Talk:Where Troy Once Stood

message: The apparently obvious evidence, documented in the book ,"Where Troy Once Stood," would suggest that the Trojan war did not take place in Greece or Turkey and that Homer based his Illiad on a war around Cambridgeshire, U.K..  This raises the question as to why it has taken so very long for the belief, that Troy was in Turkey, to be challenged.  The ideas put foreward in that book undermine the very roots of our culture.  In understanding that question one must consider thus.  
The cultural background to all educated thought of the last 800 years has been based on the 'grammer school curriculum'  This was in effect the repeated study of the limited number of greek and latin texts available in about the 10th or 11th century. This curriculum, almost unaltered, has been the basis for almost all western education and culture.  It continued to be the basis of study until the beginnng of the 1960s.
All scientific writings, interpretation of archaeological material and documents, for centuries has been by academics educated to this one body of beliefs.  All arts and liturature of the last 2000 years has been based on the belief that the Greek gods and heros were Greek!  It appears that perhaps they were not.  
Homer's tales have been the very basis of our western culture.  It is only in the last 40 years or so, that with the great expansion of information available coupled with greater liberalisation of thought, that a challenge to this foundation of our culture may be entertained.  Academics of old were unhappy to be proved wrong.
I. H. Piper — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedleypiper  (talk • contribs) 22:04, 27 September 2006
:Is this from the book jacket? --C.Logan 10:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's not. At least in our world. Maybe in Mu?--Antiphus 14:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Foolish mortal!", as my Reptilian masters would say! We don't require book jackets or binding- the Reptilian Watchmen simply hold the pages together with their thoughts and hopes. So yeah, there's really no good place for summaries or 15%-off stickers- quite a pain when you happen to be shopping short on time and money (I usually only get a 12-minute break from rock-smashing to run down to the local bookstore).--C.Logan 17:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: manifesto

message: I won't press the point by continuing to revert if the word pseudoarchaeological is removed again, but the work as described in the text of the article is not proper scholarship and is used by mainstream archaeologists to illustrate improper archaeological thought. --5telios 12:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Antiphus 15:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudoarchaeology

message: shouldn't these , 
 
links be in the Troy article?--Antiphus (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any reason why any of the links should be there, except for the ones that are explicitly about Wilkens. Same goes for the "See also" section--what does the Isleham Hoard have to do with this article? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Perhaps. If such a hoard was found, and secondary sources started discussing it in connection with Troy, it probably would be discussed in the body of an article such as Troy or Historicity of the Iliad. If someone wrote an article like Hissarlik hoard, that article would discuss the possible implications for understanding Homer, or whatever. But you wouldn't just stick in a link without any apparent connection to the article. And that's what's going on here--this article doesn't discuss the Isleham Hoard in any way, nor does the Isleham Hoard article say anything about Troy. Same thing with the haplogroup article--this article doesn't say anything about genetics, and the haplogroup article doesn't say anything about Troy. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  links 

message: I already thought the Odyssey list was overbalancing the article, and now someone has added the River Names argument.  I think this makes the article too POV and raises the question where does it stop?  People wanting to know more about Wilkens arguments can see his web pages, which reproduce quite a lot of it.  The River names stuff is also wrong, but that can't be argued here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 17:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The river names shouldn't be included, nor should the list of alleged geographic locations of the Odyssey. There's no problem in mentioning that Wilkens makes these arguments, but the lists are too much. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: River Names & POV

message: Nothing in this article seems to establish how the book passes Wikipedia:Notability (books). dab (𒁳) 21:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I had just assumed the sales figures and desire for used copies did. But lack of reviews...--Doug Weller (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was an AfD once: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where Troy Once Stood. And the article scraped by, but dab is right, I don't think this meets the notability guidelines, and if it went up for AfD again, I'd probably argue that it should be deleted. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you two read Talk:Troy where this is being discussed right now? Doug Weller (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I need to go back to sleep, that was silly, sorry. How I missed your names there I don't know.--Doug Weller (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: notability

message: : Blanking does not delete the article and blank pages should not be created per WP:BLANK. If you feel the article should be deleted, list it at WP:AFD. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Where Troy Once Stood]] or "Dan liever de lucht in"  

message: I attended a lecture at Cambridge this morning during which Dr Paul Millett (Senior Lecturer in Ancient History) had some harsh things to say about this book.  Can an unrecorded lecture be used as a source? TremorMilo (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, no.  Only published stuff, and no one bothers to publish about the book.  I know lots of flaws in the book but I can't add them to the article. Nothing to stop your mentioning some of what he said here though I guess. Doug Weller (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More criticism 

message: (from Culture24) More than most archaeological periods from pre-history, Britain’s Bronze Age is constantly being re-assessed as archaeologists and historians find new evidence of its richness and complexity.
Now the boundaries of what we know about this increasingly sophisticated period are being pushed even further by a small pottery sherd which is currently on display at the National Maritime Museum in Cornwall. 
http://www.culture24.org.uk/history%20%26%20heritage/archaeology/art397577 --Antiphus (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And they say it might be a Phoenician ship off-course and seen as it passed the Scillies, and it dates to after the Trojan War, and the article doesn't mention the Trojan War or this book, so linking it to this book is pointless (wrong date). And original research. Dougweller (talk) 08:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bronze Age pottery sherd from Isles of Scilly could be earliest British depiction of a boat 

message: This page was nominated for deletion on 2006-10-16. The result of the discussion was keep. Notability was sufficiently established. I don't see a reason for this template by PatGallagher. Antiphus (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  General notability guideline template 

message: I have deleted the mention of a high price for used copies of this book. This is not relevant, and certainly not part of our WP:Notability criteria (as implied above). --Macrakis (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Price of used book

message: N.B. Norton identifies both the Trojan-war-in England.co.uk site and where-troy-once stood.co.uk as "unsafe".... (which I suppose can only serve to enhance its credibility). Mannanan51 (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsafe sites/cites