|WikiProject Greece||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
5.000.000 in Attica is too much! The real number from the 2001 census is 3.700.000
Wasn't Attica the first place in the world they used attics? Shouldn't this be noted under the history section? -- Originally posted by anonymous user 188.8.131.52
Who cares about the Attica radio stations? Is anyone really going to look up this article in order to obtain such information??
- I do, and yes. -- Picapica 09:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Attica definately needs a history section. As one of the traditional nuclei of Greek culture, more background information is in order. Like, where does the name "Attica" come from? What was its history during the empire of Alexander the Great? During the Roman Empire? The Byzantine Empire? The Ottoman Empire? The Kingdom of Greece? During and after the Treaty of Lausanne? Modern Greece? What about the cultural history of Attica? Traditional Pelasgian associations, and history of Slavic, Vlach, Arvanite, etc. inhabitants in addition to traditional Hellenes? This really needs to be expanded. - Gilgamesh 16:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I agreed. Attica has been one on the most important centre points of Greek civilisation for three thousand years now. It has a rich history and I think the article would benifit greatly from the inclusion of such a section. Kyriakos (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- I agree; I would like to do research on "kleros", a universal lot size. I can't do that unless ancient Attica's size is known. Kleros is mentioned, but never given a size; knowing ancient Attica's size would get me that number. Use SI metric standards. This is the 21st century, conversion factors for measure merely for the sake of job security instead of communication, is a waste of time. - I don't have a W-peia account; I prefer peer-review, so here's my twitter handle instead: @ Anonomouse1981 -
Greek References Have to be Removed
The Greek citations in this article need to be removed, as they are misleading and useless for an English-speaking encyclopaedia. They give the false impression that these citations have any value whatsoever to English speakers, which they do not - unless of course they are translated. Secondly, why is a child's textbook used as a historical reference? This information is clearly not at all reliable. Stevenmitchell (talk) 09:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- If anyone has better citations, please feel free to add them. I used the schoolbook as a source because it was the only source I have. If no sources were added, the edits would have been reverted as POV. Happy editing! Pel thal (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Right and Left?!
"The boundary line came down toward the sea, bounded by the district of Oropus on the right and by the river Asopus on the left."
Why merging is not a good idea
I see Attica and Attica (region) have (confusingly double) merge requests dating from January 2012 and without any arguments for the merger in the talk pages. I think a merge is a bad idea. Note that Epirus and Thessaly also have separate articles for the modern and ancient region, which makes more sense. Using a single page for both the modern and ancient region would be odd, because the infobox would only display info for the modern region, among other reasons. Because the merge requests are so old and undiscussed, I shall remove them. I do think that some content doesn't belong in this article for the ancient region. The climate information only concerns the 20th century and is therefore inappropriate. Better remove that altogether because it's already given in the article for Athens. --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)