Talk:Trojan War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Trojan War article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2

A request has been made for this article to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. The progress of its reviewers is recorded below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping.
Add comments
Trojan War is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Trojan War as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Romanian language Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] My Rewrite of "The death of Palamedes" section

I have rewritten "The death of Palamedes" section, to better (I hope) address writing from sources in our own words. I have reproduced my version below. I've also added a "Comments" section following for discussion. Paul August ☎ 19:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ 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.
  2. ^ According to Apollodorus Epitome 3.8, Odysseus forced a Phrygian prisoner, to write the letter.
  3. ^ Pausanias 10.31.2; Simpson, Gods & Heroes of the Greeks: The Library of Apollodorus, p.251.
  4. ^ Apollodorus, Epitome 6.9.

[edit] Comments

Comments? An issue I still have with the above, is I can find no source for the story about the grain told in the first paragraph. Where it is from? 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)

[edit] Questions on the "Trojan Horse" section

What is the source for the following:

  1. "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."?
  2. The size of the crew of a helepolis being 3,000?

Paul August ☎ 03:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

1. This text was there before I started woring on the article. I am not aware of the original source but I think that Graves mentions it as a bad theory, as does Karykas (I am not at home to confirm it) 2. Karykas mentions it, not just on his Mycenean book but also in his more general book on warfare from the neolithic to 146 BC. I thought it was properly marked. I am aware that the wiki article says that a helepolis had 200 crew but that was just the people manning it: If you put up those that pulled it you get 3,000. A Byzantine helepolis was even bigger, it had a crew of 3500, or at least that is what I read in one of the comments in my edition of Leo VI the Wise's Tactics Ikokki 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?

Pece Kocovski 09:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Pece Kocovski 23:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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:

  1. Achilles and Ajax playing board game (obviously it needs a proper illustration)
  2. Chryses asking Agamemnon for his daughter
  3. Ajax getting ready to commit suicide
  4. 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

[edit] "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)
Yup. Paul August ☎ 01:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA on Hold

In reviewing this article, I found just a few things. There are two "citation needed" tags in the Odyssey section, and a "citation needed" tag in the lead as well as a "clarify" tag in the lead. If these can be fixed, the rest of the article is amazing. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 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, Corvus coronoides 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)

[edit] GA Failed

I have failed this article's GA because the above points were not addressed during the duration of the hold. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 15:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

A user with IP address 76.171.125.231 made bad practice changes to the above entry by Ifnkovhg:
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)
--τις (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Myth as fact

The article is written a lot like a short story, but since it is a historical war, it means the article says the Greek gods really did take part of war in Mycenaean times. For example, have a look at this sentence: The war originated from a quarrel between the goddesses Athena, Hera and Aphrodite, after Eris, the goddess of strife and discord, gave them a golden apple, sometimes known as the Apple of Discord, marked "for the fairest". There is no indication that this is myth, it states a reason for the war is if that is what historians and archaeologists have found. And the disclaimer The following summary of the Trojan War follows the order of events as given in Proclus' summary, along with the Iliad, Odyssey, and Aeneid, supplemented with details drawn from other authors. further down is too easy to miss, a reader is not likely to read the whole article top down. It would also benefit from saying which book/vase/other artifact says what part of the story. 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
it is now semi-protected. Thanks to User:Pax:Vobiscum.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:54, 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.