Talk:Minoan civilization/Archive 3

Absolute statements to be avoided

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)

Also i put back the Greek translation of the name since it is only in this language where this name appears. Also i corrected the term their "culture" was supreseded by the Mycenean Culture for this uttel absolute statement. We do not know whether their culture was the same with Mycenea or not, if they were the same people or not, and since evidence leans towards the fact that they actually were since Linear B(Mycenean) has deciphered huge chunks if Linear A,(Minoan) one cannot be absolute and say that their culture was removed and replaced by a completely new culture, therefore their "Kingdom" was removed not their "culture" also the ceramics show blatant similarities, such absolute statements must be removed from wiki in order to retain the NPOV.

Regards. --62.103.251.151 09:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is the one responsible for propaganda?

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)

What on earth are you talking about? Platos text gives you an answer clear as the day that the Greeks used the term Minos prior to Evans and that they even considered him as the one responsible for their laws.

You said above that you can speak Greek, here is the translation from the perseus project:

Here is your source mate: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/laws.1.i.html

Text translated by Benjamin Howett:

"Persons f THE DIALOGUE: An ATHENIAN STRANGER; CLEINIAS, a Cretan; MEGILLUS, a Lacedaemonian

Athenian Stranger. Tell me, Strangers, is a God or some man supposed to be the author of your laws?

Cleinias. A God, Stranger; in very truth a, God: among us Cretans he is said to have been Zeus, but in Lacedaemon, whence our friend here comes, I believe they would say that Apollo is their lawgiver: would they not, Megillus?

Megillus. Certainly. Ath. And do you, Cleinias, believe, as Homer tells, that every ninth year Minos went to converse with his Olympian sire, and was inspired by him to make laws for your cities?

Cle. Yes, that is our tradition; and there was Rhadamanthus, a brother of his, with whose name you are familiar; he is reputed to have been the justest of men, and we Cretans are of opinion that he earned this reputation from his righteous administration of justice when he was alive.

Ath. Yes, and a noble reputation it was, worthy of a son of Zeus. As you and Megillus have been trained in these institutions, I dare say that you will not be unwilling to give an account of your government and laws; on our way we can pass the time pleasantly in about them, for I am told that the distance from Cnosus to the cave and temple of Zeus is considerable; and doubtless there are shady places under the lofty trees, which will protect us from this scorching sun. Being no longer young, we may often stop to rest beneath them, and get over the whole journey without difficulty, beguiling the time by conversation.

Cle. Yes, Stranger, and if we proceed onward we shall come to groves of cypresses, which are of rare height and beauty, and there are green meadows, in which we may repose and converse. "

The perseus project were i got the original is down, its server when it comes back ill divert you to the its page.

Now back to normality, i will put back all i 've written and delete the blatant propaganda.

THAT IS OUR TRADITION the Cretan replies in a conversation held in Greek, that is our tradition, clear as the day.

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)

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)

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)

Akhileus isn't the source i provided a source, or is it my translation?

Ans 5telios, your comment writing that the term Minoites was coined in Greece after Evans is totally invalid, for Plato uses it before Evans, understand? And the source is from MIT, it is not original research as you claim.

It is the source that you required.

So can you explain how you wrote that thing?

And can you also explain why after offering the source, it is even still original research?

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)

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)

Re, is this source original research? http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/laws.1.i.html What on earth are you babbling? what on earth? EXPLAIN. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.103.252.148 (talk • contribs).

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)

And the link from mit is not a reliable secondary source?

Anyway, i am not reverting, someone else will, you have just been reported. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.103.252.148 (talk • contribs).

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)

You write in the article:

"The Greek: Μινωίτες was coined after Evans'use of the term Minoan for the civilisation."

And i have just provided you a source which you delete from the article that the term Minos exists prior to Evans's use and you delete my source, and you do not provide a source for your claim.

We shall wait and see. Also why do you delete the term: (Greek language: Μινωικός Πολιτισμός).

Why?

And why the term culture is more valid than Kingdom? Is your term culture sourced? I dont see any sources. The only thing i see in here is blatant propaganda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.103.252.148 (talk • contribs).

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)

You just deleted sourced material, without reason, for your original research stuff i read them, and i abide by the rules, you just deleted sourced material and replaced it with unsourced material.

You also deleted terms that do not violate any rule. As for the name Minos, that is how the Greeks termed them and that is what is available if you dont like it, that is your problem.

And you still havent provided a source that terms them as "the culture was replaced" instead of the "Kingdom". And the term Kingdom retains the NOPV while your term culture does not.

And we know what language they spoke, Linear B has been conclusive, since it is able to decipher parts of it. Also the pottery resemblances are more than enough. as a sidenote: Has Hebrew or any other semitic language deciphered Phoenician maybe? Lets delete the Semite from Phoenician language and be fair, shall we?

And i do not care who first wrote it, you put it back without any source, none at all, so you are responsible for reverting to invalid unsourced material and replace the sourced ones.

Nice job. well done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.103.252.148 (talk • contribs).

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)

I was very clear, my statement is above do not make me repeat it.

The only people here with no verifiable claims is you and your friends.

Linear A has been deciphered in part by Linear B. This is evidence right there that there is relationship, not replacement of a totally alien culture, capisce? For if the culture was replaced there would no relation and none at all. The pottery and the various sources like mythology and Plato is further evidence. But there is replacement and the NOPV is not held. Propaganda alone you are doing, nothing else. You reject and delete sources from the mit.

Anyways, enjoy your propaganda as long as you can for it will be replaced. Good night, propagandists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.103.252.148 (talk • contribs).

Listen carefully.

The term Kingdom is the only available term, the term culture is invalid.

Because the Mycenean Culture is greatly similar to the Minoan, in pottery and in language, and also in history as provided my the myths of the Minotaur, and also as provided by Plato.

Second, who on earth deleted the source of Plato from the article and why? Who on earth deletes sources? And replaces them with totally invalid statements?

Third, the "Greek language: Minoikos Politismos", why does it bother you? When it is in Greek that this term is provided?

Who is the one responsible here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.103.252.148 (talk • contribs).