Talk:Milos

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Milos Archipelago[edit]

What about the Milos Archipelago? I believe this refers to the island of Milos and those around it. If so, it might be interesting to add a note about it somewhere in this article, as well as a redirect for it. --Jwinius 23:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really hate this Google count, but I use it nevertheless. Milos Archipelago is mentioned just seven times in the web - it is not any particularly popular expression. Put it in if you like it.--FocalPoint 08:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Kapsis[edit]

I would like to ask if it's not worth mentioning this figure from history of Melos which seems to be quite important in connection with Greek freedom during times under Turkish rule. A very little information can be found here http://www.cruiserlog.com/wiki/index.php?title=Milos . So I would like some more informed person to consider mentioning this pirate/king of this Island in article. thanks. toxygen (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Athenian genocide[edit]

I believe that the date of the Melian "genocide" (I'm using that term for lack of a better word) is 416 BCE. I would like to create a subsection of the History section discussing the actions of Athens on Melos. I believe that this is an important element in both Melian and Athenian history from the Classical Greek period as it inspired many contemporary figures to comment on it and as mentioned in the article was a major turning point of Athenian history. I am planning on using a text book from my "History and Sociology of Genocide" class. The text book goes by the same name and is by Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn. I also plan on using a scholarly article by A.B. Bosworth as another reference. Does anyone else have any suggestions or problems with this? Eli.zeldin (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is mentioned without further explanation, so use of it as a means of dating the use of Malos really doesn't work. Jim 02:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comment is valid. I added the date. Please note, however, that the Athenian genocide is mentioned in the text. In Milos#History the following text is written:

"in 415 BC the Athenians, having attacked the island and compelled the Milians to surrender, slew all the men capable of bearing arms, made slaves of the women and children"

This is the genocide which was performed by the Athenians.--FocalPoint 17:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jim. Historians don't call this a genocide. It doens't fit either legal or general description used by historians. It was a war depredation or massacre of the fighting population. Dafen hf 06:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they do. See these thousand search results. of which the first says: The great Greek city of Athens attacked the island of Melos and committed genocide against its citizens. The state and culture of Melos was destroyed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Labeling it a genocide might be an infraction of the NPOV policy. I'd like to defend it because it falls under the typology of a utilitarian genocide and has several of the necessary hallmarks of a genocide as described by Raphael Lemkin (who coined the term in 1944) and Chalk and Jonassohn are considered by some as THE authorities on the history of genocide. Check out their book "The History and Sociology of Genocide". I listed it in the references section. If anyone thinks that it's an infraction of the NPOV policy please edit it. And I changed the date of the massacre to 416 BCE because that's what several sources dated it at.Eli.zeldin (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to comment on this. First Chalk and Jonassohn are not "THE authorities on the history of genocide." there are much more well known writers and it is a huge field. Neither has any significant background in ancient history.
They are interpreting events as genocide, but I would like to point out that they point hundreds of genocides -- virtually none of which are refereed to as genocide the way the Melos article as it stands here now does.
In fact a number of historic genocides as defined as such by Chalk and Jonassohn have expressed NOT been labeled genocides here on Wikipedia -- after discussions by long standing editors. Only this one is (strangely). Look a the talk page on the amelekites, http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Talk:Amalek#Extermination_or_Genocide.3F and the fact that all editors have removed any claim to that being even refereed to as a genocide in the text.
As it stands now, this is completely out of balance with similar Wikipeida articles on many places and peoples in the Near East where earlier and larger scale genocides occurred and where towns and cities were destroyed and male populations massacred and females enslaved, never mid ones where entire town populations were killed.. The Torah has many examples of Jews killing towns of fellow Jews for belief infractions, yet the term Genocide isn't being used on wikipedia for those.
In fact this seems to be the one case where on Wikipedia violence against one city state by another of the same ethnicity is being called a genocide.Jenston (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What commune?[edit]

what commune are they talking about? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.110.221.22 (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The municipality of Mílos ("commune" is another word for "municipality" as a unit of local administration). I have, incidentally, removed the sentence Today's population, about 4700, is considerably less than it was in 1907 (then 4,864 in the commune, 12,774 in the province) which presumably provoked this question, since a current municipal population (2001 census) of 4,771 is amazingly similar to that of almost 100 years earlier, not "considerably less". -- Picapica (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External Link[edit]

Hi Editors! Fascinated by Milos, I find it deserves to be vitalized in a presentable travel story, with mining as a general angle. So I would like to suggest this External Link:

  • "Milos Means Mining" Terje Raa turns the island of colours into a travel story spiced with metals and minerals

Scribbleman 09:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a spam link WP:SPAM El Greco(talk) 13:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the spam talk stopped, I'd like to send a reminder to the Milos Editors. It's the same link, but in a slightly different design:

There is nothing commercial in this for me, so you can gladly insert my link if you like. Scribbleman 17:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a travel guide. WP:SPAM El Greco(talk) 20:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People,I am from Milos.I made some changes and I just noticed that someone changed it back.Well,I have read a book about Milos' population over the years and I assure you all that the island's population was never 17.000!!I think the maximum was 6.000 or something like that.So..Because I am from Milos,I have a ton of books about it and, one of this days, I will write a very interesting wiki article about it so..Please,don't change that too..I am not somebody who wants to confuse people,I just want everybody to learn right things about Milos! Jonngait —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonngait (talk • contribs) 17:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, and in this case, you are Terje Raa[1] . Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote yourself and your articles. Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. Your contributions to wikipedia under Scribbleman consist entirely of promoting Terje Raa / bootsnall.com / travellady.com and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be Terje Raa/bootsnall.com/travellady.com related only. Please do not continue adding links to your own websites to Wikipedia. It has become apparent that your account are only being used for spamming inappropriate external links and for self-promotion. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" and persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted. Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your IP address being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote yourself, right? --Hu12 13:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beaches[edit]

It is stated that there are about 70 beaches. The longest is singled out, and we then proceed to list what is described as "the rest of" the beaches, suggesting that we're going to name all 70 of them, but I count only 45 more. If we're not going to name all, we shouldn't say "the rest of" them.

I would fix the wording, but I really have no knowledge of what is being presented. Are there, in fact, 70 beaches, and are they all named? Maybe the 45 listed are the ones that have names?--Mfwills (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milos = Degirmenlik?[edit]

I noticed the Turkish name of the island is missing. Degirmenlik. Were there prominant wind mills on the island? An oversight I am sure! In fact, a whole 500 years of its history is also missing. Maybe someone more informed can fill this in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.155.172 (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Melos in English[edit]

The standard name of the island in English is Melos not Milos. The title of the article should be changed to this.

Wikipedia editors are prohibited from "innovation" and "personal agendas" (such as promoting Modern Greek nationalism by respelling standard English terms with a Modern Greek phonetic spelling). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.31.84 (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Milos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Vandalism, not sure[edit]

Ghrelinger has been deleting info that looks okay to me, plus he's not providing WP:ES so I don't know his motives…can someone take a look at the edits? Thanks L3X1 (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@L3X1: Apologies, I have been furtively researching the ancient history of Milos and didn't bother to justify each of my edits because I am making (and will continue to make) tons of them. Please be patient, this article is going to be awesome when I'm through with it. Ghrelinger (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghrelinger: no problem. Thanks for working on this. Have a nice day :) L3X1 (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Milos. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Milos. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greek name[edit]

Kurzon: Regarding your moving of the local Greek name from a parenthesis to a note, please take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), #2 in the section "General giudelines". There you will find clear indication that the normal procedure is to put the official local name in parenthesis. Your rationale about cluttering the lede, would normally lead to a separate name section, but even then the official local name should stay also in the lede. There is no mention anywhere about "degrading" the local offial name to an obscure footnote. Also please consider WP:BRD. When your Bold edit was Reverted by me, you should have started a Discussion in the talk page. Now I have done it for you, and I ask you kindly to self revert until this has been concluded. Regards! --T*U (talk) 06:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's more of a guideline than a law. I don't see how relegating the Greek name of the island to a footnote is degrading. I expect most of Wikipedia's readers can't even read Greek, so there isn't much benefit to putting it in the lede for them. The Greek name does appear in the infobox, where it is out of the way. That should be enough. Kurzon (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kurzon: Excuse me, but "It's more of a guideline than a law."??? Does that mean that you think guidelines are optional? To quote WP:Guideline: Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are pages that serve to document the good practices that are accepted in the Wikipedia community. and Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. I am afraid that you will need stronger arguments than "I expect most of Wikipedia's readers can't even read Greek" in order to break the WP:NCGN guideline. Common practise for virtually all Greek place names, is to present the Greek name (if necessary with transliteration) in a parenthesis in the lede, as the guideline indicates. If you want to change this, you could try to change the guideline, not breaking it.
Also, please consider WP:BRD. It is not for you to decide this by insisting on your version. Your obligation is to make sure you have consensus for your change. --T*U (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IGNORE
You are wikilawyering. I know what the convention is but I felt that in this case, my modification improves Wikipedia, which is the real goal. We're allowed to ignore the guidelines if we think it will benefit the article, subject to consensus of course. Now I've explained why I think my approach is better: 99% of our readers cannot read Greek or IPA. We should therefore remove them from the lede, because the lede should contain only the most important information of a subject. The Greek name and IPA are still worth mentioning, but they should be relegated to an infobox or a footnote. You in turn should argue why my approach makes things worse. All you're doing is citing rules. Kurzon (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of WP:IGNORE, and I see it as a useful correction to Wiki rules, even if I find that it often is used as an excuse to fight against rules one does not like. However, the rules are there for reason, and in this case I disagree that your edit benefits the article.
Speaking for myself, I have no direct use for the Greek name of Milos in this article, since I have better tools than Wikipedia regarding Greek place names. In my line of work I do, however, sometimes have use for the local name in even more obscure languages (that 99.9% or more – including me – cannot read). In those cases it is important to me that I find the information where I expect it to be.
I can also easily see that the information about pronunciation may be useful, even important, for some users, not least in the case of Milos/Melos, where there are actually two different English spellings mentioned. Again it is important that this information is where one would expect it to be.
By the way, I think you underestimate Wikipedia users somewhat regarding knowledge of IPA (and perhaps also Greek – at least to know the alphabet). But that is neither here nor there. My main point is that I in this case prefer to follow the guideline – simply because it makes Wikipedia more predictable and therefore more useful for the general user. --T*U (talk) 09:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to ping: Kurzon --T*U (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's more like it. OK, to address your points.

Sure, I do expect some users will want to read the Greek name and the IPA, but let's relegate that to someplace else, like maybe the infobox or a footnote. The whole point of the infobox is to list minor facts about Milos - why not put them there? Leave the lede for the most salient information only. Kurzon (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kurzon: You want to relegate that to someplace else, I want to put it where people expect it to be. Perhaps we should ask for a WP:3O? --T*U (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kurzon, I am afraid TU-nor is right on this. The common practice in Wikipedia, regarding articles where the native names are in different language other than english, is to have them present on Lede. These native names may not be useful to you, but that doesn't mean they are not useful for others. How many times I have been told by tourists who are grateful the Greek names are visibly present on the article, allowing them to idendify quicker their researches. It is understandable that you can't read this native language, or find any use for it on lead, but this is just your opinion; does not reflect the rest of editors and visitors. Due to these reasons explained by both me and TU-nor, your edits have been reverted, back to what is the common practice in Wikipedia. Have a good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 13:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since I've been outvoted, I'll drop it. But please think over what I suggested. Kurzon (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kurzon, it is not a matter of how many votes are there. Wikipedia doesn't work by what majority of editors think or vote for. Consensus building and article editing, are weighting more on Wikipedia's guidelines and valid arguments, not on personal editorial opinions and number votes such as mine and TU-nor's. Thing is, it is about guidelines and common practice here, and we are all ought to follow them, unless someone opens up a discussion and revise them. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 15:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

The map uses a projection completely unfamiliar to me. Useless. I can make out Santorini because of it's caldera and I suppose Cyprus. But where the hell is Crete? Entirely unhelpful. Соловей поет (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Milos&oldid=1209074602"