypria, Illiad, Aethiopis, Little Iliad, Ilou Persis and the Nostoi. As for the other versions, I don't see what the infobox provides that these "other versions" contradict. The only thing that I see could be a problem is the date. We agree to remove the strength and casualties of each side if the infobox is readded.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
@Paul August: Ahkilleus hasn't responded in nearly 48 hours and Dougweller has already posted what he has to say.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Then you should note that the infobox is compiled from the Epic Cycle. And you may address me as "madam." "Imperatrix" is fine too. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, my apologizes madam. So yes, the infobox is compiled from the Epic Cycle. So what?Valkyrie Red (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
So that should be noted in the Infobox, near the top. Narrative sources: Epic Cycle. That says "this information comes from stories told about the Trojan War" rather than "this is straightforward information about a historical conflict." Cynwolfe (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there will be any problems with that. It appears that almost everyone thinks that an infobox could work here. Would anyone like to make a draft version for discussion before we (possibly) put it in the article? (That would give Akhilleus some more time to respond as well)--Edward130603 (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
All accounts of the Trojan War come from literary sources, which in turn are based on earlier oral traditions. Although archaeological evidence proves both the existence of Troy and its destruction about this time, the extent to which the accounts contained in the Epic Cycle are based on actual historical persons and events is unknown.
Here's an attempt to revise the former infobox along the lines that we discussed. I don't have a lot of experience with these, so I'd welcome your comments and suggestions. And Cynwolfe, I don't know how to insert your "narrative sources" line, although it sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I'd put it on the line after "result" and in the same format. If you can do that I'd be grateful!
I've included Mycenae and Sparta because they were the city-states led by Agamemnon and Menelaüs, and Argos because Homer uses Argives synonymously with Achaeans, and Argos was one of the major contributors to the war effort. For the same reasons, I decided to leave Nestor, Diomedes, and Ajax in the list of commanders, since each was not just a warrior but king of one of the city-states. I left out Odysseus because his force, like many others, was relatively small, even if his advice was very important.P Aculeius (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but this just illustrates exactly what I don't like about Infoboxes. Any reader who just looked at this wouldn't know it was not a real war. Dougweller (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your work, P Ac. Dougweller's right, though: if the goal is to differentiate the Trojan War from historical conflicts, using the preexisting military box probably can't do that sufficiently. I would delete the casualties line altogether, and would oppose a box without the "Narrative sources" (I don't know how to insert these either, without adding something to the template not relevant to historical conflicts). Perhaps there's a basic, more flexible template that could be adapted? Your observation about Odysseus gives me pause; while reasonable, it points to the difficulty of treating a mythological war like a historical war, because the importance of Odysseus as a figure in the mythic cycle far outpaces the practical value of his troops. Along those lines, Aeneas ought to be listed among the Trojan commanders; while relatively unimportant in the Iliad, during the actual fall (according to Vergil, anyway) and in the immediate aftermath, he effectively assumes command as one of the last surviving "princes" of Troy. Again, I'm thinking in terms of what's important for people to know about the Trojan War, and why it was such an important narrative in antiquity (Aeneas because of that little matter of founding Rome, for instance); if the infobox can't reflect important aspects of the Trojan War because it's designed for another purpose, then we're back to square one. As the ending of the Iliad recognizes, what was important about Troy wasn't who won and lost. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Since this template doesn't seem to accommodate the modifications we need, perhaps someone could come up with an alternative that would resemble this and contain the same basic information, but with the modifications called for above.
I have to object to Dougweller's description of it as "not a real war". It was real to the Greeks and Romans, and to pretty much everybody who lived before the 19th Century, as well as many people today. We may not know whether the people called themselves Trojans or whether Priam, Hector, Agamemnon, or Achilles were real people, what the war was fought over or how accurate other details are. But it's just silly to keep insisting that it's all fiction made up by some stupid Greeks.
I limited the list of commanders to those who were either commanding one of the armies or leading them in the field. The lists could go on and on, but that wouldn't be helpful. I don't see any reason to list Aeneas or Antenor, since they really weren't Trojan commanders. They may have been important to the post-war, but that's another topic entirely from the war itself. However, I see no objection to deleting the casualties line. I was just following the existing formatting. P Aculeius (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Wow man, you have out down yourself. Awesome job P Aculeius. The only problem I see is that Nestor wasn't killed in the war. He arrived back safely as described in Book 3 of the Odyssey. Also, shouldn't Paris be listed as a commander? He played a key role in the war such as starting it for one thing and killing Achilles. I agree that the casualties line be removed.
For those of you saying that it will confuse the reader as to whether or not it was real, why don't we look at two facts. 1) I assume that people who read this article will have had some background information to have even known about the topic. That being said, it is safe to assume that readers will already have known that this war has a bit of controversy to it. 2) In the very first line of the article it says "in Greek Mythology. Another thing to point out is that this war does have truth to it. Saying that this war didn't exist is like saying God doesn't exist. There are two very strong sides to that.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree with Dougweller; this infobox makes the war look as if it actually happened, and as if Agamemnon, Priam, and the others were real people.
And the war as told in Greek literature (and later literature) is certainly not a real war. Yes, the Greeks, Romans, and plenty of later folks thought the war actually happened (and gee, wouldn't it be nice if this article accurately covered the treatment of the war in ancient historiography?), but that's not the consensus of modern scholarship. Again, the myth may (and I stress "may") reflect some actual Bronze Age history, but scholars are far more cautious about the relationship than this infobox is. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Ahiklleus, that's not maintaining a Neutral Point of View. Anyway, I believe the only problem we have left is the commanders, am I not correct?Valkyrie Red (talk) 03:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Once again this seems to be boiling down to a debate over whether the war itself is at least semi-historical or fictional, a matter which, in my opinion, is better dealt with in the article itself. I'm not sensing much willingness to compromise here.
At any rate, I've revised the infobox to try and incorporate Cynwolfe's suggestions, while at the same time making it as simple as possible. I can't actually add a category that wasn't provided for in the template, and at this point, designing a new template for this article is beyond my ability. But the "part of" category at the top provided a means to make clear that accounts of the war are based on literary sources, and the "notes" category at the end provided an opportunity to explain what was meant by this in more detail. It's not exactly what Cynwolfe suggested, but maybe it's close enough for the time being.
I've removed the casualties category, since it was optional in the template, and to the best of my knowledge there's no basis even for speculation about casualties. I've also narrowed down the "commanders" category to just the principal commanders of the Greeks: Agamemnon and Menelaüs, plus Achilles, the most important warrior and the focus of much of the literature about the actual conduct of the war. Yes, Nestor, Diomedes, Ajax, and Odysseus were important, as were other persons on both sides. But it was clearly proving difficult to limit the category to the most important individuals given the number of arguments that could be made for some of them. P Aculeius (talk) 03:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
No, this is not really a debate over whether the war is semi-historical or fictional. This is a debate about whether this infobox (and really any infobox) is suited to deal with a mythological war, where the most important items of information are not a date (which is highly debatable here) or a list of commanders (which is essentially a list of characters here), but the events of the narrative—the marriage of Peleus and Thetis, the Apple of Discord, the Judgment of Paris, and so on.
The "part of" category at the top of the infobox is incorrect. The Epic Cycle is a series of epic poems about the Trojan War. There isn't really a part/whole relationship here, because the myths exist outside individual poetic depictions. It would be more correct to say that the war is part of Greek mythology.
The note at the bottom is also incorrect, basically because it claims that the identification of Troy and the date of its destruction are certain. The identification of the site is highly probable, but not absolutely proven; the date of its destruction, and the cause, are still uncertain. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The Epic Cycle is the primary source for information about the Trojan War, since the war forms the primary subject and background of most of the constituent parts. Indeed, the Iliad is more central to our understanding of the events than all of the other sources combined. For the reasons elaborated several times and by several authors above, describing the war as "part of Greek mythology" could be technically accurate but highly misleading, since to many readers it would imply that the war is a fictitious event. That isn't the case here and continuing to insist that the war be described in those terms is not going to resolve the issues in this debate.
As for the archaeological evidence, I don't think there is any serious debate over whether the city of Troy existed, or where it was located. It's not merely "highly probable" but generally accepted by modern historians. "Absolute proof" would require that there be no room for doubt whatever. That wouldn't be a reasonable standard to hold this article, or most other articles to. To the extent that it's possible to articulate some kind of doubt as to the validity of the archaeological record, those doubts should be discussed in the article, not the infobox.
There is also plenty of evidence that the city was destroyed and rebuilt several times, including by war at approximately the same date as that given by Eratosthenes. You can find more information on this in the articles Troy and Troy VII, and no, I am not citing these articles as proof in violation of Wikipedia policy, simply directing you to existing materials that you can look at quickly. In any case, the statement that archaeological evidence proves that the city existed and that it was destroyed about the time of the Trojan War should not be controversial. The note clearly states that whether these events correspond to the persons and events of the Epic Cycle is unknown. P Aculeius (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
There are several things that strike me about the current box
Traditionally the Thracians are among the Trojan allies. So limiting the list to Anatolia is inaccurate.
The 16 contingents appear in just one battle in the Iliad. The likes of the Amazons, Ethiopians etc all turn up in later poems of the Cycle.
It might be good to include "traditionally" with some of the numbers asserted.
The description of the Trojan forces here is based on the Iliad's catalogue, not the participants in a particular battle. Most of the peoples listed were from Anatolia, and the Thracians mentioned by Homer lived along the Hellespont, immediately adjacent to the Troad. Some Thracians lived in Anatolia, and even if we assume that some of the Thracian contingent lived on the opposite shore of the Hellespont, and therefore technically outside of Anatolia, requiring that a qualification to that effect be added to the description of the Trojan forces would be excessively nitpicky.
Yes, it would be possible to change "Trojans and their allies in Anatolia" to "Trojans, and their allies in Anatolia, and a few people who might have lived in land adjoining Anatolia but technically outside it (although also in modern Turkey), and according to some sources, but not the Iliad, which catalogues the Trojan forces, also Ethiopians, Amazons, and other miscellaneous people who may or may not have existed." But the only purpose for requiring such an exhaustively technical description would be to prevent there from being a brief, general description suitable for the purpose being considered.
There's no reason to add "traditionally" to plain statements that have already been described as part of the Epic Cycle and attributed to specific literary sources, and which are further described immediately below that in the infobox as literary and not indisputable historical fact. Adding "allegedly", "traditionally," "maybe," "highly improbable," "yeah, right!" and other qualifications after every line and description is simply redundant, and would serve no purpose other than to destroy the usefulness of the infobox. P Aculeius (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Er no. If you follow the list of allies that you link, you'll find that there are two other groups of Thracians listed under other names. The last of which lived in the modern FYR Macedonia. The mythology talked about barbarians from all over the place coming to the Trojan's aid. The various posthomerica, whether we are talking about early works such as the later poems of the Epic Cycle, or later ones such as Quintus and whatever sources he used, do feature Memnon the "Ethiopian" and the Amazons and various other types who are not mentioned in the Iliad list as coming to the aid of the Trojans after the death of Hector. Just picking the people mentioned in one of the many traditional sources, albeit one that for much but not all of its existence has been accorded greater weight than the other sources, strikes me as wrong. And as I said, this describes the forces in one battle in a ten year campaign. Either we have to take the ancient traditions as a whole, or we can go for what little historical record there is such as the odd mentions of Wilusa in the Hittite archives where, as I recall, Priam and Paris/Alexander weren't even on the same side of the dispute. Or, of course, we can give up the use of this particular box as a bad idea.
Looking blow, I don't seem to be the only person who sees value in "traditionally". A suitable qualification which will prevent new readers from taking everything too literally.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you could tell us who said "made up by some stupid Greeks.". That looks like a personal insult. Could you please strike it unless you can find a quote from soneone here who said that? It also doesn't help progress this discussion -- nor does your 'yeah right!' comment above. We are no where near a consensus to add an infobox and making what looks like personal attacks and are at least sarcastic comments aren't going to get us closer to one. And no one has yet put this RfC on the talk page of the mythology Wikiproject, so I've done it. The proponents should have done this at the start. Dougweller (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) P Aculeius, I've read plenty of material about Troy, Homer, and the Bronze Age. More, I think, than anyone else participating in this discussion. Enough to know that archaeologists talk about the identification of Troy as probable rather than certain. For once, journalists echo scholars in being cautious: this article in the New York Times calls Troy "the presumed site in western Turkey of the legendary siege in the 13th century B.C. immortalized by Homer", and this article says "Archaeologists are still debating Troy’s very existence." Similarly, Troy VII, according to our article, "appears to have been destroyed by a war, perhaps the source of the legendary Trojan War..." "appears" and "perhaps" are not the same thing as "proven." And there is more debate about the date of the destruction of Troy VIIa than our article reports. So, again, the text in the infobox does not reflect the state of the scholarship.
Also, you don't seem to understand what I'm saying about the problem with the "part of" line. So I'll try again. The Trojan War is a mythological event, which is told in many different works of prose and poetry. The Epic Cycle (which in many usages does not include the Iliad and the Odyssey) are a series of epic poems, based upon the Trojan War. Saying that the Trojan War is part of the Epic Cycle confuses two different categories of things (mythological event and poem). It's also inaccurate because the Epic Cycle, as the term is commonly used, is about the Trojan War and nothing else; saying "part of" implies that the Epic Cycle covers other events.
Finally, your resistance to qualifying any of the terms in the infobox illustrates why it's unsuitable for this article, better than anything I've said. The infobox is very well suited for communicating simple facts, especially quantifiable facts. But the "facts" here aren't simple, and if you don't put qualifiers like "traditionally" in the infobox, you are misleading readers. --Akhilleus (talk)
BTW the "belligerents" line is easily fixed simply by saying "Achaeans (Greeks)" and "Trojans and allies". But, you know, this is another thing that is historically uncertain; some people think there was a war, but non-Greek people were attacking Troy. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
"It appears that almost everyone thinks that an infobox could work here" ends the preceding section. Recent posts, particularly from User:Akhilleus, are showing that this is wrong; it's not going to work. I don't know whether my weak acceptance of the proposal was included in the "almost everyone", but if so, may I withdraw it now? --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I find Akhilleus' arguments cogent and apt. And as for "almost everyone thinks that an infobox could work here" that was never an accurate description. Paul August☎ 15:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
You can demand retractions as much as you like. You have no right to take offense at a rhetorical point that wasn't attributed to you or anybody else, and pretend that it was. I've already explained that the proposal makes perfectly clear that the material in the infobox is attributable to literary sources, and is not provable as history. It doesn't need further qualification; you're unwilling to let it be what it is without adding more and more stress on your own point of view, and that's what precludes any potential for compromise.
The equivocating language of a New York Times article is not useful to this debate, and this debate belongs in the article, not in the infobox. How many times is it necessary to restate that? There is no meaningful debate about the existence of a city which the Greeks called Troy, whatever other people (including the inhabitants) may have called it. And the archaeological evidence shows that the city was destroyed numerous times, apparently some of those times by war, apparently around the time that the Trojan War was thought to have occurred. Stating that as fact should be uncontroversial. The fact that you're able to find some scholars who continue to resist any link between the archaeological and literary tradition doesn't preclude that from being a valid statement of fact.
This debate seems to demonstrate that some editors will continue to find fault with any proposal, any language, any assertions that don't agree with their own point of view. Since this dispute can only be resolved through compromise, and one side is clearly unwilling to accept any compromise, the whole exercise appears futile. P Aculeius (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
How many times is it necessary to say that the infobox resolves any "debate" about historicity in favor of saying that the war was historical, to the point that we can name the commanders of the forces, and give figures for the number of soldiers?
"And the archaeological evidence shows that the city was destroyed numerous times, apparently some of those times by war, apparently around the time that the Trojan War was thought to have occurred." "apparently" does not equal "proven". And you've already said you don't want any words like "apparently" in the infobox.
"The fact that you're able to find some scholars who continue to resist any link between the archaeological and literary tradition doesn't preclude that from being a valid statement of fact." No, this is not what I'm saying at all. The links between the mythological tradition and the history of the Bronze Age is far more complex than you seem to realize, however. Undoubtedly the myths reflect history in some way, but this doesn't allow us to state that there was a single war for Troy, fought by a grand alliance of Greeks against the Trojans, still less that Agamemnon was a commander in the war, and we cannot even hazard a guess as to how many soldiers might have been involved. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The issue of whether or not "Agamemnon was a commander in the war" illustrates why the inclusion of an infobox is problematic. If the infobox is meant to describe the story of the Trojan War then there is no doubt that Agamemnon was a commander. If on the the other hand the infobox is meant to describe an actual war upon which the story is based, then there is considerable doubt as to whether someone named Agamemnon had anything to do with the supposed historical war at all. I see no obvious way around such confusion. Paul August☎ 17:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
It seems that the only problem you have with the infobox is that you think it can only be used for "real" conflicts. Now, I've said this numerous times yet you always seem to ignore it. Where in the article describing the usage of an infobox, does it state that the conflict for which the infobox is being given to has to be proven 100%? Tell me Ahkilleus, Paul August, Doug Weller. Where?--Valkyrie Red (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
You mean the page which says "A military conflict infobox (sometimes referred to as a warbox) may be used to summarize information about a particular military conflict..."? That page uses the word "may", not "must". This is an important difference. You've been writing as if the page says "must"; but the infobox is optional, and this article doesn't even belong in the Military history Wikiproject to begin with. And yes, Valkyrie, I've seen what you said; I don't think it's a strong argument. You seem to be ignoring what several different editors have said: that using an infobox misleads the reader into thinking that the Trojan War was historical to the extent that we can say Agamemnon was a real person and that we can give estimates of the number of forces involved. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I would have to say that the infobox would work. It appears to me to give the correct information that is reasonable to be included. And as for the discussion about not using it because it is not a real war, if anyone reads the article, they will realize that it's not a real war.Tetobigbrotalk 16:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Paul August's distinction above is crucial: I would support an infobox that presented the Trojan War as a narrative that was historically important; not an infobox that treats troop contingents as a deciding factor in whether to include Odysseus as a "Major figure" (instead of "CO") in the story of the Trojan War. That's where we get bogged down. I think P Aculeius took steps toward a useful box. People don't come to this article for military history (or if they do, they want to know in general what light the literary sources shed on Bronze Age warfare, which is why I would prefer "Bronze Age" to any specific date). The majority of readers will come here to find out about the story of the Trojan War (that is, to get the narrative elements), and because they saw that program last night on their local PBS station and want to know more about whether it was "real" or not. VR, you keep missing the point: the template for historical military conflicts doesn't offer readers some of the most important elements they would need to get a snapshot of the Trojan War. Some editors (and many I happen to respect) just don't like infoboxes. They find them reductive. I say, yep; that's their purpose. So I agree with you, Valkyrie Red, that the infobox can provide that kind of "Trojan War at a glance." But the military conflict box excludes some of the most important aspects of the Trojan War that readers will be interested in, because even if the war was historical, that's far from all it was. No compromise can occur without (a) opponents of the deleted box consenting to the existence of a new infobox; and (b) proponents of a box consenting to the use or creation of a template other than the one used for historical conflicts. It's the emotional attachment to using this particular template for the box that I find perplexing. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Readers will not be misled into thinking that the Trojan War is 100% proven and fact. If they were lucky enough to have read the first sentence, I'm sure they would pretty much understand the context of the Trojan War. I have no problem with using/making a new infobox that presents this war more as a narrative. Bronze Age as the date is fine in my opinion (although circa YYYY-YYYY is ok too I think). I think "Major Figure" is a good idea. Alternatively, we can say "Mythological Commander/Hero" for people like Agamemnon. If consensus is that the forces involved is unknown, we can put "Unknown" for that part. --Edward130603 (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Exactly: you argue that it will confuse readers into thinking that the war was a real conflict. Once again I posted a comment in response to this statement but you overlooked/ignored it. Let me rephrase what is said.
1) We can assume that people reading this article will have already had some sort of background knowledge regarding the subject. The only other way they could've gotten to this article is if they clicked on the random page button (but the probability is still high that they won't get redirected to this page. Therefore, they already would've known that the said conflict wasn't completely true.
2) The first sentence states "in Greek Mythology".--Valkyrie Red (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't assume that readers have any background knowledge. In fact, readers may come to this article with "background knowledge" that is utterly wrong. You know, like thinking that because Heinrich Schliemann found Troy, the Iliad is a historically accurate narrative.
And yeah, the first sentence states that this war is a part of Greek mythology. So why the insistence on using an infobox created for historical conflicts, and the resistance to saying that the war is mythological in the infobox itself? On this talk page, editors are clearly confused about the relationship between mythology and history, and have different idea of what it means, so the beginning of the article is hardly transparent to readers who are unfamiliar with scholarship in this area. In any case, I think it's quite possible some readers will look at the infobox and not read the lead very carefully. So I think the infobox, both in the form that was in the article before and in the form proposed by P. Aculeius is misleading, and I won't support them being included in the article. I am, however, curious what Cynwolfe thinks a new infobox would include. Perhaps I simply lack imagination, but I'm having trouble seeing howthe things I think are important about the TW fit into a box. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
P Aculeius, I did not demand anything, I said please strike. As you say it was a rhetorical point I will ADG and accept that it was not a personal attack, but I must say it did feel like one. Dougweller (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
If we were all sitting in a bar (and if we were, I'm sure they would've had to throw us out by now for causing a commotion), I would propose a drinking game where every time somebody said '100%' we'd all have to down a shot of tequila. Or maybe ouzo. Valkyrie Red: the military conflict box excludes some of significant aspects of the Trojan War that readers should expect to find represented in any capsule version. (Akhilleus has rightly challenged me to say what those are; let me think through a couple of things and get back.) While it's true that I don't see what good can come from using the same box format for both the Trojan War and the Tet Offensive, the important thing is how to construct a box that offers readers the best snapshot of what readers need. Why insist that the military conflict box be used, if using it is an obstacle to having an infobox at all? Cynwolfe (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
So the proposal is that, in a spirit of compromise (that idealistic concept again!) we construct a special infobox for this unique situation. There's a contradiction here: according to Help:Infobox they exist to "present a summary of some unifying aspect that ... articles share and to improve navigation to other interrelated articles." As this is the only article using it, according to that definition we we don't need one. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
No, actually, see new section following ... Cynwolfe (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh there are various other mythological wars. That of the gods and the Titans, the Theban wars, Joshua's conquest of Canaan... In theory we could create a box that covers them all.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I see. The wider application does make a difference.--Old Moonraker (talk) 05:33, 9 June 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)
Input still sought on the template, which is still just hanging out here on the talk page. I didn't do this just for the ouzo. Please comment above under the relevant sections, so we can finish this up and move on. If there's no further input within a day or two, I'm just going to do the best I can, and go live with it. And of course it can be edited after that, but at present the template still has place-holders. Note especially questions about the DATE and characters listed.Cynwolfe (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd thought we should be getting input from Valkyrie Red, but it appears he's been blocked. For a month. For treating article development as if it's a war to be won. We could still use input from those who wanted to make sure some of the info was included that's now in the top section of the template. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
It's going to be at least a week before I can do that. Sorry. Dougweller (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
We'll probably have it on the page by then, but your input will still be valuable. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
As I sat down to draw up my ideal infobox for the Trojan War, it occurred to me that what's really needed is a Trojan War navigational template that pulls together the whole series of articles that relate to this main topic. I don't know whether anyone will like this idea, but could you hold off beating me senseless until you see my draft? It will arrive sometime in the next two to four hours. I hope. Cynwolfe (talk)
But I also like Peter Cohen's line of thought above. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, please keep in mind that this is dashed off — for my convenience, I just grabbed a template I'd been using recently and changed the words and image. This is intended only as a starting point for discussion. It does not represent what I think are final and best thoughts or a preferred format. Not sure what to call the Divine machinery section. Also please note that the substitution of "Major figures" for "Commanders" allows the very important female characters to be included — a major omission in the military conflict infobox, since the Iliad pays a lot of attention to women, considering it's a war story. This template could be used on many other relevant articles, too. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
That looks quite nice, Cynwolfe. P Aculeius (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
All right no. This has gotten way off topic. We were arguing for the addition of an infobox, not a navigational template.
Now, I have an idea. Perhaps we could include both an infobox and a navigational template. That way we could incorporate both our ideas and thus come with a perfect resolution. The infobox provides the user with the time, place, sides, major generals, etc.... while the navigational template provides all the other information that the infobox cannot provide. That way the reader can read both and see that the event was not completely real, but at the same time, not completely false. Sound good?Valkyrie Red (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't suppose you have any constructive comments to make? Like why you think this wouldn't be useful? I think the objections to the military conflict box have been made clear. Peter Cohen proposes an infobox for mythological conflicts, which I think is also a fine idea. But your emotional attachment to treating the Trojan War in the same manner as, say, the American Civil War is a little hard for me to understand. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Valkyrie Red, I have to say I'm also baffled by your insistence that there's a problem with this topic whose solution must be a military infobox. Cynwolfe's navigational template's a truly useful product and she should be congratulated for providing it. The template does what it's supposed to do, and more - it even provides a overview of background, context and subtopics. The same format could be used for other mythological-historic conflicts. It's 100% itself and that's worth a tequila at least. Haploidavey (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to drink some ouzo in honor of Cynwolfe. I think this template is very useful, and much more helpful to a reader than an infobox. Among other benefits, the template will lead the reader directly to other relevant articles. As soon as we sort out the "divine machinery" section I'd be in favor of adding this. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Should point out (being carefully not to spill either the tequila in my left hand or the ouzo in my right) that I did indeed forget to put in a section about the site and date/period. At the moment I'm not sure how to handle it. The idea behind "Episodes" was to emphasize other articles, but a couple are internal links to sections. I didn't include the episodes pertaining to Iphigenia, Philoctetes, and Ajax because they have their own tragedies to link to immediately preceding. And where should Archaeology of Troy link?
The 'divine machinery' ('religious background' seems wrong; 'divine aid' not right either) is perhaps one of the few things that the article in my view underplays (the section on Zeus's plan is a bit unclear); every single one of the literary sources emphasizes the role of various divinities, and divine intervention is one of the fundamental characteristics of ancient epic. Also, the title of the painting isn't showing up. And the characters are all just dashed off, and there may be other good or better "Related topics," so please edit. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
It needs a little tweaking, but it's a good idea. I had been looking at the mythology templates this am and wondering about them. Dougweller (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Look guys, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with this template. In fact I love it. But it doesn't provide the reader with everything. Where's the time and where's the place? Where's the strength of each side. All I'm saying is that while this template is great, it doesn't tell some of the important facts of the war. I don't care where you choose to place the infobox, but please, at least include it somewhere in the article. Please.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I sympathize with you, Valkyrie, as I personally agree that an infobox like the one above should be acceptable and would help beginners grasp the subject better. Unlike some of those here, I don't think there's a serious risk of people being misled about the historicity of the war because of an infobox. But unless some people here are willing to change their minds, which seems highly unlikely, there just isn't enough support for restoring the infobox. As I wrote elsewhere, it takes two sides to reach a compromise, and we just don't have that here. P Aculeius (talk) 02:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm still thinking about what to title the "divine machinery" section. If it's just a list of deities, maybe "gods". But there are a lot of gods involved in this. Should we list Scamander, for instance? And should this be exclusively a list of deities? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
What's wrong with my compromise? Why can't both the infobox and the template be in the article?Valkyrie Red (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
1) because you haven't convinced a number of editors that we need an infobox at all.
2) because having an infobox and a navigational template would make for too much visual clutter. (This of course depends on all sorts of variables like screen size and personal preference, but we should strive to make the article readable and usable on all sizes of screens. Try looking at an article with lots of templates and and infobox on a small screen like a netbook—the images and templates can sometimes crowd out the text.) --Akhilleus (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Again, I find myself agreeing with User:Akhilleus: User:Cynwolfe's navbox is impressive and it avoids the problems with the old "warbox"; there certainly isn't space for both. Furthermore, there aren't any daggers to stumble over, the issue that started all of this off a month ago! --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I think we can add some info along the lines Valkyrie Red wants: I was called away to other things and didn't have time to think through the presentation. About Archaeology of Troy, thanks for giving the best link; how about we pipe it to Troy VII? That avoids the problem of the user needing prior knowledge. I also added Historicity of the Iliad. I promise, VR, to come up with a way to incorporate at least some of your desired items, if not all; I think they should be listed under a single bar, but since they're individual items, I hadn't thought through the formatting. Also, this is a slimmer template and the photo's awfully small; should it be made wider? And could everyone please look over the major characters to see whether others should be included? The label could be changed, for instance, to "Greeks and allies" and "Trojans and allies" if there are characters to be added who wouldn't be either. (I just added Thersites as the only non-aristocratic character, which always interests me, but he can go away. This was all top of the head.) Cynwolfe (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
This is great! Thanks for putting in the time Cynwolfe. If we could incorporate some of Valkyrie Red's ideas, that would be ideal, but I support this box either way. --Edward130603 (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I absolutely do think we can incorporate more of VR's material. I'm going to pose a couple of questions under subheads following, so the threads can be disentangled. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Episodes
I was slightly surprised there was no article Wedding of Peleus and Thetis. This is something I may get to myself one day, because it's a subject of much art and also of one of Catullus's long poems. For now it links internally to the article. It could also go "Wedding of Peleus and Thetis." As noted above, if a major episode is plainly represented by one of the literary sources preceding, I omitted it as redundant. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Characters
These topic labels can be changed to "Greeks and their allies" and "Trojans and their allies." This would also allow for adding contingents such as Myrmidons (whatever people think best). Philoctetes could be deleted because he's represented under "literary sources" by the tragedy. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Can't go live with the template in this state; please comment on the following questions (leave yeas and nays or comments immediately following each point):
Should the labels read "Greek and their allies" and "Trojans and their allies" instead of "characters"?
I'd go with "Greeks and allies" and "Trojans and allies". --Akhilleus (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Should contingents, allied groups, whatever (I gave the example of the famous "Myrmidons"), be listed here in addition to individuals?
I don't think so, because the list needs to be reasonably short, and individuals are more important than groups. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the list should include important allied groups such as the Myrmidons and Amazons. Haploidavey (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
At the moment, I'm inclined to show some groups, also because of Achaeans (Homer). For the sake of discussion, let me put a couple in to see what it looks like. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
What individuals should be added or deleted from the current list in the template?
Add Ajax, subtract Thersites, maybe subtract Philoctetes. The list is pretty Homer-centric, which is natural, but figures like Memnon seem to have been important in non-Homeric traditions about the Trojan War; so also Antilochus. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm inclined to leave in Thersites, because I've never taught or heard the Iliad taught without a discussion of his role, even in a general Greek civ class, because it allows an examination of Greek attitudes toward class and such. I've added Patroclus, because the story is rarely told without him, and because of the importance in recent years of the whole "what's their relationship" question. The article for Antilochus is pretty short, and I'm not aware of his appearing in pop culture, so I'm not sure whether it's the job of the template to make up for that. Again, these are questions, not arguments against. But dear gods, we surely do need the Amazon queen. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd definitely add Ajax and Diomedes, since both of them were pivotal figures on the Greek side, and both were also kings leading their own contingents. P Aculeius (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I see the point of leaving in Thersites, and Ajax, Diomedes, and Patroclus should be there. Antilochus and Memnon are probably not useful links for the general reader—I've just read too much about Greek mythology, I think. Amazons might be a better link than Penthesilea, but one of them should be in there. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, some episodes are missing from the list: gathering at Aulis, attack on Teuthrania/Telephus (there's another one who could be listed as a character, but for which side?), death of Palamedes, Judgment of Arms. I'm not sure how to decide which ones to put in and which to leave out. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Some episodes are left out if the titles under "Literary sources" point to them: Ajax for me substitutes for the Judgment of Arms, as does Iphigenia at Aulis for the Aulis episode. Also, I tried to emphasize episodes that had their own articles, since there didn't seem much to gain from multiple internal links to this article (ditto if the template were used on another page — the links would just keep taking you to sections of the same article). I find the "Trojan War" article as a whole to be a little overly detailed for a topic of such generalist interest. I think we've lost sight of the 14-year-old who is as likely to be coming here as anyone. The "storytelling" gets pretty bogged down at times. So a long-term solution might be to lighten up a bit with this article, and amplify some sections to a more specialized degree in independent articles, which would find a place on the template.
I agree, though, that there's quite a narrative gap in the template between "Seduction of Helen" and "Trojan Horse." Whether an episode is major or minor is debatable and highly impressionistic, but it seemed likely to me that users wouldn't be coming to "Trojan War" with the death of Palamedes or the attack on Teuthrania in mind; they would be more likely either to learn about these reading the article, or to have searched "Palamedes" or "Teuthrania" in the first place. On the other hand, it could be nice for a reader to discover something new in the box. I present my reasoning only as a basis for discussion, and not because I'm wedded to the conclusions. Just trying to keep the box from getting too long. The "Episodes" label could be changed to "Major episodes" to indicate that it isn't meant to be exhaustive. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I think you make a very good point about the article being too detailed. We should probably start a different discussion section so we can figure out what to do about that. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Setting and dates
Please leave the nuts of info you want included here. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
This may go against the grain of opinion, but I think it would be best to give the most familiar dating, that of Eratosthenes, rather than leave it blank, vague, or provide a range of alternatives. Qualified as "circa 1194-1184 B.C." it would still allow for uncertainty, but it's much better than "13th-12th Century B.C.," which extends the range to some two hundred years, far more than the actual range of estimates. You could link this approximate date to the discussion of the chronology in the body of the article.
Eratosthenes' estimate seems to fall smack in the middle of the range suggested by other authors, and was by far the most influential on later writers (much like the Varronian era for the foundation of Rome). Plus, Eratosthenes was an expert in the field of chronology, and the archaeological record appears to show that Troy was burned at approximately this time (I believe the estimate in Troy VII is rounded up to 1190 B.C., which is actually within Eratosthenes' estimate). I think these reasons support using the traditional dates as a rough estimate. P Aculeius (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, people, this seems like a pretty big point of potential contention. Let's get some other views, or yeas and nays.Cynwolfe (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Predictably, I'd be happier if the setting, date, outcome, etc. were left out. If they stay in, give Eratosthenes' date, described as "traditional dating". --Akhilleus (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Your adverb makes me smile. I moved "Historicity of the Iliad" to that section just for you. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
A reasonable compromise might be "Circa 1194-1184 BC" in the box, with a footnote offering this as consistent with Eratosthenes' generally accepted "traditional dating". Haploidavey (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Footnotes in navigational templates are troublesome—this template is meant to appear in several articles, yes? And the footnote will appear at the bottom of the box, rather than along with the article's footnotes. Can't the box just say "Traditional dating: circa 1194-1184 BC"? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
You're right - I hadn't thought that through - your suggestion seems fine. Haploidavey (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I myself would be happier with "mid-13th/mid-12th century BC," but perhaps that is so vague as to be useless. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not necessary to place a footnote in the template. Just use a piped link to the subsection of this article concerning chronology and dating: circa 1194-1184 B.C. would be [[Trojan War#Dates of the Trojan War|''circa'' 1194-1184 B.C.]]. That should work no matter what other articles the template is used in. P Aculeius (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
'Divine machinery'
In answer to the question of Akhilleus, this section may end up not working, but I'd like to give it a try during the development process because I think it's both important and of immediate use to students. We wouldn't have to include all the deities involved any more than we have to list the characters exhaustively. Just Olympians, maybe. I haven't yet reviewed the subject. Poseidon is something of a flipflopper, though. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Akhilleus is right; I can't make this work, and I don't want the template to grow too long. I deleted the section. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Trautmann's painting is surprisingly obscure. I can't find a date for it (or not instantly). Could someone with better German give it a go? Otherwise I'll settle for "Mid-18th century". Cynwolfe (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
My German's non existent but this Heidelberg University pdf [2] includes a detailed entry for the Troja painting, including dates... any obliging German-speakers out there? Haploidavey (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks, the German title with the image file is different; "um 1759/1762" is just fine. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, the title seemed translated incorrectly. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the suggestion that the picture should be bigger. It's already hard to make out the details. I like the picture, but perhaps it could go later in the article, and something that wouldn't suffer as much from all the tiny details could be substituted. P Aculeius (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Well assuming the painting described on page 319 and titled "Der Brand Trojas" (The Fire of Troy) is the painting in question then the date given for that is "um 1759/1762" (around 1759/1762"). Paul August☎ 20:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Now I'm not sure these are the same paintings, our description here gives dimensions of 54,5 x 68 cm, whereas the dimensions given for "Der Brand Trojas" are given as 250 x 150 cm. Paul August☎ 20:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. Very little about Trautmann seems available online. My first instinct is to distrust the dimensions we give, since 68 cm (not much more than two feet!) seems awfully small for a painting with this type of subject matter, which relies moreover on discerning shadowy little figures in the foreground. Neither form of the title comes up with much frequency (see here and here), and WP use contaminates the latter results. I think it's the same painting as described on p. 319 of the pdf, though: " Im Vordergrund erscheint schließlich, größer als alle übrigen Figuren Aeneas, der seinen Vater Anchises auf dem Rücken aus der brennenden Stadt trägt. Der Gruppe folgt Ascanius" (I have to zoom in on our version to see them in the bottom lefthand corner).
P Ac asks whether there's a better image; I didn't want to be a classics geek and suggest that a Greek image should be used. Commons was disappointing in its offerings at any rate. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
And actually I rather like this dramatic painting as an illustration of the fall. Has the slight increase in size helped any? I tried it larger (at 300px), but didn't like how the text worked at that width. The horse shows, so people who are drawn into it can click and zoom. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I like the painting. I just think that it might be better later in the article, where it could be bigger, and the details more easily made out. If the purpose of the template is to draw the reader in (particularly those who don't know much about the subject), perhaps it should have something simpler, brighter, and less subtle. I was thinking perhaps a depiction of the Trojan Horse, although whether a suitable image can be found out of copyright is another matter.
I tried Googling "Trojan Horse" and "Wooden Horse of Troy" but most of the images are really horrible. Most of them appear to be photographs of two famous models; one looks like it started out as Noah's Ark, to which legs and a horse's head have been added, and the other one appears to be a movie prop built from old railroad ties, with a rather reptilian appearance. So maybe there aren't any really nice images in the public domain... maybe some other image? P Aculeius (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
If nothing better comes up, I'm fine with staying with this image. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
How about the Mykonos vase? There are examples on flickr, if you ask nicely someone is sure to copy it to commons. As a bonus the WP article Mykonos vase could use the illustration. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 18:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. Turns out there's one example, [3]. Still I believe it is the first representation of the horse in art. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 18:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Would be quite nice if we could use this.Cynwolfe (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, here's a slightly clearer one [4]. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 18:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Monochrome version also available. Might suit our purpose better as it's less about the vase, more about the horse. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
It's a nice picture, but my point was for the image to be simple and visually striking even when scaled down dramatically. It's hard to see a lot of detail in this picture when it's scaled down, and while many of us find it fascinating in itself, I don't think it'll draw in the person who doesn't really know a lot about the topic. I think that the original painting does a better job of that.
Here are a few other images in Wikipedia Commons that might be considered as alternatives: P Aculeius (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
"The Death of Priam" is the only one of these I think could work, because it announces "Greek warrior killing somebody" without the viewer having to know anything about it. But it also has lighting problems that cause whited-out portions. Below I plopped in a good-quality pottery image to show what such a thing might look like, but the subject matter, while relevant, isn't ideal to shout "Trojan War!" My personal favorite in terms of subject matter and educational value is the Mykonos Vase (thanks Old Moonraker), but graphically it isn't as strong because of the image quality. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Suggesting for consideration Achilles bandaging Patrocluskylix decoration. It's contemporary with the myth, it represents a specific incident contributory to the end of of the siege, visually it's easy to comprehend and, in the context of war, it's a little unexpected.--Old Moonraker (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Related topics
Bronze Age warfare. There is no such article, as you can see, though given the number of TV programs I run into on the topic there should be. I posted a note on the talk page of the Classical warfare task force pointing this out. I had linked the section to Prehistoric warfare#Bronze Age (a mere two paragraphs) but have changed it to the longer Mycenaean Greece#Arms, which, however, fails to cover anything about chariotry or battle order. Since there was a great deal of concern that this be given coverage as a topic of military history, I wonder whether anyone knows of a better link? Cynwolfe (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
b (MoS): 
Not done Now that's just not true at all. Algebraist 03:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
The Death of Priam
Ajax the Lesser drags Cassandra from the Palladium
Menelaüs holding the body of Patroclus
