Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:06, 14 October 2013

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Turkey This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Classical Greece and Rome High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Misplaced Pages's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Greece High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Former countries (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesFormer countries Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

Images from Miletus

My Internet side http://olafzesewitz.de/gallery/tuerkei/priene/ can supply meaningful supplementing pictorial material to the article. The pictorial material published there by me is not subject to restrictions of use in this format. The decision over screen selection, Upload and/or mounting an externally link on my web page I would like to leave to the authors of the article. --ozes

Intro

The Introduction is way too long. I'm thinking of moving it to history. Student7 (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are two theories of intros, one long and one short. I'm definitely against very short intros, so don't do that. The intro summarizes what is said in the article. We are just getting started on this article. It will I predict be of intermediate length. Miletus was of some importance and it was one of the older cities on earth. Much of what you see there now, except what I wrote, was basically fill-in and was never intended to be the final article. The author did not even use a notes section. I do not know why it never acquired the appropriate warning template. In any case I can't say I know exactly where to stand on the length of the intro. It depends I suppose on the final content. What do you think is important to say up front? You are welcome to take a shot at it, but you may want to wait a bit longer - notice that I did not start with this intro. I will be glad to cooperate as long as you prove cooperative but I must correct what is wrong. To me a slanted or incorrect article is worse than no good, as it misleads, and on Misplaced Pages, sometimes very badly indeed.Dave (talk) 11:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

PS If you rewrite what is in the intro don't move it to history as it is already going to be covered there. Just delete it or rework it unless deletion would lose information; in that case, the information that would have been lost can be moved.Dave (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I like short intros: "Hi, this is Miletus. It's in Turkey." Next section. Okay, a little bit longer than that. What is was when it was important but briefly. Details about history should be in history (which is missing there BTW). Student7 (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I can't say that I have a compelling opinion except to express a preference for an intermediate length so the reader does not have to read the whole article to find out what it is about. This a subjective feeling based on experience.Dave (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Geology as a separate header

The original intent of a structure for places was to reduce the number of sections that a reader had to confront. Given that, please see . This is in accordance with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cities/Guideline. Student7 (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, "Prehistory" can be a section under history but called "Stone Age" or whatever. Archaelogy is history. There should be few section headers. User (reader) friendly. The idea of guidelines is so the reader gets a "feel" for Misplaced Pages articles and can find the same thing from article to article in roughly the same place. A lot of section titles just confuses someone new to the article. Student7 (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No, disagree. More sections are user-friendly rather than long chunks of unsectioned text. Long undivided text is very boring and hard to follow. Subsections, table, boxes, these are all devices to achieve readability. Sections are easily seen pointers.

Archaeology is not history. History involves documents, archaeology involves data acquired from the artifacts. Material that is only archaeological and precedes history is generally termed prehistory. As to whether you should call it stone age, well, no opinion. I would not call it "whatever" as the terminology should be correct and this case we don't make it up but follow the standard terminology. The early and middle bronze age are prehistory, as no documents survive from then, as far as I know (at or concerning Miletus). Some legends are likely to apply to that time but legend is not history. I would say, purely archaeological material does not belong under history unless it is being used in support of history, as is often the case - but not here. More than that general observation I have nothing meaningful to say right now. It would not strike me as a glaring error to put the Neolithic under history but then I would not view it as quite as accurate as to call it prehistory.

I have no idea what you might mean by "The original intent of a structure for places was to reduce the number of sections that a reader had to confront." What you seem to mean is that because there is a box there you don't need sections and a desirable goal and the original intent of the box was to reduce sections. I deny all of those hypotheses. I can't imagine that the goal of Misplaced Pages was ever the reduction of sections. In fact, it is just the opposite. Breaking a long article into sections allows it to be split more easily. As for the policies you recommend I see, none of what you say is in there at all.

For the geology and geography, no matter how you cut it they are not the same topics. Granted there is some overlap but it is I think marginal. Geography is political, which describes the patterns man imposes on the environment, and physical, which concerns itself with what terrain features exist and what effect they may have on the political geography. Such topics as the formation of those features over geologic time is geology.

Well I think I have reached the point of diminishing returns for this session on this article. I'm moving on for now. I will schedule a revisit but I cannot say exactly when. At that time I will be looking at the accuracy and readability and will make the improvements that seem most in need of improving. One topic I know is going to need work is the notes. There were no line-by-line cites in this article, but there has to be something to annotate and it has to be accurate and substantiated. Later.Dave (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Geography is physical. It is delineated by politics - There is geography for New Jersey, but it is still the dirt that lies underneath. I studied geography in school when there was such a thing. You will find that Misplaced Pages supports this position as well. Pure physical. Dirt, ores, mines, strata, etc. etc. Used to include shipping as well though I like the[REDACTED] way of putting it under industry. Anyway...

What of the legend of the Milesian women's grudge?

In Larry Gonick's Cartoon History of the Universe (pg. 238) it is suggested that the ethnically greek of Miletus, to this day, maintain the tradition where the women do not eat with their husbands, nor do they address their husbands by name. It is purported that this is a tradition of womenfolk not forgiving the menfolk for the atrocities committed by their male ancestors. Is this true? And, is it worth a mention, either way? 76.111.80.228 (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Seljuk Turks

An edit changed the date of conquest to "the 14th century" from "the 12th century." There are a few problems with this. One is I can't find any independent source online that confirms anything about Miletus and the Seljuk Turks! Next, is the fact that the Seljuk Turk dynasty came to an end in 1307, just barely into the 14th century. It is a bit misleading, assuming this was the last place they ever conquered, to use a century rather than the actual date. We really need a footnote here. Student7 (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Miletus is referred to as a Greek city by reliable sources and not a Luwian city.

Despite any pre-existing settlements, Miletus is referred to as a Greek city by reliable sources and not a Luwian city as any Google books search attests: The recent change in the lead is undue weight. Δρ.Κ.  19:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Please, not this nationalistic POV-pushing again.

The phenomenon is convincingly explained by assuming local, Luwian or Karian people living in Miletos, together with Minoan and Mycenaean newcomers. This is explicitly suggested for the Milesian elite of Miletos VI. where, around the mid-l3th centuiy BCE. the local rulers Atpa and Mwayana were vassals dthe Great king of Alah(yrnwz. Mycenaean Greece. They were Intermarried’ to the daughters of the Anawan-Mlran exile Pfruna ‘uda5’ This situation Is documented In the sn-called Tawagalawa-lctter,

Source: Luwian Identities: Culture, Language and Religion Between Anatolia and the Aegean, p. 435

They had certainly been familiar with the territory earlier, in the Late Bronze Age by way of commercial and political interests, and perhaps even trading posts, but now they came to stay. In the case of such settlements as Miletus and Ephesus, as implied, the Greeks chose the sites of former Anatolian cities of prominence. By the end of the seventh century n.c.n., Greeks had established themselves at several points along the shores of the Sea of Marmara (Propontis) and the..

Source: The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10,000-323 BCE), p. 608

Conclusions
The archaeology of Bronze Age Miletos has shown the unique position thatit held as a contact point between the cultures of the Aegean and Anatolia. The degree of Minoan and Mycenaean presence at the site is not found anywhere else in Anatolia. The political history of Miletos/Millawanda, as it can be reconstructed from limited sources, shows that despite having a material culture dominated by Aegean influences it was more often associated with Anatolian powers such as Arzawa and the Hittites than it was with the presumed Aegean power of Ahhijawa.

Source: Miletos: A History, p. 71

Hitite rule extended over Western Anatolia to probably Luwian Millawanda (laterGreek Miletus) and Tarhuntassa and to Ahhiwaya (possibly a reference to Achaea as proto-Greek settlements in Anatolia, extensions of Mycenaean Civilization).

Source: Concise Encyclopedia Of World History, p.305

Cavann 20:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Turkey articles
• Unknown-importance Turkey articles
• All WikiProject Turkey pages
• Start-Class Classical Greece and Rome articles
• High-importance Classical Greece and Rome articles
• All WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome pages
• Start-Class Greek articles
• High-importance Greek articles
• WikiProject Greece general articles
• All WikiProject Greece pages
• Start-Class WikiProject Cities articles
• All WikiProject Cities pages