Talk:Ancient Greece

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

City-States[edit]

Um... It is common knowledge that Ancient and Classical Greece were made up of city-states... Shouldn't that be mentioned in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.124.233.17 (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A quick search turns up 22 mentions of city-states already in the article. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
who where greek people where they come from.are they living in part of grees from the beging of civelizion.no talk about the origion of greek.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.19.35.226 (talk) 03:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC) 

I think when it's mentioned how Classical Greece had an impact on the Roman Empire, maybe give a couple of examples in the introduction.--Bpio075 (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Greeks and Science[edit]

The main article currently states:

"However, it must be noted that the 'scientific' (as it would now be called) views of some the most influential Greek philosophers, particularly Aristotle, were often completely wrong. Nevertheless, such was their general authority that later on, particularly in the medieval and renaissance periods, these views were accepted uncritically as 'fact'.[18] This made it very difficult for dissenting (and correct) theories to be accepted; amongst others Copernicus and Galileo were victims of this effect.[18] Thus some Greek philosophy had the unintentional effect of hindering scientific research for over 1,000 years.[18]"

. . .and the above paragraph sites only one source. Really, the Greeks sets back science 1,000 years? Simply because their early theories proved wrong? In my humble opinion, this is a stretch, and belongs in a discussion, and not the main page.

Anyway, it's on whole a good article. Thanks. Cutugno (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Cutugno

Hmmm, that paragraph doesn't really read well on the whole. I added it (in a hurry) to try and provide some balance to the section. The point is not that the Greeks set science back 1,000 years, but that scientists 2,000 years later set themselves back by refusing to believe that Aristotle et al could be wrong; or in some cases the Catholic church told them that they were not allowed to prove Aristotle et al wrong (e.g. Galileo). It was excessive respect for these philosophers, rather than the philosophers themselves that was the problem.
Whilst I don't think that this is a controversial point, it's true that the paragraph in question does not put across the point properly. Sadly, I can't make any changes at the minute because the article is protected, but any administrators out there are welcome to give it a go! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


I have to agree with the original comment on this topic. It has to do with the systematic manner in which Europeans have tried to efface the influence of Islamic civilization on the European Renaissance (much the way Nazi Germany tried to discredit the contribution of Jewish scientists). Islamic science has a closer relation to modern science than the greeks ever did. For example, Abul Hassan's invention of the telescope mirrors Galileos work much later. Nicholas Copernicus actually USED the trigonometric results of Ibn Shatir which themselves indicated that the solar system was heliocentric. The 'scientific method' created by the Arab scholars formed the cornerstone of the future of modern science as opposed to the rational logic of Aristotle. Deduction which was intrinsic to Greek philosophy had a tendency to hold back science while Islamic science used the inductive approach engendered by the 'scientific method'. Empiricism is thus a far more potent force in inquiry.

Sources for Greek rationality vs Islamic Scientific Method and how the latter has far greater importance in modern science: Robert Briffault (1928). The Making of Humanity, p. 191. G. Allen & Unwin Ltd.

Ibn Khaldun's, father of of the Social Sciences and his use of the scientific method in the social sciences: Franz Rosenthal, N. J. Dawood (1967), The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History. Princeton University Press, ISBN 0691017549. Will Durant (1980). The Age of Faith (The Story of Civilization, Volume 4), p. 162-186. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0671012002.


Robert Briffault in 'The Making of Humanity' states this: "The debt of our science to that of the Arabs does not consist in startling discoveries or revolutionary theories; science owes a great deal more to Arab culture, it owes its existence. The ancient world was, as we saw, pre- scientific. The astronomy and mathematics of the Greeks were a foreign importation never thoroughly acclimatized in Greek culture. The Greeks systematized, generalized and theorized, but the patient ways of investigation, the accumulation of positive knowledge, the minute methods of science, detailed and prolonged observation, experimental inquiry, were altogether alien to the Greek temperament... What we call science arose in Europe as a result of a new spirit of inquiry, of new methods of investigation, of the method of experiment, observation, measurement, of the development of mathematics in a form unknown to the Greeks. That spirit and those methods were introduced into the European world by the Arabs."

I think this evidence gives enough reason to exercise caution when overemphasising the hand that Greek science had in the European renaissance and the global Scientific Revolution taking place today. Scholarship easily disputes this as there is a great discontinuity between Greek learning and modern science. It is closer to Islamic science than it is to what the Greeks established. The Executor (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Intro edits regarding what came from whom[edit]

I made some edits to the intro which RJC modified a little. I, respectfully, disagree with these modifications so I think some discussion is in order.

Certainly since the latter parts of the Renaissance it has been common for Western Europe and the cultures that derive from it (the Americas, Australia, etc.) to feel "ownership" of Ancient Greece and to feel that we are the unique cultural decendants of that civilization. One can see a parallel to this thinking in the Protestant Christian philosophy that God's covenant passed from the Jews to Roman Empire to the Roman Catholic Church to the Protestant churches as the "true" believers. The theory of a unique connection between Western Europe and Ancient Greece, however, is a myth invented to mangify the self image of Western Europe at a time when the civilized world had recently seen them as backward barbarians.

If we trace the influence of Ancient Greek culture we can summarize it in this way.

  • Ancient Greece was conquered by the Macedonians and then, under Alexander the Great, Greek culture was spread through most of the Mediterranean (in particular most of the civilized areas of the region) and eastward all of the way to India.
  • Greek became the primary language of scholarship not only in the Mediterranean but throughout Southwest Asia and even to a degree in South Asia. All of these cultures would derive a great deal directly from the Greeks.
  • The Romans conquered the Western fragment of the western Macedonian empire which by then had fragmented. Still the Persian portion of Alexander's empire used the Greek language substantially although the Persian language was beginning to assert itself.
  • The Romans were already partly Hellenized even before the expansion but shortly after they conquered the eastern Mediterranean Greek became the main scholarly language throughout the Empire (in the 4th and 5th centuries the western provinces began to switch back to Latin but since they crumbled so soon after than it makes no real difference). The Romans fused the inheritance of ancient Greece into their own culture. But they were not the unique inheritors of that culture.
  • Italy and the West crumbled in the 5th and 6th centuries under the onslaught of Germanic invasions and almost all scholarship or high culture died there. The Roman (Byzantine) Empire in the East, however, continued and maintained Roman culture (including the inheritances of Ancient Greece). In the West the church, still tied, to Constantinople was essentially the only part of the west that maintained any connection to the intellectual traditions of Greece and Rome and, even then, not to any great degree. Excepting the traditions of the commoners and the Latin language the West lost almost all connection to the Romans and the Greeks (including the fact that all knowledge of ancient Greek was lost in the West). Western Europe became more Germanic than Roman or Greek.
  • In the 8th century the Arabs conquered the majority of what was left of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire in the East. Much of the territories they conquered (Egypt, Syria, etc.) were major intellectual centers of the Empire and so they then fused the Roman and Greek cultures into their own. The also conquered Persia, itself a major inheritor of Greek knowledge and culture.
  • Building on this inheritance the Muslims rapidly created their own Golden Age in which they expanded on the intellectual accomplishments of the Greeks and the Romans. They and the eastern Romans/Byzantines were the major cultural inheritors of the Greeks.
  • During the late Middle Ages Western Europe redeveloped and Western scholars traveled the Muslim world studying at Muslim universities. In addition to learning the latest accomplishments in art and science they also became aquainted with the history of Ancient Greece.
  • As the Roman/Byzantine Empire and the Muslim world declined scholars immigrated to Western Europe helping to fuel the Renaissance. Attempting to assert their own sense of entitlement Western Europeans tended to trace their own scholarly history to Rome and Greece through the Church ignoring the millenium in which Constantinople and the Muslim world had been the intellectual leaders and the fact that those cultures had taught the Europeans most of they knew.

The point of all of this is to say that Western Europe cannot be legimately considered the only major inheritor of Ancient Greek culture. At most it could be considered one of the primary inheritors of that culture although even that could be argued as being gratuitous. We like to point out the fact that so many Greek words are part of the Western European languages but that is mostly not because of an inheritance from Ancient Greece but rather because Renaissance and modern scholars chose to incorporate Greek into our languages. And note that most of what they incorporated was not Ancient Greek but Medieval/Byzantine Greek (e.g. the names of the letters Alpha, Beta, etc. are Medieval Greek, not Ancient Greek).

I'd like to change the intro back to clearly avoid trying to emphasize Western Europe at the expense of other cultures.

Comments?

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

These are all arguments regarding the truth of the matter, while WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V emphasize what has been stated in reliable sources. If there is this misconception, as Mcorazao urges, Wikipedia is not the place to correct it. RJC TalkContribs 18:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Mcorazao on what he's saying, but I also have to agree with RJC that something like that needs to be reliably sourced before the article can be changed. --Athenean (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Folks, thanks for the feedback. A couple of points:

  • I don't disagree with what you have specifically stated but, with respect, what is implied is hypocritical. The Euro-centric statements have not been sourced so it makes no sense to imply that my edits are less valid.
  • The edits I made are very neutral statements that do not emphasize one culture over another. RJC's version, by contrast, very specifically emphasizes a Euro-centric bias.

The point is that, if there is debate about whether a certain bias is appropriate, we should stick with a more neutral viewpoint until the bias can be reasonably substantiated (by authoritative references and consensus among the authors). The fact that a bias tends to be a common perception is not the same as scholarly consensus. I don't think there is any debate that the Ancient Greeks substantially influenced all of the cultures around the Mediterranean and in Europe. The only debate here is whether there is a legitimate basis to claim one culture has more of a claim to this legacy.

I would request that we revert to more neutral wording until a basis for more the cultural bias can be established. I'll look for a authoritative references that makes the major points I've stated succintly.

--Mcorazao (talk) 04:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Mcorazao's point is that Ancient Greek influence is present both in the western Renaissance and in the Islamic Golden Age. I do not think this is disputed, so let's just state it in these terms.

I do not see any Eurocentric bias. It is a little silly to say an article on Ancient Greece is "Eurocentric" seeing that Greece itself is in Europe, and indeed is at the root of the very definition of Europe (vs. Africa and Asia). The very notion of "Europe" is derived from Ancient Greece.

The Western (European) civilization grew out of a combination of Greek, Latin and Germanic roots, with some Arabic ("Moorish") admixture. The Islamic civilization grew out of Arab, Persian and Turco-Mongol roots, with some admixture of Greek (Byzantine) influences. It is perfectly fair to give Ancient Greece credit for its foundational role in Western civilization, but it is important not to overstate this connection. It is unwise to base any argument on a reflex to eliminate "Eurocentric bias". It is just as easy to argue that it is Eurocentric bias to emphasize the European (Greek) influence on Islamic culture.

Be that as it may, this is the article on Ancient Greece itself, and not on the cultural legacy of Ancient Greece, and discussing these questions in the WP:LEAD is inappropriate. If Mcorazao can present some scholarly source backing up his point, let him discuss it under a "legacy" section, but not in the lead. --dab (𒁳) 19:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Stating that Greek civilization "inspired" the Islamic Golden Age is plain wrong. Especially stating it in WP:LEAD is inappropriate. While the Islamic civilization did study Greek science and adopt much of it, almost anyone with a knowledge of science and its history knows that the most notable aspect of the Islamic civilization was it's creation and use of the 'Scientific Method' (inspiration for this taken from their religious text: the Quran). The older Greek system of inquiry was reductionist in nature and emphasized use of deduction rather than induction. The cornerstone of modern science is also this inductive (i.e. the 'Scientific Method') approach rather than the outmoded Greek system. If this article is going to preserve any historical accuracy, then this term "inspired" should be taken out. If you must have it in the lead then at least change it to, say, 'influenced', which would be more accurate. 'Inspired' is too strong a term for the relationship that the Greek science had with Islamic civilization. Furthermore, modern scholarship has shown how Europeans have tried to efface the influence of Islamic civilization (through Al-Andalus in ancient Spain) on Europe and its subsequent renaissance. But the cornerstone of the Scientific Revolution was in fact the 'Scientific Method' developed by the Saracens, rather than deduction and rational logic propagated by the Greeks. The Executor (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann, I am disturbed that we cannot be more objective about this. First, let's be clear. All I said was that the lead should not be stating that Western Europe has more claim to the legacy of Ancient Greece than other cultures around the Med. That's it. I said the lead should be LESS BIASED. You guys are deliberately trying to put words in my mouth as an excuse to keep the wording biased toward Western Europe.
Anyway, to respond to some specific points:
  • "Eurocentric ...seeing that Greece itself is in Europe" - This is a strawman argument being deliberately over-literal with the wording. The term "eurocentric" is commonly used to refer to Western Europe (although depending on the context it is sometimes used to mean all of Europe). I think what I meant was fairly obvious so I cannot find a way to take this as a serious comment.
  • "Western (European) civilization grew out of ..." - This is a misinterpretation of history as I described above. People like to believe that cultures have walls between them and when studying the roots of a culture you simply have to look at which side of the wall the culture was on. This is false. In the Ancient Greek period the Greeks contact with a lot of cultures but had far more interaction with cultures of the Eastern Med and Persia than most of Western/Northern Europe. Italy did have some major Greek colonies but that was mostly as far west as it went. When Alexander the Great spread Greek culture around he spread it eastward and southward not westward or northward. It was not until the Roman Empire that Greek culture finally made major inroads into most of Western Europe. Even then Greek culture was still more firmly established in what we now call the Middle East, Greece, Turkey, and Iran (although in Iran the Persian language gradually reasserted itself over the Greek language). But after the Goths overran Western Europe virtually all of Roman and Greek culture died there and Western Europe did not reacquire most of that until the Renaissance. When the Arabs overran the Eastern Roman Empire they did not destroy the Greek culture there but simply absorbed it, although the Greek-speaking scholars in those lands gradually switched to using Arabic. Western Europe gained its knowledge of Ancient Greece from the Muslims as well as the Greek-speaking "Byzantines". But bear in mind that even the "Byzantines" (re-)gained a great deal of their knowledge of Ancient Greece from the Muslims (ironically translating some Greek works back from Arabic).
  • "that Greek civilization "inspired" the Islamic Golden Age is plain wrong" - Although I agree with most of your details I think your thesis is unfair. It is rather like arguing that Einstein was not inspired by Newton because he approached things from a radically different perspective (Einstein himself would profoundly disagree). The Muslims went through a LOT of trouble to translate the Ancient Greek texts and quoted heavily from them. Many of their works were in fact commentaries on the Ancient Greek works (a pattern that Western Europe would later follow). Certainly by the Islamic era philosophy had evolved substantially from the Ancient Greek era but saying that they were not inspired by the Greeks when they so clearly admired and quoted them does not make a lot of sense.
BTW, what seems to be implied in a lot of what is being said here is that Greece is part of "Western Europe". This association is a modern convention born out the 19th century Greek revolution (the Greeks used Western assistance to gain independence from the Ottomans by portraying themselves as Westerners). In reality, the modern Greeks are culturally mixed descendants of the Eastern Romans (Byzantines) and the Turks. Their culture has more in common with Eastern cultures (including the Muslim world) than Western cultures and the very concept of "East" and "West" came from the distinction between the Latin-speaking Roman provinces in the West and the Greek-speaking Roman provinces in the East.
In terms of scholarly references here are a few quick ones:
  • "Paths from ancient Greece " by Carol G. Thomas - The chapter Hellenism in Islam talks a great deal about the fact that much of early Islamic culture and philosophy was essentially adaptations of Ancient Greek philosophy and culture.
  • "Islamic science and the making of the European Renaissance " by George Saliba - The book starts by critiquing the notion that the Muslims simply translated a few Greek works and did little more. It discusses the direct influences of Greek thinking in Islamic philosophy and then how these later help generate the Western Renaissance.
  • "Greek thought, Arabic culture" by Dimitri Gutas - The chapter The Background of the Translation Movement talks about how Greek-speakers and Greek scholars were part of the near East, some having been there before the Roman period and some coming there during the Roman period to escape religious persecution. That is, it talks about the fact that the Arabic translation movement was in large part translation of culture and literature that was already a part of the culture in these lands.
  • "Theology and modern physics" by Peter Edward Hodgson - The Introduction itself has some good commentary on how science developed passing the Greek legacy from Greece to the Muslims and then to Western Europe.
--Mcorazao (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Folks, this discussion has sat silent for a while and nobody has provided a plausible reason for the bias toward Europe. In the absence of a reason for bias I am asserting that we need to revert to more neutrality for the sake of NPOV. The questions raised in the rest of this discussion can be raised as appropriate in other sections of the article.
--Mcorazao (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Everyone who has taken part in this discussion has said that you need to support your edits with references; saying that this amounts to there being no plausible reason for the article as it stands does not accord with WP:CONSENSUS. RJC TalkContribs 15:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody claimed that "Western Europe has more claim to the legacy of Ancient Greece than other cultures around the Med". Or have you ever heard anyone claim that Western Europe is any more Greek than Greece itself. The claim is simply that Europe, including Greece and Eastern Europe, has more claim to the legacy of Ancient Greece than the Near East. Which as far as I know is pretty much stating the obvious. Nobody disputes that Greek culture exerted influence as far east as India. Only, that influence remained comparatively limited compared to the lasting influence it had in Europe, particularly Eastern Europe and Orthodox Christianity. If Mcorazao is going to continue to claim that this is misstating things, he would better begin to present credible sources to the effect. Just presenting sources saying that Muslim science was influenced by Greek authors is futile, since nobody ever claimed this wasn't the case. The topic of "Hellenism and Islam" as such would be rather interesting, but hardly suited for this article. --dab (𒁳) 17:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


"...That influence remained comparatively limited compared to the lasting influence it had in Europe, particularly Eastern Europe and Orthodox Christianity" -- I think Dab's hit the nail on the head without realizing the implications, in the sense that that is what the other user is arguing. Ancient Greece's influence to Western Europe development tends to be over emphasized. Ancient Greece has had a bigger influence in Eastern Europe and the Orthodox church then on where is commonly identified as "Western Europe".

I would agree with Mcorzao, in as much as we should try to drop lines in the lead that look more like advertising campaigns for the said countries.Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) pythagoras and many more philosophers said helliocentric so why are galilao and coppernicus still in our history books. by the way they knew each other and were friends and stole the greeks ideas. theres alot of antihellenism going on in these so called facts of history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbobcoolman (talkcontribs) 18:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to make a different point about the intro: the current second paragraph makes it sound like Ancient Greek civilization only had an impact on the world indirectly, due to its influence on Roman civilization. Isn't this viewpoint a tid bit narrow? (I won't say Euro-centric, as a previous commentator, but definitely Roman-centric). First of all, Greek culture influenced many more Mediterranean cultures (and beyond) other than and independently of the Romans. Secondly, I don't understand the emphasis that the intro puts on "particularly Greek philosophy". What about the arts (visual and literary), mathematics and science (related perhaps, but not identical to philosophy, even by ancient understandings of philosophy), material culture and language? 79.157.2.74 (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy?[edit]

What is the wikipedia policy concerning dates they are listed as BCE and CE shouldn't that be BC and AD? Ghtoy (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I thought the wikipedia policy was to use BCE / CE format and not BC / AD. Rjfranco (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
It's neither. WP:ERA isn't policy, but it says to be consistent and use whichever was used first. RJC TalkContribs 03:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
whole lot of antihellenism going on here in an attemt to rewrite history  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbobcoolman (talkcontribs) 19:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC) 

Revisiting Western bias[edit]

I've been checked out from this article for a while. The Western bias in the lead persists. I'm placing the "globalize" template on the article for now. My original concerns still stand. It should also be pointed out that Greek was the official language of Persia and other regions of Asia for a long time after the demise of the Macedonian Empire. In reality when we talk about the legacy of Ancient Greece we cannot even just talk about the Mediterranean.

Anyway, we can hope there is room for some consensus this time around.

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Since the consensus when this was last discussed was that the article is not euro-centric, I will remove the template. If you wish to rehash this in the hopes that old users have drifted away and that new ones have come in, you might wish to briefly restate your points rather than asking readers to wade through that discussion. My objection was that you were making truth claims, rather than pointing to reliable sources that could verify substantial support for the position such that it was not original research. That objection still stands. RJC TalkContribs 21:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
RJC, there was not a previous consensus. That was why there was no change (in fact, shortly before that discussion the lead had become a little more West-centric than it was last year). I had previously offered some references which you dismissed without discussion.
I didn't want to get into a cat fight then and I don't now. If there is some willingness to have a real discussion then that would be great. That was not the case previously. I had hoped in the interim to have seen a change happen and it didn't. So the objection stands for now. --Mcorazao (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
P.S. For convenience, here's a cut-and-paste of the references I previously dotted off.
  • "Paths from ancient Greece " by Carol G. Thomas - The chapter Hellenism in Islam talks a great deal about the fact that much of early Islamic culture and philosophy was essentially adaptations of Ancient Greek philosophy and culture.
  • "Islamic science and the making of the European Renaissance " by George Saliba - The book starts by critiquing the notion that the Muslims simply translated a few Greek works and did little more. It discusses the direct influences of Greek thinking in Islamic philosophy and then how these later help generate the Western Renaissance.
  • "Greek thought, Arabic culture" by Dimitri Gutas - The chapter The Background of the Translation Movement talks about how Greek-speakers and Greek scholars were part of the near East, some having been there before the Roman period and some coming there during the Roman period to escape religious persecution. That is, it talks about the fact that the Arabic translation movement was in large part translation of culture and literature that was already a part of the culture in these lands.
  • "Theology and modern physics" by Peter Edward Hodgson - The Introduction itself has some good commentary on how science developed passing the Greek legacy from Greece to the Muslims and then to Western Europe.
This was just a quick sampling, of course. --Mcorazao (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The question last year was not whether the Greeks exhibited some influence upon some aspects of non-Western societies, but whether that influence was on a par with that exercised over Western societies. No literate person can deny that Greek philosophy had a profound impact upon medieval Islamic philosophy. Yet sources attesting to this do not establish the larger point that Greek philosophy played a central role in the medieval Islamic world, let alone the even greater point that it continues to do so to this day. You could even say that the Western world was decisively influenced by the medieval Islamic world and that the primary influence of the Greeks upon the West came through Islam, but this is again not the same as saying that Greek thought influenced non-Western thought in the same way that it has Western thought. RJC TalkContribs 23:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I am supposed to respond. First of all, are you suggesting that the Islamic world was affected enough by Greek thought to have passed it on to the West and then just forgot that influence? Second are you suggesting that the West carefully picked up Greek influence from the Muslims but mostly avoided other influences to such a degree that we can say our culture uniquely inherited from the Greeks more than it inherited from anything else the Muslim nations gave us? That's pretty far-fetched.
The point is that if you are going to make such far-reaching claims they really have to be backed up by references that demonstrate a scholarly consensus around this idea (said consensus does not exist, though). I am simply suggesting that we not attempt to make such claims and simply acknowledge that the Greeks influenced a very large part of the world. There is nothing controversial about that. The difference between our part of the world and some of the others is that, as a society, the West takes a great deal of pride in its influence from the Greeks whereas many other parts of the world have downplayed this influence for sociopolitical reasons (a lot having to do with the politics of the Renaissance and the modern era). --Mcorazao (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I am not going to argue the truth with you (although, yes, al-Ghazali is credited with having exposed the incompatibility between Greek and Islamic thought, which put a damper on Greek influence). If other parts of the world have downplayed the influence the Greeks had on their civilization, I presume this means that there are fewer modern sources attesting to that influence. Finding a source that the Greeks influenced the West in profound and even foundational ways is a fool's errand. In any case, you are not suggesting that we remove the statement that they influenced the West, but rather that we add a statement that they influenced others. By your own argument, such a source will be difficult to come by. As I said above, your sources do not add up to that statement. The consensus was against this template. Unless someone speaks up on its behalf, I will presume that it remains against that template. RJC TalkContribs 14:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
As I say, I'm not going to get into a cat fight. I've offered evidence which you refuse to discuss.
But please stop vandalizing. You are free to disagree with me but that is not a license to violate policy. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record, if anyone else out there would actually like to have a discussion about this please feel free to comment. --Mcorazao (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record, flagrant misuse of vandalism templates in an editing dispute [1] is tendentious at best. No one else shares your concerns, while several editors are on record from the last time you pushed this nonsense against there being a need for a change to the lede. RJC TalkContribs 17:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request (Whether or not the {{Globalize}} template is appropriate):
I intend to provide my opinion on whether or not this article suffers from systemic bias and needs to be tagged for cleanup with the {{globalize}} template. I do not intend to (and frankly, don't feel capable of) providing an opinion on the content dispute regarding the extent to which Ancient Greece affected the culture of Western Europe.
The {{globalize}} template is for articles that suffer from systemic bias. Systemic bias is characterized by geographically imbalanced coverage of a topic (i.e. that the article does not "represent a worldwide view of the subject"). A simplistic example: if the article on the Telephone only discussed how phones work in America, with no discussion on how they work in other parts of the world. That would be systemic bias. In my opinion, this article does not suffer from systemic bias because there is not a perspective that is missing from the article. What we have here is simply a content dispute (on which, again, I don't plan on commenting). Some editor(s) believe that the lead gives undue weight to the influence of Ancient Greece on Western Europe. Other editor(s) disagree. So, the article is discussing the content from a global perspective. The question is whether or not the content of that discussion is correct, not if the discussion is entirely missing from the article. Therefore, my opinion is that the {{globalize}} template should be removed from the article, and civil discussions regarding the content dispute should continue until a consensus is reached (assuming that hasn't happened already). Also, edit warring over cleanup templates is not constructive, and neither is characterizing cleanup templates as vandalism. —SnottyWong confer 01:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, keep in mind that the primary purpose of cleanup templates like {{globalize}} is to draw attention to articles that need help. It appears that this article has plenty of attention being paid to it, to the point that discussions regarding the perceived problem are currently ongoing. Thus, repeatedly inserting a disputed cleanup tag is arguably pointy and should be reconsidered. SnottyWong spout 03:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I've boldly removed the template, as there does not appear to be any support for it apart from one editor. If necessary, please continue the content discussion here until a consensus is reached (using other means of moderation if necessary) on whether changes to the lead are supported by the sources. Thanks. SnottyWong confess 03:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Snottywong, thank's for offering feedback.
I realize that the {{globalize}} template is a bit of a stretch but it was the best one I could find to fit the situation (if you have a better suggestion please feel free to offer it). Unfortunately there cannot be a template for each and every nuance.
You are partially correct that the purpose of these banners is to get attention in order to attract other commentators (I am not sure how you can argue that this thread has plenty of input since at the moment you are only the 3rd person to comment). But that is not the only purpose of these banners. It is also a notice to the readers that the content potentially has issues and should not be considered reflective of consensus among the editors. Regardless, though it is reasonable for you to remove a cleanup template if you believe in good faith that it was placed mistakenly, I think we both know that is not the case here and as such removing it was a policy violation.
As you are unwilling to discuss the issues (as is the case for RJC) I'm not sure what more there is for me to say.
--Mcorazao (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
A few responses: I'm the third person to comment on the applicability of the cleanup template, not the content discussion. This talk page has multiple discussions which address your complaint, and it has been discussed by significantly more than two editors. Admittedly, some of the discussions were over a year ago, but on the other hand, it doesn't appear as if anyone has agreed with you in any of these discussions yet. Whether or not there is consensus against your complaint is unclear. Secondly, how is removing an irrelevant cleanup template a policy violation? The cleanup template you added (in good faith) does not apply to the perceived problem you have with the article. If you insist on adding a cleanup tag to the article, find a more relevant one. Perhaps an inline tag (like {{dubious}}) next to the offending statement in the lead would be more appropriate. Thirdly, it's not that I'm unwilling to discuss the issues, but I know I don't have the knowledge and background on the subject to make an informed opinion, nor do I have the time or motivation to spend hours reading to learn about it. If you believe more discussion is required, consider starting an RFC on the topic, or entering into mediation if necessary. SnottyWong chatter 19:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I've replaced the globalize tag with a dubious tag. Feel free to move the dubious tag to a more appropriate location, if necessary. If you add the globalize tag to the article again (without making a convincing argument for why it's relevant), I will seek administrator intervention. SnottyWong squeal 20:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Snottywong, I think using the {{dubious}} template somewhat hides the concern but for the moment I won't quibble over that. If, however, you ever make an unprovoked threat like this again I will see to it that you are barred from Wikipedia.
Regarding the earlier content discussion I should state for the record that I was not the only one that advocated a change. And regardless there wasn't enough of a discussion or enough editors involved to argue that there was strong support for any particular viewpoint. I myself withdrew from the discussion at the time because I wasn't in the mood childishness and knowing some of the folks involved it was clear that was where this was heading (as it has now).
I would remind everyone again that Wikipedia's policies are there for a reason. Following them can be uncomfortable at times but Wikipedia is much better off if we adhere to them. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Do not threaten editors who participate in the Third Opinion Project, as we need them. RJC TalkContribs 23:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
FYI: I have started a complaint at WP:ANI#Edit warring over cleanup templates. SnottyWong converse 22:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Rfc: Western bias[edit]

Folks, I have a general concern that the lead and the rest of the article should not attempt to imply, directly or indirectly, that Western culture is the primary or exclusive inheritor of Ancient Greek culture. Instead I have suggested that the statements be broadened to indicate that the ancient Greeks influenced cultures throughout the Mediterranean region, Europe, and western Asia (the precise wording of that is a separate matter). Some other editors have expressed discomfort with not highlighting the influence on the West as being of particular importance. Any thoughts or feedback on the proper way to address the legacy of Ancient Greece are appreciated.

--Mcorazao (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again: cite your sources. Where is there anyone who has said that the Greeks have exercised the same sort of influence on other civilizations as they have on European civilization? You have referred only to sources that say that there was influence of some kind, but not sources that speak to the greater point that that influence was somehow decisive or seminal in forming the cultures of every civilization that the Greeks ever conquered or came into contact with. Their influence can be discussed at length in the section entitled "legacy," but not in the lede. No one has supported you in this, yet you have persisted in pushing this edit, misused vandalism warning templates, misused maintenance templates, and threatened the editor who provided a Third Opinion for warning you to stop misusing the maintenance template. For those responding to this RfC, the question is not about presence in the article, but about the presence of these statements in the lede. The fact that Mcorazao's claims are unreferenced and dubious is also important, but his summary of this dispute gives the impression that this is about article content in general, rather than just the lede. RJC TalkContribs 14:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Uninvolved editor comment: I do not find Hodgson persuasive, as it is passim in an introduction. Please provide full citations of the following, including publisher, year and place of publication Fifelfoo (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Carol G. Thomas, Paths from ancient Greece
  • George Saliba, Islamic science and the making of the European Renaissance
  • Dimitri Gutas Greek thought, Arabic culture
The Thomas book is already cited in the article in support of the claim that Greece had a central impact on Europe, albeit mediated by Rome and Islam. (Mcorazao demanded citations to this effect as an answer to requests for citations that Greece had a similar impact on Arab, Persian, Turkish, etc. (I may be missing one) culture.) Carol G. Thomas, Paths from Ancient Greece (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1988). Mcorazao will have to provide the page numbers, I'm afraid. RJC TalkContribs 15:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I found a page in the Thomas book that discusses this question, although I feel sure it is not the page that Mcorazao is thinking of. P. 91: "Hellenism, scientific, philosophical, or literary, had no place in it [Islamic education], and so no place in the education of the Muslims who shaped the society and gave it its religious and cultural ideals." This is the concluding sentence of the passage, "Hellenism and Islam," to which he points, but as it argues against rather than for the statement that Ancient Greece had an impact on Islam similar to that on Europe, I am certain that this cannot be what he meant. RJC TalkContribs 15:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's be clear. The burden of proof is on those attempting to claim the uniqueness of Western inheritance. I am simply advocating eliminating biased claims. I have yet to see even one reference to support this uniqueness. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, thanks for joining the discussion. I am not sure what you are looking for, though. What do the publishesr, years, and places of publication have to do with this discussion? I have provided Google links if you are curious in that regard. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
A full citation provides most of the requirements for verification of Reliability and High Quality reliability. It is a scholarly courtesy to provide citations full enough to verify from a glance. It also allows me to step through a number of other procedures much faster than spending five to seven searches in google books, worldcat, and various other catalogues. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
This conversation continues to move in a bizarre direction. I don't think there is any disagreement as to the fact that the Greeks influenced many cultures. The only disagreement is how much different cultures were influenced. The article currently asserts/implies that influence was predominantly on the West. I have not seen any attempt to back that assertion up with references. I offered a few quick references regarding influences on other cultures as a courtesy. However, I do not have a particular motivation to spend time establishing the quality of those references since the burden of proof is not on my argument at this point.
If somebody has actual evidence they want to submit regarding preserving the bias the article currently has please offer it. Otherwise there is no basis to preserve these assertions nor is there a basis to object to putting back material regarding influence on other cultures (with proper references, of course). --Mcorazao (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Mcorazao, perhaps it would help if you identified the sentence(s) in the article with which you have a problem, and suggest a way to change those sentence(s) to address your complaints. That would clarify exactly what your complaint is about, and what your ideal solution would be. Also, it appears that you have provided sources which prove that Ancient Greece have influenced cultures other than Western Europe. I don't think anyone is disagreeing that Ancient Greece had some influence on other cultures. However, your point is that Ancient Greece had more influence on other cultures than this article represents. Rather than simply providing individual sources which prove that there was some influence on other cultures, can you provide a source which establishes the relative proportion of influence between Western Europe and other cultures? SnottyWong talk 22:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Snottywong, thanks for attempting to have a productive discussion. This is helpful. I must, however, take exception with the way you are rephrasing the discussion. Parts of the article currently imply that Ancient Greece had more influence on the West than other cultures. I am simply suggesting that such implications be removed and that the article be more balanced.
The text I had originally attempted to use in the lead a long time back was the following:

It is generally considered to be the seminal culture which provided the foundation of cultures throughout Southwest Asia, Europe, and North Africa. Greek culture had a powerful influence on the Roman Empire, which carried a version of it to many parts of the Mediterranean region and Europe. The civilization of the ancient Greeks has been immensely influential on language, politics, educational systems, philosophy, science, and the arts, inspiring the Islamic Golden Age and the Western European Renaissance, and again resurgent during various neo-Classical revivals in 18th and 19th century Europe and the Americas.

Note that this was simply a modified version of what was in the lead at that time. I am not, though, married to this text. Certainly this can all be phrased in a lot of different ways.
In response to you request for specific items of concern my concern is not that there is an explicit problem with the inclusion of any one statement. The current lead makes a point of singling out the West (the lead has also been shortened too much for reasons I don't understand):
  • "Classical Greek culture had a powerful influence on the Roman Empire, which carried a version of it to many parts of the Mediterranean region and Europe, for which reason Classical Greece is generally considered to be the seminal culture which provided the foundation of Western civilization."
Other sections tend to focus explicitly on the relationship with the west as well, e.g.
  • "Many authors consider the western literary tradition to have begun with the epic poems The Iliad and The Odyssey ..."
The legacy section makes at least some effort to mention influences on different cultures though it could use some work (it implies that the hellenistic influence in the Islamic world came strictly from the Byzantines; in reality, of course, the hellenistic influence was far older than that).
--Mcorazao (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sadly it is clear that, no matter what, this discussion will not be allowed to proceed. From previous comments on this page and discussions on other pages I know there are editors who might have been interested in participating in the discussion and were probably scared away by the acrimony. Ultimately human nature always wins.


You should just take the problem the other way : the ancient Greeks are indeed the ancestors of modern western civilization. Precisely because westerners have claimed this legacy. The near east (while objectively influenced by Greece too) is not because it has chosen not to follow in the path of the Greeks. Meaning that generations of westerners (sadly not anymore) have grown up learning a lot about classical Greece and Rome, learning their languages, their culture etc. while the Arabs, for example, haven't (and never did : during their golden age, they were interested in Greek knowledge, not their culture or language. Translations were made by Christians who lived there before the Arabs). The Greeks saw themselves as unique, neither western or eastern, just Greek. For them, all the others were barbarians (except for the Romans...because the Romans wanted to be considered as non barbarians and they were dominating the Greeks), in which much was to admire (the bravery, the freedom and the strength of the celts, the refined culture of the persians etc.), but who were inherently inferior to the Greeks (who combined all these qualities). While the Greeks were mostly europeans (in the geographical sense) lots of them were from Asia. They saw themselves as western, just because their main enemy was in the east. They were certainly not western in the modern sense, nor where they eastern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.181.126.68 (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


Arabs are the direct inheritor of Greek culture and Greek civilization not Western Europe. Greek influence on arab is not only architecture, drawing, science, math and technologies but Greek Music and Greek Food is wholly preserved in current Arabian cultures. why do westerners insist that they are the direct inheritor of Greek culture? isn't it arabs that introduced Greek Culture to Western Europe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.210.251 (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

146 BC as an end date for Ancient Greece?[edit]

Does anyone else see a problem with this? The periods of Roman Greece and Late Antiquity are both mentioned in the chronology section as belonging to the epoch of Ancient Greece, yet the very first sentence in the article's introduction attempts to contradict this. Since the period of Classical Antiquity did not end until the Early Middle Ages, shouldn't "Ancient Greece" end with the rise of the Byzantine era following Justinian I? It seems so obvious to me, but if someone could get a reliable source to state the exact claim that would be helpful.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, Roman Greece is considered the last stage of Ancient Greece. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Architecture of ancient Greece[edit]

  • Would someone with detailed knowledge please check the introductory sentences with regard to preferred dates, terminology.
Don't worry too much about the rest. I'm about to rewrite it.
  • I plan to move the page to Architecture of Ancient Greece, on the grounds that when we use the term "ancient" with regard to Greece, it is not understood merely as an adjective (e.g. "the Parthenon is an ancient building"). The terms "Ancient Greece" and "Ancient Rome" are used to designate specific and define periods and cultures. I notice that the post immediately above, accepts this as convention, but it can be very difficult when some well-meaning editor who knows all the rules but nothing about the subject decides to enforce their interpretation of the Wikipedia MOS.
Amandajm (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Iron Age[edit]

The "Iron Age" is conventionally used only for pre-Classical Greece. Here's an example of a conventional division of periods of ancient Greek history: Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, Classical, Hellenistic. The same error has appeared at Roman Republic and Roman Empire. The editor who wishes to assert that Ancient Greece in its entirety is an Iron Age culture must produce multiple sources (preferably from university presses, Routledge, Brill, etc.) that state something along the lines of "Ancient Greece is characterized by an Iron Age culture" or "Iron Age culture is characteristic of ancient Greece in all periods" or "The term 'Iron Age' is conventionally used to describe that part of Greek history considered 'ancient'," or some such. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Music[edit]

I was reading about the musical theories of Ancient Greece on another Wikipedia page and was linked here, curious about music in these times more generally. There is no subdivision under Culture and no links to a more specific article.

Renfield (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I added a hasty little section based on the intro to Music of ancient Greece, directing the reader to that article for more. Thanks. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

a — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.73.139 (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggested change to "Ancient_Greece" page[edit]

Hi,

I think a sentence in the "Philosophy" section of the "Ancient_Greece" page should be changed.

The sentence:

"Some well known philosophers of Ancient Greece were Plato, Socrates, and many others."

I think should be changed to:

"Some well known philosophers of Ancient Greece were Plato, Socrates, Aristotle and many others."

as all these three named philosophers are (I think) equally well known.

Just a suggestion... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.100.234 (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Social structure Section needs work[edit]

This section is extremely useful and lacking. I would venture as being even in contradiction to the rest of the text. Greek social structure was more fixed than the later Roman, and the text at some point makes that clear but in this section we are given the idea that simple economic power could move a person from the existing cast system. 79.168.11.181 (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

antihellene assumptions[edit]

literacy had been lost and mycenaean script forgotten? who comes up with this stuff? and what solid basis do they have for coming up with this theory that is presented as fact, and that goes for the assumption that greek came from phoenician as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbobcoolman (talkcontribs) 03:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

frauds[edit]

we know that pythagoras and other ancients said the earth travels around the sun, so why is coppernicus and galileo still in our history books,both of which were friends and had access to ancient greek text and arabic text that was translated from the greek thus giving the moslems a wealth of knowledge that they didnt have prior to that period. and if you ask me something isnt right about aristotle saying the earth is the center because he would of known better and that goes for ptolemy as well. which leaves the question the popes and kings of western europe knew of pythagoras and all the others through there priveleged education so why did they chose to go with ptolemy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbobcoolman (talkcontribs) 04:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

just the facts please[edit]

80% of the history of greece on wiki is bias and twisted and in many cases strait out False — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbobcoolman (talkcontribs) 04:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Bigbobcoolman, your three comments in a row here are starting to look a bit like mere rants. I think we get that you're unhappy with the article. Either add material yourself, with footnotes, or please be quite specific about what "facts" you want corrected or added, and what sources you think should be used to add this material. Without something more concrete, your comments won't do the article any good. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Cynwolfe.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Untitled[edit]

"Homosexuality" as a highlighted link under the Google search for Ancient Greece Wiki? That existed everywhere. You forgot to highlight the other milestones. Grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprinks00 (talkcontribs) 20:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Definition of "Ancient Greece"[edit]

Is it normal to define "Ancient Greece" as begining with the Archaic Period (800BC onwards)? I.e. excluding the Mycenaeans and earlier civilizations (and by extension, meaning that most of the "Ancient Greek Myths" didn't take place in "Ancient Greece")? Iapetus (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Did myths take place anywhere? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's standard among classicists, archaeologists and historians to make that division. Mycenaean civilization and society were fairly different from anything seen later in Greece on lots of counts, and later Greeks had no real awareness of what had been going on back then outside of the myths, which do not represent history.83.254.151.33 (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
However, I can't see a clear division in bibliography. Authors prefer to include in their timeline of 'Ancient Greece' Prehistoric & Bronze Age Greece too [[2]], [[3]].Alexikoua (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


As I see there is a confusion between Ancient and Classical Greece.Alexikoua (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, there's also a difference between the usage of "Classical Greece" as an epoch designation among professionals - archaeologists and historians working on these times - and the broader public. In popular books with a wide scope and in colloquial talk, "classical Greece" sometimes refers to, like, the entire period from Homer to Alexander or beyond (in travel books sometimes even Mycenae), about 800-323 BC. To classically trained researchers, by established convention it means the period from the Persian invasion in 480 BC to the death of Alexander in 323 BC. What came before, back to about 800 BC, is the pre-classical age (or the archaic age). You'll find that division in any book about the history of ancient Greek art, political changes or Greek literature. When a popular book about let's say world history sets up a bibliography or a list of further reading at the end, it's not likely to split this up into the kind of multi-level periodization that specialists on the ancient world habitually observe, and the latter group have little interest in quarrelling with people who write schoolbooks or coffee-table books about general history.83.254.151.33 (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Sure, classical Greece is a part from Ancient Greece, this should be not confused. But there is no book that claims that 'Ancient Greece' starts after the Greek Dark Ages. See for example Ancient Egypt, the predynastic (prehistory) period is also included. Thus, I see no reason to avoid adding a background section about Prehistory here too.Alexikoua (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Seeing that there is no objection I'll proceed in adding information about the Dark Ages and Mycenaean Greece, in the same fashion Ancient Egypt includes info about predynastic Egypt.Alexikoua (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
It appears that the supposed beginning of Ancient Greece from the Archaic Age is nothing more than wp:or. I've placed a cn tag, but with all this mainstream bibliography which points to a borader definition, this part will be soon adjusted.Alexikoua (talk) 05:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I believe it's time to present the entire timeline of ancient Greece (i.e. Greek antiquity) as it is presented in bibliography, instead of claiming that this era started from the Archaich period. Some typical A.G. timeline examples may be [[4]], [[5]]. Even in children's books appears quite easy to understand this fact: [[6]] (from Early Greek cultures to Hellenistic Age).Alexikoua (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Coinage[edit]

D. Schaps (the invention of coinage...) confidently dates the first-ever coins to 620 BC (p. 95.); silver coins in mainland Greece are found in 511., their spread probably began about 550 (p.101). 680 BC mentioned in Archaic Greece is just some gibberish, not to mention it cites Zizek who cites another source. Please fix this someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.179.26.26 (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Not fixed yet today. Furthermore 680 is contradictory to other Wikipedia pages as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_coinage#Archaic_period and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money#History. --Dominique Meeùs (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Legacy: translation of quotation from Horace[edit]

The Latin word 'ferus' means 'wild, untamed, uncultivated' rather than fierce. Perhaps there is confusion with 'ferox' which does mean fierce.

217.44.90.231 (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

german picture[edit]

In the section colonies there is

this picture

.

the first thing you notice is that it's German. for as far as I know you have English pictures at and English wiki and German pictures at a German wiki.--Casvdschee (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

" The Danube civilization is also the roots of the Greek civilization"[edit]

Just removed this claim and similar ones from Danube civilization, a truly bad article (see talk page and the AfD) presenting Gimbutas's pov as though it is mainstream and factual, and based on a number of non-archaeological sources. Dougweller (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2014[edit]

fgn vnk ,wn wlb wl e'nmrp ,e. 82.14.201.79 (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)looline 82.14.201.79 (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 20:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hellenic Greece[edit]

Can this article be redirected here? Gbawden (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hellas[edit]

The article should say "Ancient Greece or Ancient Hellas" in the beginning, not just "Ancient Greece". Christina Neofotistou (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

"unique proper historiography"[edit]

Not a big deal, but "proper" Chinese_historiography developped pretty much at the same time in China (and actually reaches further back in time).80.215.178.177 (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ancient Greece. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Ages are a headache![edit]

This mentions the "middle ages" but it doesn't seem to relate to this. There is no good timeline available for those learning about history and the humanities. So confusing for beginners like myself. Would be nice if someone could create a simple timeline. 203.131.210.82 (talk) 05:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

BC/AD vs. BCE/CE[edit]

KylieTastic. I was wondering why you reverted the changes made by 130.208.78.70. To me they seem quit reasonable. Wouldn't have been the case to start a discussion about it, before using your sharp stroke? Carlotm (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Carlotm as per my edit comment see WP:ERAS namely "Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change". Also this type of change without seeking the consensus first tends to lead to pages being swapped back and forth endlessly often introducing errors thus steadily degrading the article. In this particular case they only broke 1 image (that I saw) but I've seen other such changes breaking dozens of links, refs and images. My personal preference for era notation goes with BCE/CE however I believe the integrity of article information and following policy (generally) is more important. So if you, 130.208.78.70, or someone else want to recommend the change here on the talk page and get a reasoned consensus please do. As I said earlier I prefer BCE/CE (unless the article is Christian in nature in which case BC/AD being more appropriate seams reasonable) however as per policy "A personal or categorical preference for one era style over the other is not justification for making a change". Also if the change is made it needs to be done without causing errors (links, images, quotations etc), and also as per WP:ERAS it should be "consistently within the same article". I hope that answers your question. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that we should keep the original date format per WP:ERA. Dr. K. 21:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't, but that's almost irrelevant. If there are many others who like to make this reasonable and well due change, than.... But I doubt it. Carlotm (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how to reply here but lets give it a try; to quote your quote "A personal or categorical preference for one era style over the other is not justification for making a change", so every change a person makes is personal? Well in that case, it is your personal opinion to use christian calendar? It is by far time to start using BCE/CE, especillay on a historical article concerning ancient greece and that isn't just my personal taste. However, I did not seek this consensus on talk page beforehand and I apologize for that, guess I'm still learning new stuff. Good that you were able to fix that broken image quickly, my intention was not to do any harm! But you go on and say "I've seen other such changes breaking dozens of links, refs and images." What is the meaning of this? Doesn't this go against what wikipedia is about? So we shouldn't update any solid article because they might break links? I'm sure it can be fixed, without reverting the changes. It is at least time we start talking about if we are going to use a christian calendar or not, the article would gain a more scholarly feeling without the christian calendar and wikipedia is exactly the place where you read about so many different historical subjects, concerning so many different cultures and religions around the world, making the christian calendar inappropriate and out of date. Thanks for your input in the discussion! (I edited to fix my poor grammar)130.208.78.70 (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The difference between BC/AD and BCE/CE is trivial. Both systems pivot around the same year and are equally "Christian". Published scholarship uses both systems. Much better to concentrate on improving the content of the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
"so every change a person makes is personal?" - Firstly as per the policy quote this is about era style not "every change"; secondly as per the policy if you have "reasons specific to its content" then please do say what it is. However in your original edits and from your later comments I believe this is a view on the general policy and not content specific.
"Well in that case, it is your personal opinion to use christian calendar?" no, as stated above mine is BCE/CE - but I have no content specific reason to assert here.
"So we shouldn't update any solid article because they might break links" yes you should update and I encourage you to do so, but care should be taken thats all. However I would say its generally considered that changes should have a net gain to the article, in this case a style change effectively removed content. Note that if this happens to images used under Non-free content criteria they are deleted after a few days so errors can become permanent.
"I'm sure it can be fixed, without reverting the changes." it could, and I fix up several most days. However in this case I didn't because of WP:ERAS.
"It is at least time we start talking about if we are going to use a christian calendar or not" - I would support a policy change to WP:ERAS to support use of BCE/CE as more academic unless a specific case for BC/AD can be made. There is a discussion on the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers talk page here - unfortunately getting consensus for such changes if often very difficult.
Lastly and most importantly I would hate for this first editing experience to put you off and would encourage you to sign up for an account and help improve things - both articles and polices. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
My point is that ubi maior minor cessat. Thus we have here duty and right to change the Era system currently in use, whatever WP:ERAS says. If, of course, there is an understanding about this un-trivial change. Carlotm (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
If it wasn't that clear, the major side is our obligation to build Wikipedia in the most comprehensive way. Carlotm (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ancient Greece. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

BC/AD vs. BCE/CE - 2[edit]

After more than one year from last confrontation on this topic, I was wondering at the current state of the local mind. Changes? Carlotm (talk) 02:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see discussion above. Dr. K. 03:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment on Macedonia (ancient kingdom)[edit]

There is a RfC here, if you are interested in the subject please feel free to participate. Macedonian (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you talking about Alexanders The Great Macedonian Empire or F.Y.R.O.M? Yeepas69 (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2017[edit]

underwear were great at that time

It's not clear what edits are being requested to the article. Please see WP:Edit requests#Planning a request for more information on how to make productive edit requests. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2017[edit]

i want to edit to make it easiers to understand just a little because lots of people are complaining it hard to understand it Nobodybsb2a (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. General Ization Talk 13:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ancient Greece. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)