Talk:Minoan civilization/Archive 3

message: The Eteocretan meas "aboriginal"(Eteo) Cretans, not "true" Cretans, aboriginal is clear, "true" is too abstract of a term. Eteocretans being "Non-greek speakers" is absolute propaganda and it is nowhere written in Homer, and hence its deletion completely and its replacement with nothing. Only the Greek language has partly deciphered the Linear A, and hence writting "non-Greek" is total non-sense.
NOPV, is not held. "Non-Greek speaking people", "unrelated to Greek" is by definition non-sense for Linear B(Mycenean Greek) has deciphered parts of Linear A (Eteocretan), and the epigraphies found are clear that they contain Greek. There fore "probably Greek" or probably "Greek speaking people" is accurate and neutral.
Not to mention the various Greek sources mentioning Minon, e.g. Plato in his laws Book I, with Kleinian and Megillon, who all agree that the current Laws of Creta were products of his ancestors that being Minon and Ganymedes. Also the names Min-on, Agamemn-on, Plat-on, Parthen-on where on is "being". Clearly indicates that the term ohn with omega, is a direct relation between the people, and it can be found everywhere in Greek.
Hence, not "unrelated", but "probably related", and allow the reader to think of himself, do not cancel absolutely something that not only is totally incorrect, but it is absolute as well, when the language has not been deciphered yet, fully, there fore absolute statements are not valid, and total non-sense.--62.103.190.143 07:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absolute statements to be avoided 

message: Who is the one that does all the propaganda against the largely possible Greekness of the Minoan Civilization?
Who is the one that wrote this sentence:
"The Greek: Μινωίτες was coined after Evans'use of the term Minoan for the civilisation."
See below dear:
Plato Laws Book 1.
[624a] Athênaios
theos ê tis anthrôpôn humin, ô xenoi, eilêphe tên aitian tês tôn nomôn diatheseôs;
Kleinias
theos, ô xene, theos, hôs ge to dikaiotaton eipein: para men hêmin Zeus, para de Lakedaimoniois, hothen hode estin, oimai phanai toutous Apollôna. ê gar;
Megillos
nai.
Athênaios
môn oun kath' Homêron legeis hôs tou Minô phoitôntos
Translation for those that are incapable of reading Greek:
Who is responsible for your laws?
Minos maybe?
The Cretan replies:
Minos with his brother Radamanthes:
[624b] pros tên tou patros hekastote sunousian di' enatou etous kai kata tas par' ekeinou phêmas tais polesin humin thentos tous nomous;
Kleinias
legetai gar houtô par' hêmin: kai dê kai ton adelphon ge autou Rhadamanthun--akouete gar to onoma--dikaiotaton
Anti Greek society, You think Evans invented the term?
Anyway, the Greek Minoites shall be reinstalled up there, and its "The Kingdom" that was replaced not the "Civilization",  for even the cretan in Plato's book considers his laws products of Minos and his brother and thus the same civilization. And not only the Greek has deciphered largely the Linear A, so we cannot say that the civilization was replaced by another alien civilization. Understand?
We certainly are unable to write the culture was replaced by another, for the culture is very very similar, so similar that one can say identical for a) In language(decipherement of Linear A using the Linear B), b) In The pottery c) On the accounts of the Greeks that even consider Mino as their godlike ancestor who gave them their laws.
So, if we are unable to write Kingdom, then culture or civilization is totally invalid, not even neutral but simply invalid. It is incorrect. If you do not like Kingdom, then bad for you. But that is the only alternative for the others are simply invalid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.103.251.215 (talk • contribs).
:If you have reputable academic sources for your arguments, please provide them. Otherwise, what you've just written is original research, and this material doesn't belong in the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to read Wikipedia's no original research policy, a fundamental content policy. Your argument is based on your interpretation of primary sources; Wikipedia content needs to be based on reliable, secondary sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plato's report of fifth-century BCE Greek myth about seventeenth-century Crete is no more a work of history than Alexandre de Bernay 's "report" of Alexander the Great. We just don't know how the palace-cultures of Minoan Crete were linked politically, if at all: see Amphictyonic League for one kind of alternative.  Pre-palatial Minoan culture is even less likely to have had a "king"— or a "queen". Sunday-school "history" drawn from an all-wise text can't be extended in this fashion.--Wetman 16:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: we are drifting from the point - and given that it was me who originally wrote the text which has upset our friend with the IP for a name, I think I ought to clarify. I am saying that the term "Minoites" was coined after Evans not that the name "Minos" was coined by Evans. I apologise to the blinkered IP chap if this was not clear. Should he wish, he may show me the text where the term Minoites appears in greek literature before Evans and I will take it all back. --5telios 16:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Plato is a primary source. Your interpretation of Plato is original research. Your etymological speculation is also original research. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: At risk of stating the obvious, there is a difference between the name Minos and the terms Minoitis and Minoikos.--5telios 18:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have explained. Article content must be based on reliable, secondary sources. You are making an argument based on your own interpretation of Plato (a primary source). This is original research, which cannot be used as the basis for a Wikipedia article. Please read the policies that I've just linked to, and while you're at it, please read the three-revert rule, because you've already violated it, and if you revert once more, you might get blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You've "reported" me to the WikiProject Greece? Good, their members surely understand the difference between primary and secondary sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I didn't write that bit. Wikipedia articles are the work of many writers, so you have to be careful about whom you blame for text you don't like. At any rate, we shouldn't have anything in the article that implies that the Minoan civilization had an ancient Greek name for themselves, because we don't know what they called themselves or what language they spoke; it's unlikely that it was a form of Greek. Probably even Μινωίτες shouldn't be in the article, because Evans coined the term "Minoan" in English. You're right that the article is poorly sourced, but that doesn't mean that we should add more material with no sources to support it. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Any claim that the Minoan language has been deciphered has no basis in reputable scholarship, and any edit based on that claim should be instantly removed from the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is the one responsible for propaganda?