Talk:Troy

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ColeS777 (article contribs).

Change of default map

The default map should not be the map of Marmara. I understand instantly where the marked location is but I am sure that most of the readers are more familiar with the map of Europe than with the part shown now. I tried to change it but I get an error message so I wont apply the changes. I am still a noob and I don't want to screw up the article so please somebody change it :P Einserschüler (talk) 10:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Mis-labelling of maps associated with this article

I don't want to change anything, for fear of making a mistake (being an old user of Wikipedia but a very infrequent editor) but I was astonished to read the titles on two maps, 'Troy is in Greece' and 'Troy is in Europe'.

My dear father passed away many years ago, so he can't ask for a refund on my education, but when I went to school, Troy was in Turkey, not Greece, and was in Asia, not Europe.

My visit to Troy a few years ago didn't dispel these notions.

Surely someone needs to fix these errors ???

kerville — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerville (talk • contribs) 02:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kerville: are you refererring to the clickable maps? They show, for instance, Greece in relation to the location of Troy. Doug Weller talk 14:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Troy VIIa

Troy VIIa has now been reclassified as Troy VIi. Although Troy VIh was severely damaged by an Earthquake, it is clear that there is cultural continuity between it and the rebult/repaired city. Hence, the latter is now considered to be part of Troy VI rather than VII. It is still the level that is associated with the Trojan War. Bringing the article into conformity with this new consensus will require a substantial rewrite which I am not prepared to undertake at the present time, but may eventually do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4070:6240:1C5B:E934:455B:F062 (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I noticed the problem. I don't see any reclassification. There is no "new consensus." The main picture at the head of the box is in Blegen as Troy VI, so this question goes back to before late Blegen. As far as I can make out from Korfmann's Guidebook, it is not an either/or situation, either Troy VI or Troy VIIa, but is a both situation. This is what I am trying to say with the presentation on layers. There is no total replacement of cities from layers to layer, much if not most of the cultural elements get passed from layer to layer. New elements are of course introduced from time to time. The Troy VI wall, tower and gate was reconstructed or refurbished for Troy VIIa and served in both; that is, Troy VIi precedes Troy VIIa. Korfmann refers to the Troy VIi-Viia wall. In Viia houses were built along the inside of the VI wall. I will continue to look into it. This article IS a lot of work and needs a lot of work. It can't be done in a hasty review or in fly-by nasty comments by self-styled Wikipedia big shots and I will not be pushed on it. It IS my field of interest. By the way, Troy VIIb rather than a was and I believe is Cincinnati's choice for the 10th year of the Trojan War. But, there is some variation of the chronology and a lot of serious archaeologists prefer Troy VI. Certainly, for the ancestral background you would need Troy VI. VI and VIIa are fairly close. Ciao.Botteville (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

OK,a according to one table in my Korfmann source there is a suggestion by one author to eliminate VIIa by moving it into VI. There would then be VIIb/c but no a. It does not look as though it is generally accepted, so let's not overreact. It mainly affects us in the pictures. I notice Livius isn't saying too much. No need to go rewriting the whole article for some avant-garde idea. I will check it out and try to reach a balanced solution for us. This article is like a fly trap, once in you can't get out. But, it needs updating and improvement. Things at Troy move pretty fast after so long a stasis.Botteville (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The balance I reached is this. Like Korfmann himself I retained the more conventional classification on the grounds that the new material is yet unverified by journal article process. However I mentioned the new material as new material and left room for its further presentation by whatever hardy souls want to undertake it. Just to change entirely over, every reference, every implication, seems to me to be premature at this point. Korfmann's gone, he can't defend himself. Let's see how it plays out.Botteville (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Revisit

I worked on this in its earlier days and I am pleased to say that it has acquired much useful information. The organization however falls short of my original intention and what is worse people seem afraid to touch it now. After all it has such high visibility and so many contentiouss prima donnas have worked on it or have stopped anyone else from working on it. We have definitely reached a plateau. I have had a nice break now and there are some content and format issues I would like to address, as well as going on with my original plan. For formatting - well, the end sections seem to have gotten totally mixed up. The references also are pretty much mixed format. I had it on Harvard ref at one point. I think I will pick up there. For content, I wanted each Troy to have its own section. I realize now I will not get that unless I do it myself, so I will start to do that while I am addressing the format. This is a work-off-line-dump-in affair. I will certainly give what is there due consideration. On with the show (in slow motion).Botteville (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

You sure are into yourself. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

More on revisit

For the benefit of the reviewers: well, I started on it. The main content problem is, Korfmann changed the direction of the theory on Troy but the article has not fully adapted. Not only that but the site has a new manager now. I will be covering and referencing some of these changes. I know you have read in the literature all about the great attack on Korfmann by his colleagues concerning whether Troy was a commercial city. They all do that, it is a kind of game they are trained to play. I don't think one can take it too seriously. It only means they have plenty of money to squander on publicity games. Korfmann is taken quite seriously, but alas, he is gone now so he can't defend himself. Lycidas is dead, young Lycidas, and hath not left his peer. But, if Troy was not a commercial city, I'd like to know just what it was. All cities were commercial. Agriculture and herding were left up to the villagers. Anyway as I got into the article I noticed smaller improvements that could be made or should be made, so, I'm doing that also.Botteville (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Weller and Johnbod, my two favorite personalities. While I appreciate having other eyes on the article, there are certain implications. Are we having authorship property now? I don't think I'm the original Troy author, but if I were, would that give me some kind on lease on the article? I doubt it. Then there is the permission question. What, I can't work on the article without your permission? Since when?

But don't misunderstand me, I appreciate the work you experienced co-editors do. Johnbod, you are probably wondering what happened to my "Aegean Culture" initiative. It turned out to be more work than I could handle at the time. I found that, a number of definitions of "Aegean" had crept in, so you could always find references for your point of view. At the same time the view is still traditional that "Aegean" does not include Helladic and certainly not the Peloponnesus. The overwhelming part is that the traditional view prevails in a lot of articles. I found I would have to do a History of Mycenaean pottery and I did do a lot of work on that article. There were so many articles. I still intend to get back on that thread at some time, I just don't know when. So that is what happened to that initiative. Don't be insulted, but you aren't any righter now than you were then. Sometimes Wikipedia by chance gets lopsided in its view. Ciao. Knossos needs an initiative also, but that one has a watchdog that effectively blocks any work on it. So it hangs there, waiting for a champion to take on the Cerberus. Again, it's on my back burner list, but if I were to do it, taking on Cerberus, it would take all my time. Like everyone else, I got a life too.Botteville (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Monroe's SYNTH objection

Monroe! Are you following me around? How did you get here from Battle of Trafalgar? I don't especially like being dogged. I hope it does not continue. Now, for the objection. The statement about Patroclus probably was SYNTH. On the other hand your theory of image captions can't possibly be true. The reader needs to know something about why the image is there and what it represents. They are not disconnected. Just to throw in images randomly makes no sense at all. Do you have a help reference for your theory on captions? In this specific picture, it is developed in the article that the plain before Troy was for much of Troy's history an inlet of the sea. That is why I chose this picture. Therefore I am restoring that fact without the SYNTH. Ciao.Botteville (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Schliemann section straying from topic

This section having struck my attention for its vituperation though referenced, I rewrote some of it to achieve balance of point of view. There were some less formal complaints about the rewrites not being referenced and being MY opinion. The answer would be to put in some glowing refs to Schliemann, but that would expand the discussion of Schliemann's character. Having suggested it less formally, I now request the removal of the discussion of Schliemann's character, including the two negative references. This is not about Schliemann's life and character, only an introduction to his contributions at Troy.Botteville (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Removed paragraph inerted by non-user

"However these ideas may be some what politically driven as Trojans had greek names and worshipped greek gods and if are to believe the romans who believed their ancestors migrated to italy as refugees from troy, it would support that Troy was indeed a greco roman --ionian greek state...linguistics and basic archaeology in the area would confirm this..."

Hi. I do not mean to be insulting but your ideas are totally non-professional. Wikipedia-wise there are some practices broken. "Politically driven" is an unexplained and unsupported opinion of you alone. What are the ellipses? Are you quoting and if so whom? Those are some pretty big issues for which you would need references.

I can shed some light on the ideas you bring up. The possibility of Trojans being Greek was certainly considered in the 20th century, and rejected. For one thing, the writer or writers of the Iliad were Greek writing in a Greek milieu, so they would have Hellenized any names in another language. A lot of those names manifestly do not have a native Greek origin. This is such a big topic it would need its own section or article. I don't know what you mean by linguistics and basic archaeology "would confirm this." That is what we cover, linguistics and basic archaeology, and it confirms the way we have it. Also linguistics is pretty careful about its languages and what it related or not related to what. As for the gods, they are notorious for passing from culture to culture, as the polytheists were fond of making equivalents. For the Romans, the imperial ideology promulgated by Virgil is well-known. Virgil never says Aeneas spoke Latin at Troy or Greek either. There is no Greco-Roman-Ionian Greek culture or state. The mid-20th century idea that Greek and Latin are closely related went out the window in the latter 20th century. Well, I don't want to get too wordy nor do I wish to hurt your feelings. If you want to edit for Wikipedia you have to do better than that. I might suggest joining and biting the bullet but that is YOUR decision.Botteville (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Purple Prose

I excised several phrases that are non-encyclopaedic. Please discuss here before reverting the change, and explain how the phrasing highlighted meets Wikipedia standards (especially avoiding WP:PEACOCK):

The Calverts began to arrive. There was space in their hearts for all, though not in the hectic town. The Turkish building code required buildings of wood only. Periodically the town burned down. In the worst fire – in the window 1836 to 1838 – the family bolted out the door with nothing but the clothes they were wearing to escape a raging inferno. The same fire totally destroyed Lander's collection of books on the Troad, burned all the consular offices, and destroyed the Pasha's palace along with half the town. The flags of all the nations were flying next day above the smouldering ruins as the boom went on. In 1840 Lander suffered a tragedy from which he never recovered. His wife, Adele, died in her 40's, leaving three small children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Last1in (talk • contribs) 16:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Last1in: WP:EDITORIAL also says to avoid the word "tragically". Then there's "Meanwhile a greater question came to the fore. Throughout the Bronze Age the greatest power in Anatolia was the Hittites, with capital in central Anatolia. Why were there no links to them? How could the coastal states have avoided them?" Unencyclopedic. Who is asking these questions? Evidently the editor who added them. Note all the unsourced material - despite the fact he's been warned about this more than once. Doug Weller talk 17:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Who do you think you are, Weller? You aren't sitting in judgement on ME! I'm not a vandal but a serious editor. Your behavior on this is inexcusable. You complain about my being too wordy and then you go ahead and and be far too wordy yourself. I think you need to resign from administration immediateley, as you have no knack for it at all. You are not user-friendly. Furthermore, your frequent interferences are holding this article up. It has been bad for 15 years. What exactly is your goal here? You don't warn, you don't persecute the editors. This isn't personal. I've warned you about this before and you just ignore it and go on with your personal vendetta. What did I ever do to you? I object strenuously. You're supposed to be objective.

Now, for your excisions. Well, they are mostly of style. If you are looking for a fight there, I am not going to give it to you. The reason is that these are joint articles and you have as much right to determine the style as I. You have not said anything wrong as far as I can see, so let it stand. You want to write it one way, I wrote it another way. Neither one of us has the right to have it only his way. In fact I should thank you for condensing the material. Thanks. While you are looking back, you will see that I never argue with the wording unless the editor changes the meaning. There's always another way to say it.

For the sources, I am not done with this section. I do have sources. But you know, you always claim unsourced material, but you never say what. That is what the tags are for. You request a source. I put it in. In deference to your interest, I will do more on this section. The whole article needs me to get back to it. You will get your shot at it.Botteville (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Where do you get off taking this kingly attitude? Is your name James Wales? Does WP pay you a salary? Who made YOU king? I will put in there whatever I judge to be best for the article and I will do so up the the 3-reversion rule! What's wrong with you? Is this how you treat new editors, to drive them off? I've been on here longer than you. I don't need YOUR permission to put anything back. Naturally, if you had a valid reason I did not answer you could revert it, or if you can find another editor you can claim a consensus. Quit harassing me and follow the procedure. If you don't like it, too bad. If you think you can roll back everything I've done, by all means do it. If you think you can block me, do that! If you want the children to settle your supposed adult demeanor, put in for it! What ever you in your vicious hate think you can do to me, by all means get it done! Otherwise when next you answer I would expect a more civil and objective tone.Botteville (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Now, I am going on with this section. I cannot guarantee that it will not change. Ciao. For all your pompous talk I do not think you can do anything about it. Resign from the administration.Botteville (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Um, my last edit to the article was 11:26, 20 July 2019. So, no incisions. The rest of your comments about me are just as accurate. Note that the warning about personal attacks I just gave you had nothing to do with the ones above, but were about your edit summary on the article. That couldn't have been aimed at me because I hadn't edited the article. Also note that you have stated above that you are happy to WP:Editwar. You're very confused if you think you can't be blocked if you don't exceed 3RR. You're also wrong in suggesting I might block you. That would never happen, it would be a violation of my Admin rights. And if your talking about my "vicious hate" and "pompous tone" is you being civil and objective, I'd hate to be around you while you weren't being civil or objective. Doug Weller talk 13:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate you appreciation of your admin rights. I did mistake the other editor for you. What I found vicious about you is your previous remarks about my edits going back over a decade. If you can quit that personal attack we would do better. You should never warn or threaten or categorize. This is against the law and is a violation of civil rights. I have a right not to be harassed on the Internet. Treat me like a colleague and we will do better. For the rest of it, ha ha. This is the old jest, with friends like you I don't need any enemies. I wasn't saying I could not be blocked, only that you could not block me. Of course if you have scruples the comment should never have been made. People with ethics and morals do not bully and bluster. Many on here don't have those. You sounded like you were taking your hand at dominance. If that was just a slip-up, fine. I've made plenty of those. Meanwhile another editor outside the context has jumped in and made threats and blusters of her own. I don't approve but this person is a question mark as yet. Can she block? Does she block? Is she going to block? What else does she do besides threaten and block? I was thinking of creating a special section of my UP just for people who like to warn. Then you can all go at it. I think there are several more colors on those little dots. What I really mean by all of this is, if I am to be blocked I would expect it to be done by and objective and serious-minded person. Lots and lots of administrators have been removed for various reasons. If we are going to start blocking people we can't be rude to, well, WP will always be somewhat limited in quality, and always be controled by cliques. But, I have not been blocked yet. I'm assuming, not that I can't be blocked, but that serious-minded and competant administrators would do the blocking. If that is not to be true then I guess I really would give up on WP and abandon it as a waste of time. Deliberate provocation is not the way to go. Well, I'm going on unless and until stopped. Other things have come up in the article.Botteville (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Metuboy changes

Metuboy has made a string of changes. He is a new user with a talk page - not much on it - and no UP. He starts out well putting in some pics that spruce up the sections. For that reason I think he is not a vandal. But then he removes a bunch of data from the box. I'm not intrinsically opposed to such changes but he gives no reason for his changes. They just happen to be a lot of the additions that I made. Metuboy, are you aware of this discussion page? Can you give us an idea of why you are doing what you are doing? For now I am putting back the deletions. This is not oppositional, only asking for a rationale. Thank you.Botteville (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I finished looking at Metuboy changes. Except for taking away most of the box and its data M. concentrates on picture layout. He brings in new pictures from commons. It looks good, except now the pictures don't have much to do with the text. I made but few changes. I suppose it is nothing I can't live with. Relevance is sacrificed for aesthetics. Maybe you can't always have both. Not enough pics for every aspect. Maybe someone else should comment. For the box, there is a lot of relevant data in it. I am opposed to cutting it, but as I say I would like to get M.'s reasons. An article should be both pleasing and informative. We need to keep the information.Botteville (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, the infobox is much too long. Entries should be far more terse. That UNESCO nonsense at the bottom should be cut for a start, and the essays on the height and area. There are rather too many pics in the top half, and two few in the bottom. Any excess of useful images can go in a one-line mini-gallery. Has he finished? Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy input. I don't know if he is finished or not. I see nothing more. In view of the fact that there are different ideas now I think we are justified in making changes. I expanded the box but I do not have any firm ideas on what should be in it. The box was intended to give scientific data such as physical dimensions. When you get a site like Troy, and not just a single famous artifact, the box can be pretty long. If we are going to cut it, there is the question of what should be cut. There might be some disagreement on that. I wouldn't worry about the cut data as we certainly will put that in elsewhere or in the Hisarlik article. It shouldn't be too far away, as people want to know, "hiw big is Troy?" Perhaps a question more relevant to your comment is what to do with the UNESCO site data. All UNESCO site boxes have this data. It was there before I started work. Do you know, is there a policy that UNESCO site boxes must have this data? I invite additional commenting from the community. For the pictures, well, I tend to agree with you. The pictures are pretty but some degree of relevance seems warranted. I note that your idea corresponds to mine about the concentration; i.e., a gallery. I started one of those for the walls but was limited by the disorganization of the pics in commons. I'm still working on commons organization so I have not been able to finish it. Well, the question as it is now developing is how to get an attractive AND informative lead-in. If you want to go ahead and try your hand with the ideas you mentioned I will not object. I welcome other comments. Meanwhile I will be working either in commons or some section of the article itself. Perhaps we will hear from Metuboy. This is live to him right now but later he will be forgetting all about it.Botteville (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The UNESCO template is a disgrace and an outrage I gave up complaining about a decade ago, since the fanboys who added it everywhere couldn't see why anyone might want a few words describing or periodizing a site/building, but really needed to know what continent it was on, & the "inscription" date. All that is on the Unesco website of course. But no one will mind it being removed. Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

After all this tension your reply gave me quite a belly laugh. I don't think that just because someone designed a template 10 years ago we are necessarily bound by it. Wikipedia is nothing if not innovative in presentation. That's the one area not tied to the experts in the field (whom I am really beginning to appreciate). I remember when a famous German administrator took a totally oppositional stand to side boxes (over 10 years ago). We see how that came out. Anyway thanks for communicating your true thoughts. For the pictures I do not know what to think. I will just leave that alone for a while, see what comes up. In fact I was done with the intro so ditto for the whole thing. I Still have not heard from Metuboy. Maybe he does not know we are here.Botteville (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if I had the energy I'd go round improving all X00 or X,000 WHS pages - I thought my efforts did get a couple of more useful fields added at Template:Infobox_UNESCO_World_Heritage_Site but I can't see them now. It really is a disgrace. Metuboy hasn't edited for 20 hours or so, but seems to have moved on. Anyway, there is consensus here to adjust his image changes. Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

In fact, I see it's almost a decade ago I began my wholly unsuccessful attempts to sort the template out - see Template_talk:Infobox_UNESCO_World_Heritage_Site/Archive_1#Gives_altogether_the_wrong_information. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Yep, typical. To me the gist of the argument is what standard way to handle introductory data in all articles. To me it is more, how shall we design THIS article. Thousands of articles all done the same way are a bit boring. Earlier in my career here I used to experiment around a little to get a good-looking new design. Same problem. Students can't seem to think outside the box. They are looking for THE correct way to do it, an outcome of mass production. If you do things the way the teacher says to do it then you get an A. So Troy lay unexcavated further for 40 years even though there were serious questions. I'm not going to cast stones as I am not a guiltless party. The users standardized everything I did. I am not saying a standard article is necessarily bad. I confess my approach to this intro was pretty much reactive not proactive. How could I fix what was already there, etc. But, if you or anyone care to take a freer hand I've no obection. I will be concentrating on the missing stuff. I hope this reply is not too long.Botteville (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Maps

We have a suggestion from an apparently new editor to simplify the maps. The Europe maps come out and the Asia map goes in, a change that he made without including a reason. Fellow editor, it is part of the policy to put in reasons for your changes, but we don't have to play that game just to be playing games. I got no opinions, except that the map of all Asia is awfully large, and that Ataturk acted on a preference for his country to be European rather than Asian. What do you think, interested community?Botteville (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Reason reminder

The last few changes by fly-by editors, one unregistered, have not listed reasons for the changes. I agree with both changes but as I am working on this article still I would appreciate your following the convention and putting some sort of reason, please. It helps me and others evaluate the credibility of the change. In this last one I presume we don't need an explicit link when we have the blue link. Fine.Botteville (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Çanakkale Boğazı

Unregistered user adds "Canakkale strait" without a reason. No history of any other changes. Since that is the Turkish name, it seems fair to me so I am not inclined to revert. To user: in the future please add reasons as is customary.Botteville (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Some serious problems

This article has some serious problems. It contains large sections that are almost completely irrelevant. For instance, there are the sections "Crimean War debacle" and "The 'Possidhon affair' and its aftermath," both of which are extremely lengthy and both of which seem to be completely off-topic. The sections are both talking about events going on the various Calverts' lives that have little to do with the excavations at Troy. In fact, the name Troy itself doesn't even occur once in either section. These sections need to be either removed entirely or drastically pared down. Some of the material could possibly be moved to the article Frank Calvert, but it definitely does not belong here. There is absolutely no reason to have a whole massive section in this article solely talking about a case of insurance fraud involving Frederick Calvert, especially since that section contains almost no citations whatsoever.

On top of this, there is the very serious problem that this article says almost nothing about the role of Troy in mythology and literature outside the Iliad. The Odyssey is only mentioned twice in the body of the article offhand. There's absolutely no mention of Sophocles or Euripides or any of the tragedies they wrote about the Trojan War. There is exactly one offhand mention of Aeschylus and there are only three offhand mentions of Vergil's Aeneid. There's no mention of the whole medieval legend of Troilus and Criseyde. There's a lot of really important stuff that's being totally left out here and a lot of really irrelevant stuff that's being treated in utterly excruciating detail. This article needs a drastic overhaul. Unfortunately, I don't really have time to rewrite Wikipedia articles anymore so I'm leaving this note for whoever finds it. —Katolophyromai (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The subject of this article should be fairly strictly restricted to the history and archaeology; there are plenty of other articles on the Trojan War, Epic Cycle, and "the role of Troy in mythology and literature". At 157 raw kbytes the article is far too long already; the last thing we need is more big topics added. I agree there is too much on the Calverts - this should probably go to its own article, with a brief summary left here. Personally, I think all the "search for/ excavation history of" stuff should follow rather than precede a concise account of the history of the city as now understood through the latest archaeology. Or even also floated off. Johnbod (talk) 12:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

why is the "crimean war Debacle" and anything not directly related to Troy itself even in this article?

It seems completely extraneous and worthy of it's own wikipedia article — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKF011 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this user and the other discussing the problems of discussing the Calvert family in this article. While this family was certainly important for understanding the excavation of Troy, they should not consume such a large portion of the text. The "Possidhon affair” section is entirely superfluous and unrelated to Troy itself, only tangentially through the Calverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldlyBecket (talk • contribs) 19:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

is this a Calvert Family article?

After 10 minutes of reading I know more about the Calvert family than Troy and I consider the majority of the information on the Calvert family completely irrelevant to the topic. Which should be Troy. Not the Calvert folk. MHCTruter (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Now look at the article as of 30 December 2019 which had less about Calverts. Do you want to revert to that? Or do you have no proposal? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I was also bothered by this content which i consider out of scope, so I have summarized it here and moved the bulk of the content to Frank Calvert romnempire (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

This talk section duplicates Troy#Some_serious_problems, which gives +2 to this scope criticism romnempire (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Information from Rüstem Aslan of Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University

Seeing as Hisarlik is in a state of continual excavation I would advise that the page contains sections derived from recent publications of the current head of archeology Rüstem Aslan of Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University. As a “current and future studies” section perhaps. 2A02:A445:79E2:1:35E3:2E63:E4BF:9525 (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Theories on timescales; 10 years in Homer vs 100 years in archeology

Troy VI shows archeological evidence of destruction at 1275BC. Troy VIi (formerly called Troy VIIa) shows archeological evidence of destruction and fire at 1190BC. Are there any literary sources that aim to link the somewhat out of place and extremely long duration of the siege as described in Homer (10 years), with a conflation through the centuries afterwards, of the actual timescale of repeated destruction at Troy (100 years) ? 2A02:A445:79E2:1:F8E9:4B4A:2FF9:EDFB (talk) 02:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)