Talk:Troy

message: Ilium
in the first paragraph this is shown as an alternative name for Troy, and given a Greek spelling (in brackets), but in the main article section on the name Ilium is said to be the Latin, and Ilion or Ilios are the Greek names for Troy. This all seems very inconsistent and should be corrected.
On the Ilium disambiguation page, in reference to Troy, is listed as Ilion (using the masculine Greek) and not as Ilium (using the neuter Latin) - this again seems inconsistent and should be corrected.
Ilium is Latin, Ilion and Ilios are Greek.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.24.1 (talk) 10:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, thanks! Botterweg14 (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ilium, Ilion or Ilios are nowhere to be found in the Greek version of Iliada. Only Iliou. So, of you are fixing it, please fix it correctly, to reflect the original source. 220.158.190.25 (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh? A quick search shows "Ilion" in the original text 86 times, including: καὶ νήεσσ' ἡγήσατ' Ἀχαιῶν  Ἴλιον εἴσω" (Iliad, 1.71) Ἴλιον ἐκπέρσαντ' εὐτείχεον ἀπονέεσθαι (Iliad, 2.113) ἔμμεναι: αἴσχιστος δὲ ἀνὴρ ὑπὸ  Ἴλιον ἦλθε (Iliad, 2.216) Botterweg14 (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ilium usage and inconsistencies 

message: This article states: "Troy VI existed from around 1750 BC to 1300 BC", which is correct according to the current consensus (see Strauss 2006, Cline 2013 and others). But then is says "Troy VI was destroyed around 1250 BC, corresponding with the sublayer known as Troy VIh." This is inconsistent with the prior statement and does not agree with the current consensus (that an earthquake c.1300 BC is responsible for the damage to Troy VIh.) It ought to be corrected. 2600:1702:28E0:EE0:75E3:BDC1:F666:EEC4 (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch! If there's other mistakes, you can be bold! Botterweg14 (talk) 07:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong and inconsistent dates for the destruction of Troy VI 

message: Howard from NYC (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  'foreign' alphabets 

message: The description of Troy VI includes "a defensive ditch cut 1-2 into the bedrock.", without specifying a unit. Maybe meters? ManlyMatt (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unit? 

message: There is no discussion about the article's "quality" without addressing the obvious issue: Hisarlik is NOT Ilion. The site has never been identified conclusively as the location of the city of Ilion. Homer's Troians have Greek names and speak Greek - even if only when interacting with the attackers. The "Troy VIh-VII" layers, which corresponds to the alleged period the war took place, are distinctly Anatolian, and the language - again, assumed, not conclusively determined - seems to be one of Anatolian languages, not Greek. In fact, the traces of possible Greek influence are few and far in between. Crucially, there is no evidence of destruction by war  that should be present if there was a war as suggested by Iliada. The only destruction detected in the period's strata is from an earthquake, which is normal in Anatolia. It is highly seismically active zone.
As the article depends on the city to be Ilion of Troia, its quality also depends on that identification. And since no war destruction has been identified, the city clearly cannot be claimed to be the Ilion of Iliada, without delving into other, significant, details given by the epic that simply do not exist in Hisarlik.
So speaking about the article's "quality" is a joke, to put it mildly, for as long as we call the city something that it, based on existing archaeological evidence, clearly is not. Doing so is deceptive and manipulative. The city is a fantastic discovery but by claiming falsely that it is a mythical Ilion we are stealing its true history and are building a fake one around it. We are turning a myth into a religious belief by inventing "evidence" through "interpretation", the most deceptive process that exists in science. Time to cut that demagoguery and return to cold, hard research. And only rely on evidence, not on a hearsay. Or, next, we'll accept that the 'bible' is a historical account confirming that there is 'god', disregarding the fact that the 'bible' never mentions such a creature. 
Science and dogmas do not fit together. The "quality" of the "evidence" in favour of Hisarlik being the site of Ilion is extremely dubious and sketchy at best. 220.158.190.25 (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Which, of course, is patent nonsense. 2603:6080:21F0:6140:4550:9E4F:5CA3:A7F1 (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article's "quality" 

message: David Adams on History channel had a theory based on gold deposit distribution that since water levels were allegedly higher at the alleged period, there was a waterway to the east to where gold is more plentiful, so Troy is not in Turkey, which will upset many. Watch it for yourself. :-) Just had to mention it here ...
220.253.111.168 (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Which, of course, is patent nonsense. 2603:6080:21F0:6140:4550:9E4F:5CA3:A7F1 (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Adams photojournalist "heresy" 

message: Is it spelt with a dotted or undotted i since one source says it spelt like Hisarlık and others with a regular i.  Daisytheduck (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hisarlık spelling