Talk:Odysseus Unbound

Untitled

Previous discussion:

Archive 1

Archive 2

what is this even about?

the geographical article on Paliki should obviously be seperate from all this Homeric stuff, whatever the merits of the latter. What are the geographical templates doing on this article? dab (ᛏ) 09:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

ok, this article was in serious need of focus. It is about a specific hypothesis, "Paliki = Ulysses' Ithaca", as put forward in the Odysseus Unbound book. I removed all offtopic stuff that properly belongs on Trojan War, Homeric scholarship or Odyssey, as well as the more misguided categorization, and moved the article to the book title. Paliki should of course be the article about the peninsula itself, and now links to this article. dab (ᛏ) 09:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is not about Paliki geography: it is about the new archeological discoveries of Homeric sites, on Paliki, which correspond to descriptions of Odysseus' home there, in the Odyssey. The geographical templates point to those sites.

The article is not a book review, either. The Bittlestone/Diggle/Underhill study, announced by their book, establishes the current leading hypothesis about the location of Homer's "Ithaca", as described in the Odyssey: the article is about the philology and geology and archaeology which are going into that ongoing study -- none of which is covered by, or belongs in, the other articles you mention.

So please reverse your edits: read the discussion/talk, and its archive, and contribute there. If we can agree on some changes, then let's by all means make them; but you've moved the article & done your edits here without discussing with anyone, which to me seems pretty un-democratic and against Wikipedia policies.

--Kessler 16:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that if, as you say, Paliki is the leading location hypothesis for Homer's Ithaca, there can well be a section dedicated to it on Homer's Ithaca. Discussion of the geology etc. of the peninsula of course belongs on Paliki, the article about the peninsula itself. dab (ᛏ) 16:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

There is not enough room for a description of the Paliki discovery, in the Homer's Ithaca article: that already-very-full page lists various theories proposed, historically, for the location of "Ithaca" -- 17 of them among the "credible", now, plus several not-so-credible, and there have been many others which I hope will be added -- a reference already exists there to the "Odysseus Unbound" book. And "discussion of the geology etc. of the peninsula" is not the interest, here: only the geographic locations of the identified archaeological sites, and precise philological issues surrounding those, and the geology specifically related to the new "Ithaca" discoveries, on Paliki -- that is why I would like to see the "Paliki, Homer's Ithaca" article restored, which addressed all of these closely-related matters of the discovery, together and specifically.

So I disagree with you, as I have here before, although I welcome this chance this time to discuss changes in advance. But you made the decision, dab, urged on by the anonymous user here who calls himself "Akhilleus", to turn this article into a book review: if you decide now to reduce it further, to mere notes in other articles, I cannot stop you this time either -- you are an Administrator.

I can point out to you again, though, how arbitrary all of this is. The "Paliki, Homer's Ithaca" article was alive for only 2 1/2 weeks, from February 26 when I wrote it until March 13, when you qua Administrator cut it down and turned it into a book review. During that short time I don't know how many people actually were able to see the article, but it was "discussed" by only 3 of us editors: discussions with one were productive and resulted in several changes -- the other was this guy "Akhilleus" who, if you'll read the archives here, does not really discuss but simply insists on his own POV. Then when he contacted you for support, you yourself just went ahead and changed things without discussing at all.

The "book review" which you made out of the article, and which per the above you now do seem willing to discuss, has been online for only 5 days, but already you appear to want to cut it further and even eliminate it entirely. So I say even this article should be left standing some while longer, to give others a chance to see and discuss it, as I said to "Akhilleus" before, as well: leave up the book review article which you made at least, then, although it still does not address the archaeology and other issues of the former "Paliki, Homer's Ithaca" article -- and I still believe that former article ought to be restored and better-"discussed".

It's my own opinion that, for this new discovery of the home of Odysseus, chief figure in one of Western civilization's oldest and most significant cultural texts, all this fuss by "Akhilleus" is ridiculous: Troy has its own Wikipedia article, so does Mycenae, so ought this new site -- it can't be called "Ithaca" because there is another island nearby already claiming that name, and it can't be called "Paliki" because Wikipedia already has a large "tourism" article bearing that name, so Paliki, Homer's Ithaca to me still seems suitable for an article devoted entirely to this very exciting and significant new archaeology.

Beyond my own opinion, though, your reply to me, when I protested to you here initially, was that "Wikipedia is not a democracy": you directed me to WP:NOT which declares Wikipedia's "primary method of finding consensus is discussion"... But there are some very big differences between "democracy" and "being democratic"... And your own Wikipedia-policy "discussion" hasn't even taken place, in this instance: you didn't "discuss" your changing the article into a book review -- instead you relied on this "Akhilleus", who puts himself forth as some sort of classicist, although he himself doesn't "discuss", and he hides behind his Wikipedia anonymity while he badmouths recognized classical scholars such as James Diggle and Gregory Nagy.

So, as I said earlier to you, I think you've backed the wrong horse, in this very POV "Akhilleus" guy, and that you've mistakenly created a POV situation which perverts your own NPOV policy: give us back our "Paliki, Homer's Ithaca" article and leave it up there for a while and let some more of us really discuss it -- per your own WP:NOT -- or at least leave your own current "book review" article alone for a while longer. And tell "Akhilleus" to let some other folks talk. Wikipedia is missing one of the major archaeological events of both this and the last century, in not even looking at the Paliki discoveries, now, or letting them be looked at, much less allowing their discussion -- and Wikipedia's good reputation for at least "being democratic", moreso than the elitist encyclopedias which it hopes to replace, is very much at stake in all of this, I believe. Even if it isn't, as you said, a "democracy"...

--Kessler 20:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

ps. I can't seem to get to "/Archive1" to the discussion/talk history, here: at either of the links offered above, both of which lead to empty pages. Do you know where it went? / would you please restore? That's where what substantive discussion which did take place of all this is. If you need a copy I have one and simply could paste it in?

--Kessler 20:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The talk archive is restored. The previous contributions are also available through the page history.

Kessler, I think that you've mischaracterized my contributions to this talk page. I made very few edits to the "Paliki, Homer's Ithaca" article, even though I thought its content was inappropriate. That was because I was trying to discuss the issues through the talk page, and hopefully build some consensus. I'd still like to discuss these issues, and perhaps we could talk about these specific points:

1. Can we agree, based on the quotes I supplied above, that experts disagree with the Paliki hypothesis?

2. What is new in the philological method of Odysseus Unbound? How does its procedure differ from other discussions of Homeric Ithaca, such as those by Berard, Stubbings, and Luce?

3. How does this identification qualify as a "new paradigm", comparable to the theory of evolution, quantum mechanics, or plate tectonics?

Also, I don't think I've badmouthed Nagy or Diggle. In fact, I praised Nagy as the most influential living Homerist, and I said "Diggle's reputation as a textual critic is well-deserved." I did write "I'm not impressed by the book's handling of ancient evidence, or of previous identifications of Ithaca" in the archive, but that's well within the bounds of ordinary criticism of a particular argument. It's certainly not an ad hominem attack. Akhilleus 23:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Odysseus Unbound. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060616090412/http://odysseus-unbound.org/forum.html to http://www.odysseus-unbound.org/forum.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)