Talk:Abydos (Hellespont)

Merge

I think this article should be merged with Canakkale - the article about the modern town.

No, it should not be. They are not the same place, not the same history. I suggest you sign yor comments.

Mugsalot revision

Hi. Up until now I had the article pretty much to myself, but that is neither here nor there. You want IN on the article and that is fair. OK, I will let you in, without giving it up. You seem sincere. As for your revision excuses, bull. My English is as good as yours, it is not "vernacular." There is no unsourced material. As for the headings, this is only the framework. I plan to add to those headings. But, you don't need excuses to get in on the article if you want in. So, I have certain content standards. It is NOT irrelevant. There is nothing irrelevant in this article. We are after the identification of the site - time, place, geography, ownership, circumstances. Then we want to cover the archaeology and history of the site. I don't see anything irrelevant there. So what do we do now? I'm not going to revert you Instead I am going to do something more difficult for you, as a certain Ottoman conqueror said to a certain conquered ruler of the Byzantine Empire, leave you in place. I'm going to keep a copy of the article the way it was before you changed it. As long as you have included the same content I will leave what you have. If you have left anything out I will supplement or modify what you have to include it. As for the history sections you removed, I will still add my content. Then when that section becomes too long we will break it up. I am sure if we try we can collaborate politely.Botteville (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Your comments suggest to me that it would be pertinent for you to be aware of WP:OWN and WP:DSAN. I think content such as, "Abydos plays something of a part in fictional literature, ancient to modern", and "The site is essentially a closed book waiting to be opened" constitute language unsuitable to an encyclopedia. All of your additions were unsourced, with the exception of two inline citations, and it was completely unclear where your information was from. Your content on the First World War was irrelevant as Abydos ceased to exist after the 14th century and thus any events after that are better suited to Nara Burnu, which you make frequent reference to. The site has already been identified, as pointed out in the article.

"Apparently extended forces trying to cross would have to camp on the heights, descending to the city when it was their turn to embark or to enter any bridge that may have been constructed there. Similarly, forces crossing from the other side would have to hold the heights first, or they would be pinned in a deadly field of fire from the top, as were ANZAC troops at the Battle of Gallipoli. The function of clearing the way would naturally fall to the population of Abydos, as did the function of collecting tolls from passing ship traffic, which they did well into modern time. To perform these functions the city must always have had a fort and a fleet. Today patrol vessels may be seen tied up at dock."

This entire paragraph is nonsense: "the city must always have had a fort and a fleet. Today patrol vessels may be seen tied up at dock from the air." That is not academic nor is it sourced. It is pure conjecture. I will remove any content you add that is unsourced or irrelevant, as you have done so far. If you can provide relevant and factually accurate information, I will quite happily collaborate.

In future, I would suggest you use a sandbox instead of making 41 different edits. Mugsalot (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

NOt at all. It is language suitable to an encyclopedia. None of this material is unsourced. It is acceptable to provide blue links in lieu of citations if the article referenced by the links is adequately referenced. Abydos did not cease to exist when the Ottomans took the place. In fact it is still called Abydos or Abidos. The Ottomans took it over and turned it to their own uses, which were pretty much the same as before. You seem to imply that everything came to a grinding halt when the Turkish people moved in. Was Constantinople abandoned just because the Turks took it? Furthermore, as an archaeological site the reader ought to know where the ruins are. Here is your first paragraph:

Abydos (Ancient Greek: Ἄβυδος) or Abydus, was an ancient city and bishopric in Mysia. It was located at the Nara Burnu promontory on the Asian coast of the Hellespont, opposite the ancient city of Sestos, and near the city of Çanakkale in Turkey. As a result, the city was historically one of the main crossing points of the straits to Europe, until its abandonment following the Turkish conquest in the 14th century.

"As a result" - As a result of what? Why is it a main crossing point? Furthermore no one stopped crossing there just because the Turks had it. I am sure people ferry across all the time, although the crossing further south is more commercial. You aren't explaining enough to give a clear view.

This isn't working out. I am reverting your changes. Let us take this one sentence at a time. You put in specific tags on specific items and I will repond to each one.Botteville (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Mugsalot and me - item for discussion

Mugsalot continues to revert everything without tagging specific items for discussion. His current general argument is that it is unsourced. However I am using blue links to refer to the knowledge substantiated in the linked articles. I can also easily supply references to specific items. Is there any discussion on my method?Botteville (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

PS. After reading mugshot's talk page I see that he started out well and then seems to have worked his way into trouble by removing large parts of articles without discussion. He was threatened with blocking a couple of times. What's wrong, mugshot? What happened to you? This is a question of manners on Wikipedia. All I want you to do is tag statements that you think are inappropriate, even if you do not have an applicable rule at your fingertips. Then I can see what you think and try to respond to it. If you think a blue-linked article is not an adequate reference then I am sure I can find a reference for a footnote. We can't repeat every reference in every article, that would be tedious and duplicative. Also, much the material you seem to want referenced is just general knowledge. Currently I cannot regard your sudden large-scale vandalism as anything subject to the 3-reversion rule. You need to decide whether you want to take WP seriously. If not, then quite harassing us. If so, then you need to pay the game better, get back to the way you first were. Ciao.Botteville (talk) 05:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) in themselves are not reliable sources for any purpose" per WP:WPNOTRS. Mugsalot (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok good enough for now. You kept some of my ideas and insisted on some of yours. It is not a complete reversion to your previous. I get the point that articles are not sources, but that is not what I meant. I meant, the articles contain sources. It isn't necessary to duplicate those sources if you refer to the article. However, I can see putting the burden on you to discover them is a little unfair. Also you have gone ahead and made some unsupported statements yourself. I want to check what is being said in the intro and verify its accuracy providing refs where necessary. I may choose to put in some tags for you there.

You left some content deficits which need to be addressed. One is the strategic significance of Abydos. People wanted to cross there because they believed it to be the shortest route across and because the point provided a good embarkation harbor. This is going to be important for historical description of the great armies crossing: the Persians, the Macedonians. I do not think you covered that. My next edits in that area will include the refs you ask for.

As to whether the site was actually left deserted, I need to check that out. You didn't give a ref. Also, deserted by whom? The Turks did not desert it. They aren't nobody. I see you kept the archaeology. OK but I need to check it. The mention of Nara, perhaps most of that should go in the Nara article. I suppose I have to squeeze that in too. Mention of Nara Kalesi should stay in as they sort of go with the site. I'll see what I can do.

For the historical section, you cut out some development. That has to go back. I plan to develop the history. I want to show who held the town and when and what were the major events in which the twon was complicit. You are crimping my style by not allowing me the skeleton outline. Furthermore you keep cutting out the material that I add on Troy. Abdera did not exist in a vacuum, it belonged to a culture.

I get the point that you don't like to see these unfinished sections hanging out there. You want to see only a finished article. I got two choices now. I can either gradually add the material in. The second is, I can start another article, "History of Abdera." It depends on how much material is required to achieve adequate continuity.

Also there is another aspect needing to be checked. There might have been some previous cursory archaeology. If so, it should go under archaeology. I can see this is going to take a long time. The article definitely looks better than when we started this, whatever this is. You can keep whatever history I have not done yet, including the ecclesiastical section. I can't do all these things at once. My next thing will be to clarify the abandonemt-reoccupation or whatever it was, as that appears in the box, and the foundation (which is lost I guess). Then I will start on the history section by restoring the material on the relationship to Troy. However, I'm doing some of these articles as a group. I need to look at some of the others. Then this one will come up again. Meanwhile if you want to go ahead and put any fresh material and references in by all means go ahead. If I did not think the article needed improvement I would not have started. You're making me do all the talking, but I'd rather have that than rudeness. Later.Botteville (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, you need to present your sources to support everything you add. That is fundamental to anything remotely academic. The burden of proof lies with you, not with anyone else. The information provided in the intro, such as the statements that the crossing from Abydos to Sestos was replaced by that at Lampsacus and Kallipolis, and that Abydos was abandoned in the early 14th century, are already supported with references in the text.

You have some serious misunderstandings of Academia. You don't have to prove the entire subject every time you write about it. Certain principles are basic to the subject and you do not have to keep proving them over and over. Wikipedia allows you to make generally known statements without "proof." I think you know that perfectly well. You are looking for excuses to vandalize articles. As for the proof, we have no "burden of proof." Who do you think you are, a lawyer? What context do you think this is? All we are doing is presenting the views of published scholars in the field. Furthermore your statement about Lampsacus is not supported by Wikipedia references. You need the reference and the page number, as you know perfectly well. But don't bother, I will do it for you.

I have already provided references to support the statement that Abydos was abandoned in the early 14th century. It's abundantly clear it was abandoned whilst under Roman control. In regard to Nara Kalesi, I agree that is relevant, however, this article concerns the ancient city that was abandoned in the 14th century; if there was not a separate article for Nara Burnu, I would agree that the fort should be mentioned here, however, it would be more appropriate to keep modern information such as that on the separate article.

You need to establish a frame of reference. The modern location of the site and its major features are certainly helpful in that direction.

I removed your content in the history section as it was unsourced, and mostly irrelevant. Of the total content you provided, the only relevant information is that the city contributed soldiers led by Asius, which can be added to the statement that Abydos was an ally of Troy, and that Abydos may have already been Thracian. If you can provide sources, I will accept your addition, but statements such as "The language of Troy has long been a question" are not academic. This is an encyclopedia, not a storybook.

No, you removed it to cause dissension. The source was given in the text, Book II of the Iliad. Furthermore, it is highly relevant. What good does it do simply to say that Abydos is mentioned here there and somewhere else without mentioning what is said about it? This is another phony excuse for trying to disrupt my improvement of this article. Quit removing my material as irrelevant. As far as the language of Troy is concerned, what do you know about it? That is one of the most basic things you can say about Bronze Age studies. Why don't you stick to your subjects? Before you complain about the speck in you neighbor's eye, remove the beam from your own eye. Surely, you ought to understand that, according to your user page.

Use a sandbox. You can add it to without interruption from me, and as gradually as you like. The article doesn't have to be cut up into tiny subheadings to wait for you to get around to finishing it, whenever that happens. There is not enough content in the article to warrant removing the history section into a separate article.

I develop my changes in the article as I go along. I may use the sandbox for testing or storage. Do you really think I do not know what a sandbox is? This is the way I do it. If you don't like it, tough. Wikipedia is full of stubs and incomplete articles, it is nothing new. No one else rides me as you are doing and I have almost never gotten an objection to an incomplete section. Also I think there is a logical disconnect in your brain. Of course there is not enough material right now to justify additional sections. This is only a set-up on my part. Is this a tough concept to understand? But, I can see how you might be skeptical that I will come through with full sections. I concede to that. When I get enough material in I will break out the section. Meanwhile, stop removing my material.

If you can find relevant, sourced information (I am referring to inline citations) on the archaeology of Abydos, I would be more than happy to read it. If you are referring to you looking at Google Earth and stating that "Today patrol vessels may be seen tied up at dock from the air", then I will remove your additions.

Once again, a logical disconnect. You are reading it in any case. You already read it. How can you judge it without reading it? In this case I concur. It does not add value just to say that. I would have removed that anyway. In general, I don't give a rat's tail whether you choose to read anything or not. It's there to read, is it not? We are talking about what you do with it after you read it. Quit blocking my attempts to expand this article by taking out material without discussion or under some phony pretext that is not the case.

Please practise writing an article in your sandbox, and perhaps read a few academic works so you can understand that statements must be supported by sources, and must not read like a story. It must be factual. Mugsalot (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

You certainly like the heights of hypocrisy, don't you? I've forgotten more academic books and articles than you ever read. I was studying Greek and Latin before you were born. I've been on Wikipedia since 2005. Let's see, four years ago you were a student. Surley, you must have graduated by this time? When are you going to act like an academic? Frankly I dislike you and dislike what you are doing, which is vandalism. I saw a copy of this article done by cplakidis in 2016. I do not believe that you wrote this article. It was better written then than it is now and covered most of these topics. What happened to it? Are you responsible for that? Anyway I will be adding material gradually to this article. I don't claim never to make mistakes. If you point one out I will correct it. If it is not a mistake it stays. What do you mean, "it must not read like a story?" History means "story." How can it be anything else? You mean a list? Wikipedia advises against textual content that is or reads like a list, unless the article is a list, in which case it says "List" in the title. In fact there is a tag for it. But frankly I just do not believe that your remark is sincere. What's more I do not believe your user page either. I think your intent is vandalism and obstruction, just as it says on your talk page.Botteville (talk) 03:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

mugsalot and me -final

I originally had this article on my list of ancient Greek city articles to be seriously improved from a stub or near-stub condition. I made some format changes, worked on the commonscat and started on the content. At this point I was bulldozed by mugsalot. We finally got into the contentious discussion you see above. I didn't agree with most of his reasons. He kept removing my material and I took it for unwarranted reversion. He had a bad reputation on his talk page from removing material from other articles and was threatened with blocking. His style is not my style or his methods mine. Just now I've been looking at this article carefully to see where I could improve it. I noticed a few thing I had not noticed before. 1) He actually kept a lot of my suggestions - the box, some of the content if not the wording, a reorganization of the history section. 2)The article was a lot larger. 3) The article now had a consistent style and a consistent referencing system. 4) mugsalot has done a lot of work on this article and has not failed to address my concerns even though what he says is often pompous and ridiculous. So, I can now see that I was wrong in the direction of my assessment. This is NOT a reversion to an inferior article and it is NOT vandalism. I do apologize for that, mugsalot. Can you forgive me? Furthermore, perhaps his other excisions ought to be reassessed, but I'm not here to do that. I'm here to make this article better, as it is on my list. Here is what I believe happened. mugsalot is a very determined editor and he has a fixed style. He actually swooped in and took over this article. Before I knew it I was out. His excuses don't hold any water. However, I notice now that the article is a unit with a consistent style. The history section, which I wanted to expand, has been expanded and reorganized. I think its quality had definitely come up a long way. If he didn't work on it originally, he certainly put plenty of work on it now. I do not feel comfortable working on it. He has his style, I have mine. What has happened is similar to what sometimes happens in technical writing, when two writers work on the same manual. After careful self-examination I conclude the following. My original goal has been accomplished. Whether this article is a good one now or not I do not know, but it is not a bad one. I wouldn't have done it this way, and neither would cplakidis, but it is done now. The commoncat section is somewhat deficient in pictures but they are just not on Commons. I suppose the Turkish government might have something to do with that. You don't get to photograph American bases either. Too bad the site is on a base. In any case I can't work with mugsalot and there is not much more I can do. It is a matter of diminishing returns. mugsalot seems to have the energy. Good luck mugslaot, Just remember every gunslinger sooner or later meets his match. I'm relinquishing this article, quitclaim fashion. Stay away from me mugsalot.Botteville (talk) 08:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)