User talk:Antiphus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Iman Wilkens 2 Go on, Antiphus, fighting for NPOV in WP ! 3 See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where Troy Once Stood 4 Merge 5 Thanks 6 Where Troy Once Stood 7 Cailleux

[edit] Iman Wilkens

Antiphus, in case you are not aware, there is a Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, that tells us what types of secondary sources we need to use for Wikipedia articles. If you read this policy, I hope you'll see why I say Wilkens is not a reliable source. Thanks. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The where-abouts of Odysseus in the Atlantic is an opinion of Wilkens and the whereabouts of Odysseus in the Mediterranean is another opinion and not a fact. Antiphus 15:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting the policy. Anything anyone says can be characterized as an "opinion". But not all opinions should be included in Wikipedia, especially ones that don't come from a reliable source. I'm quite sure that someone has the "opinion" that Homer's poetry is actually an encoded form of Basque. But the Homer article does't report that, because no reliable source says anything close to that. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There are no secondary sources for the opinion that Homer's poetry is a form of Basque, which you gave as an example but there are secondary sources for Wilkens ideas, such as M. H vosz, C.J. de Grave, Th. Cailleux and E. Gideon. Antiphus 17:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a source for the Basque idea, the work of Edo Nyland. Look him up on google, it's fun stuff. But it is very far from mainstream scholarship, and not a suitable source for Wikipedia.

I'm not familiar with the authors that you name, but they don't seem to be notable scholars; scholar.google.com doesn't turn up much. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

So, scholar.google.com doesn't turn up much. I never claimed that these people are notable scholars. The world is a lot larger than the scholar community. This section of society doesn't hold the monopoly as far as knowledge or research is concerned, and thank God for that. Was Schliemann a notable scholar? Antiphus 17:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, regardless of what you think about academia, the Wikipedia policy on verifiability states "Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources." Since google scholar doesn't turn up citations for any of the writers you've named, it's easy to conclude that they don't meet Wikipedia's standards for "reliable and reputable sources."

Schliemann himself doesn't fit the profile of a notable scholar, but it's obvious that his work has had a massive impact on scholarship: pick up any work on the Mycenaeans, and Schliemann will be mentioned; his books are still cited in scholarship. Wilkens cannot claim the same level of fame, and I doubt that he ever will be able to. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Not taking Wilkens' ideas serious, has been a major mistake, I think, but Wikipedia is a good medium to get acquainted to these ideas. If not, what is Wikipedia good for, anyway? Then we'll just look up an old encyclopedia to read what we have known already for ages. And to my question: why so many people find the theory exciting, I will give the answer myself; not because it's ridiculous, but quite the opposite: because it at least gives plausible, logical answers to questions that in the Mediterranean setting can never be answered and, I think, does even reveal the mystery of Iliad and Odyssey. Antiphus 23:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Go on, Antiphus, fighting for NPOV in WP !

I stumbled by chance on your following post : "Mr. Dieter A. Bachmann from Zürich, why do you believe that it is necessary to be insulting? I take it that you refer to the ideas of Wilkens, or do you mean Mr. Wilkens personally? And Mr Akhillleus, why do you think it necessary to call in the help of Mr. Bachmann? Antiphus 11:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)". so, I found necessary to encourage you in your fight against the "pack of wolves" lead by Mr Dieter Bachmann, who are presently trying to impose their POV in Wikipedia on lots of matters. These guys, whose pseudos are "Dbachmann", "Akhilleus", "Scabbers the Rat", "Pmanderson", "Gbrunner", to cite the most active of them, have discovered that, when you are acting like a pack of wolves, each biting the adversary in alternance, you may impose your POV on Wikipedia. So, each time one of them wants to impose his POV, he calls the others in at the rescue. This is why Mr Akhilleus has called in the help of Mr Bachmann... These guys are killing the WP NPOV spirit, and are spreading around hatred and resentment by their dictatorial manners. But they don't care : what counts for them is to control the WP !... What can be do against that ? I don't know, and I am not a WP-administrator... But be sure that tens of WP-users would be glad to see Mr Bachmann and his pack out ! In the name of all these anonymous users, I greet your courage. Please receive our kindest regards and best wishes. (An anonymous WP-user).

I welcome you, your regards and wishes and I thank you for your encouragement. However, I'm not really a fighter and it has never been my purpose to start a fight on WP. I'm not sure I feel like it and if you somehow expect me to work this "pack of wolves" out, I might disappoint you. Anyway, regards and best wishes.Antiphus 16:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where Troy Once Stood

That says it all, really. Be sure to vote! Andrew Dalby 18:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

A pleasure, Antiphus. I have done this kind of thing before. All you have to do is edit that page, as I did. Be sure to use the word oppose (or, of course, support!) as the first or second word of your comment, and make it bold, using the three apostrophes. Make it a short, sharp sentence, and sign it as usual.

You are also entitled to add a longer comment -- some others no doubt will also. If you want to do this, when you have written in your vote, add a heading = = Comments = = (if it isn't already there by now) and write in your longer comment under that. Sign it too.

Keep watching that page so that you can reply to others' comments. Personally I think it's best not to overdo this, unless some error of fact needs correcting.

You can encourage other users to vote, just as I encouraged you. What you aren't allowed to do, by the rules of Wikipedia, is to encourage them to vote one particular way. You have to give them the choice. Andrew Dalby 19:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I've redirected Iman Wilkins to Where Troy Once Stood now and removed the merge tags. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 10:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for mentioning your recent edits to Where Troy Once Stood. They were very useful to me. I have made some adjustments to Geography of the Odyssey, including a mention of de Grave's book and a reference back to Strabo. I will have to look at what Voss said. Best wishes Andrew Dalby 15:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where Troy Once Stood

This article is in the categories 'History of England' and the 'History of England' among many others. These categories are in the 'History of Europe' category. Having this article also in the 'History of Europe' category means double level categorization--frowned on by WP category guidelines. Hmains 22:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cailleux

It was annoying that references to Théophile Cailleux were redirected to Where Troy Once Stood, because that article doesn't say anything useful about Cailleux. So I have written a brief article on Cailleux.

If you want to add to it some information about how Where Troy Once Stood agrees with, follows, or differs from the theories of Cailleux I would be very happy. Or indeed anything else about Cailleux, if you happen to know. Happy New Year! Andrew Dalby 17:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)