Search This Blog

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

arrogant cheater nadal calls fake medical time out again in 2015 austrailian open

against Tim Smyczek

Rafael Nadal Admits Cheating During U.S Open 2013 Tennis Duel With Novak Djokovic: Report

Nadal, who's looking to reclaim the top spot in the world ranking at the 2013 China Open, admitted that he's indeed receiving tips from his trainer and uncle Toni Nadal during his matches, including the title-clinching game of his 2013 US Open duel with Novak Djokovic.
"It was in the last game, when I was serving for the match. ... I didn't know where to serve. Down the center, to the middle or to try the classic play of the wide serve and then try to hit the forehand. They told me to serve wide and that's where I served," Rafael said.
Rafael has been repeatedly accused of cheating before,including one instance which happened during his showdown with Roger Federer few years ago. Toni Nadal was hit with a $2,000 fine for coaching his nephew during the match.
Rafa's uncle coach also admitted that he was guilty of coaching his nephew to the extent that he drew the ire of opponents. One example for this is when Federer complained about Toni's coaching during a match with Rafa in Rome in 2006.
"He was coaching a little bit too much again today. I caught him in the act. I told him many times already, through the entire match in Monaco, but it seems like they don't keep a close enough eye on him," Federer said at the time, according to Larry Brown Sports.
Toni Nadal replied with this statement:
"I think all the sports make an evolution," he said. "It's not natural that you pay a coach and this coach travels to Australia and to New York to watch his player and he can't say nothing."
AOL news tennis analysts Greg Couch has a problem with the current rule, insisting it should be either revoked or reinforced.
"See, coaching has become one of those unaccepted, accepted broken rules. And that might be the problem with hitting Nadal too hard now. It's not fair when you suddenly enforce rules you have been winking at all along," Couch said.
"But worst of all is the way tennis handles this. If officials make the mistake of dumping the rule, then they need to just do it. If the rule stays, then it has to be enforced. Have the rule or don't, but you can't have it both ways," Couch added in his article.

arrogant cheater nadal receive illegal coaching again wawrinka in 2013 WTF

Beaten Wawrinka takes it to Nadal, on and off court

November 6, 2013 2:43 PM

LONDON (Reuters) - He won 83 points to Rafael Nadal's 80, hit 30 winners to the Spaniard's 14, struck more aces and generally played the more inspiring tennis, yet it all ended in familiar fashion for Stanislas Wawrinka at the ATP World Tour Finals on Wednesday.
The 28-year-old came close to beating the world number one for the first time in 12 attempts, losing 7-6(5) 7-6(6) in the most enthralling contest of the season-ending tournament so far.
If there was any consolation after losing his 26th consecutive set to the Spaniard, it was that it was his best display against Nadal, and his challenge is far from over.
Should he beat David Ferrer in his final Group A match on Friday he can still reach the semi-finals on his first appearance in the elite field - and could even set up another chance to end his Nadal hoodoo here at the O2.
Wawrinka has come a long way this year from the talented but inconsistent player of old, scoring eight wins against top-10 opponents - the third-best total on the ATP Tour - and reaching his first grand slam semi-final at the U.S. Open, where he pushed Novak Djokovic into a fifth set.
There is a swagger about the man they call "Stan", and he even had the confidence to have a dig at Nadal afterwards, saying the umpire had failed to stop the Mallorcan receiving coaching from his uncle Toni.
"It's nothing personal against Rafa or against Toni, we know that Toni is always trying to help Rafa," Wawrinka told reporters. "That's normal. That's part of the game. But when it's too much, it's too much.
"Today I didn't agree with the umpire that he didn't tell him something or he didn't give him a second warning just because it was Rafa. We all see. I was there. Before every point, he was trying to coach him."
Nadal was warned for taking too long between points as he tried to fend off a Wawrinka onslaught at the end of a high-quality opening set - a compliment to the way his opponent was playing.
After a sluggish start Wawrinka roared back and broke Nadal to level at 5-5, held serve in the blink of an eye, then looked poised to edge ahead at 5-5 in the tiebreaker only to find some meaty blows repelled as only Nadal can.
On set point down he again looked in control of the point but stumbled as he followed in a thundering forehand, and his volley allowed Nadal to execute a routine pass.
The second set was a similar story, with Wawrinka even closer to taking it when he led the tiebreak 6-5 - only for Nadal to snuff out the danger with a smash.
Two points later it was all over, but Wawrinka walked off with his chest puffed out and cheers ringing in his ears from a London crowd that has taken a shine to the world number eight.
"For me, today I think was really close, but I think I played the right tennis," Wawrinka said.
"So far I didn't win any sets against him. But I need to still look on the positive side, you know. I think today was my best match against him. I think I'm still improving."

Sunday, January 25, 2015

고대 그리스와 이집트, 바빌로니아, 중국의 차이점이 뭐였냐면

사유와 사유의 교류, 서양철학을 낳다

탈레스(기원전 625~545년), 아낙시만드로스(기원전 610~540년)와 같은 최초의 서양철학자가 마주한 밀레투스의 풍요는 여가의 즐거움과 지적 탐구를 위한 자극을 줬다. 플라톤(기원전 427~347년)과 아리스토텔레스(기원전 384~322년)가 말했듯 철학은 호기심 또는 경외심에서 생겨난다. 최초의 서양철학자들은 한편으로는 실용적인 사람들로서 정치에 능동적으로 참여하고 기술 발전에 큰 관심을 가졌으며 다른 한편으로는 호기심 때문에 철학을 했다.

이들과 대조적으로 수천 년 전의 이집트인은 더 나은 삶을 위한 실용적 기술을 개발했으나 철학을 탄생시키지는 못했다.진리와 지식에 대한 사랑을 갖추지 못했던 탓이다. 실용성만 강조하는 사회에서는 철학이 탄생하지 못한다. 철학은 직접적 경험 세계로부터 벗어날 것을 요구하기 때문이다.

생각의 자유 막은 이집트

이집트인과 바빌로니아인은 지식 그 자체에는 관심이 없었고 실용적 목적에 도움이 되는 기술에만 관심을 가졌다. 헤로도투스에 따르면 이집트는 개인이 소유한 땅의 직사각형 면적에 따라 세금을 부과했다. 나일 강의 범람으로 땅의 면적이 줄어들면 땅 소유주의 요청에 따라 왕의 측량사들이 와서 줄어든 땅의 면적을 재고서는 세액을 조정했다. 헤로도투스는 이집트에서 이런 문제가 기하학의 발전을 자극했다고 설명했다. 이집트의 기하학은 토지 측량이나 피라미드 건설에 필요한 실용적 지식에 불과했다.

요컨대 이집트와 바빌로니아는 기술에 만족했을 뿐 왜 그런 현상이 발생하는지에 대해선 궁구하지 않았다. 그리스인은 이들과 달랐다. 그들은 원인을 물었으며 원인에 대한 관심은 일반화에 대한 요구로 이어졌다. 이집트인이나 바빌로니아인은 불이 벽돌을 딱딱하게 만들고, 집을 따뜻하게 하며, 광석에서 금속을 분리할 수 있다는 사실을 알았으나 ‘불의 본성은 도대체 무엇인가’ 다시 말해 ‘불의 고유한 특성은 무엇인가’라는 질문을 제기하지 못했다.

예컨대 바빌로니아인은 두 숫자를 곱한 값과 두 숫자를 더하거나 뺀 값을 제시하고서는 원래의 두 숫자를 구하라는 문제를 풀 수는 있었지만 계산할 때 필요한 수식을 일반화하려고 시도하지 않았다. 이집트인은 기하학을 직사각형 형태의 개인 농장과 관련지어 생각했으나 그리스인은 어디에서든 동일한 특성을 갖는 직사각형의 본질을 궁리했다. 그리스인에게만 형상이 감각에서 개념으로 나아간 것이다.


중동, 북아프리카, 인도 코카소이드가 유럽 코카소이드한테 뒤지게 된 이유는 동양이 서양한테 뒤져치게 된 이유와 비슷하다.

한마디로 ‘과학적 사고’와 ‘연역적인 논리력’의 부재.

고대 이집트나 바빌로니아는 기술적으로는 유럽보다 앞서 있었지만 학술적으로는 그 어떤 진전도 이루지 못하였음.

감각적이고 경험적인 차원에서 벗어나 과학적이고 논리적으로 세상의 작동원리를 규명하려는 시도를 하지 않았다는 소리.

예를 들어 돌맹이 하나와 하나가 더해지면 두개의 돌맹이를 이루게 된다는 ‘경험적인’ 사실은 세살짜리 아기도 직감적으로 파악할 수 있다.

하지만 1+1=2 이라는 추상적이면서 보편적으로 항상 성립하는 공식을 세우고 이를 ‘증명’까지 해내는 일은 절대 쉬운일이 아니다. 고대 그리스인들은 동시대 다른 문명권 사람들과 달리 바로 이런 과학적이고 논리적인 사고에 능하였다.

우리가 수학, 과학, 철학, 의학, 형식논리학등 대다수 기초학문들의 발상지를 고대 그리스로 보는 이유는 바로 이때문이다.

결국 ‘지식의 깊이’ 에 있어서 유럽백인들이 고대시대부터 기타 코카소이드나 몽골로이드, 니그로이드 인종보다 한참 앞서 있었다는건 전혀 의심할 여지가 없는 역사적 진실이다.

물론 그것이 항상 실용적이고 경제적인 우위로 나타나지는 않았지만 적어도 지(知)적인 면에선 유럽이 기타문명보다 훨씬 더 발전해 있었고 이런 지적우위가 르네상스와 과학혁명, 산업혁명, 종교개혁, 계몽주의 운동 같은 일련의 혁신들로 이어지면서 지금의 서양을 존립할수 있게 해준 탄탄한 토대와 자양분이 되었다고 봐야 할것이다.

Friday, January 23, 2015

일본 빈곤층 루저 프리터 인생 > 한국인 90% 인생

일본의 빈곤층 루저 프리터 인생이 한국인 90% 인생보다 우월하다.
일본에서 쩌리인 빈곤층 루저 프리터가 한국인 90%를 압살한다. 자 그이유를 살펴보자.

일본의 프리타 스펙과 상황
1. 일본의 빈곤층 루저 프리터 자격: 사지 멀쩡하고 저능아만 아니면 누구나 할수 있음. 일본은 노인알바도 활성화되어있어서
일본에 가보면 60대 일본 노인이 알바하는거 어렵지 않게 볼수 있다. 즉 평생 프리타하면서 먹고살기 가능함
2. 주당 노동시간: 주5일 하루 8시간 40시간
3. 월수입:  시급은 기본 1000엔이고 더 많이 받는곳도 많음. 글 끝부분에 짤 첨부한다. 월 20만엔~26만엔 (한국돈 183만원 ~ 238만원)  + 교통비는 별도로 지급
4. 물가: 한국보다 물가가 저렴함. 생필품,가전제품,식료품은 한국이 일본보다 보통 1.5배전후로 더 비싸고. 집세만 해도 도쿄 중심부는 월세가 비싼편인데 이건 한국 강남 월세 비싼거나 매한가지. 도쿄 중심부만 벗어나면 도쿄권에서도 월 4-5만엔(월 37만원~월세46만원) 1DK원룸(원룸+주방+샤워+화장실) 구할수 있고, 도쿄만 아니면 오사카 같은경우 3만엔짜리 1DK도 구할수 있다.
그리고 교통비의 경우 일본은 사지멀쩡하고 저능아만 아니면 할수 있는 프리터만 해도 교통비가 별도로 지급되서 교통비부담이 제로임

5. 자기시간: 일하는 시간외엔 전부 자기꺼. 그리고 프리타는 하다가 지겨우면 때려치우고 다시 구하면 그만이라 모아놓은 돈으로
몇달씩 해외여행갔다와서 다시 일구하면 그만

한국인의 90%는  금수저,은수저,공무원,공기업,대기업정직원에 해당되지 않는다 

이러한 한국인 90%의 상황
(참고로 한국의 1인당 GDP 26,000달러는, 태반이 대기업들이 가져가는 허수인것이고, 그 허수마저 주80~90시간 개인시간도 없다시피
다른국가보다 2배~2.5배로 일하면서 만든거. 주당 35시간 일하고 1인당 GDP 44,000달러 만드는 프랑스가 한국처럼 노비같이 일하면
1인당 GDP 10만달러도 찍는다. 그런데 그렇게 안하는건 그건 인간의 삶이 아니라 노비의 삶이기때문이다. 즉 대다수 한국인 =노비)

1. 주당 노동시간: 월화수목금금금 야근야근열매 회식,경조사 등으로 80시간은 거뜬함. 자기 시간이 없음
2. 월수입: 좃소기업에서 저렇게 일해야 150만원~200만원. 그런데 좃소기업은 대기업처럼 나이 40대초반되면 짤리기 십상이고
대기업처럼 40대초반되서 짤리기전에 아예 회사가 부도나서 없어지는경우가 다반사(요샌 한국경제안좋아서 동양,STX같은 대기업도 망함)
즉 좃소기업 정직원이래봐야 정직원의 탈을 쓴 시한부직장임. 그리고 좃소기업 정직원 조차 안되는 한국인들도 엄청나게 많은데 이경우에는 
월수 88만원~100만원 수준이다. 알바의 경우 교통비같은건 없다. 자기돈 털어서 다녀야
그리고 한국은 나이 먹으면 알바도 잘 안써줘서 월수30만원인 폐지나 줍고다닌다.(노인알바가 활성화된 일본과 정반대)

3. 물가: 이제 한국은 일본보다 물가가 더 비싸다. 생필품,식료품의 경우에는 일본보다 약 1.5배 전후로 더 비싸고.
집세도 1DK원룸이 월 40만원에 보증금 500~1000만원이 기본이라 일본보다 약간더 비싼감마저 있다.
4. 자기시간: 위에 언급한것처럼 자기시간이 없다. 그리고 좃소기업의 경우 한번 짤리거나 때려치우면 다시 재취직이 매우 힘들어져
(한국 경기,경제 좃망) 알바로 추락해야한다. 일본 프리타처럼 해외여행은 꿈도 못꿈

즉 일본의 빈곤층 루저 프리타가 한국인 90%보다 우월한 인생을 사는거다.

그리고 한국인 상위 10%(금수저,은수저,공무원,공기업,대기업정직원)중에서 절반이상을 차지하는 대기업정직원조차 나이 40대초반이 되면
대부분이 짤리는데 그러면 새로이 한국 서민으로 편입되게되는걸 감안하면

일본 빈곤층 루저 프리타가 한국인 95%보다 우월하다는 계산도 나온다.

자 국뽕,애국국까들은 기분이 어때?

Monday, January 19, 2015

헬라스를 그리스로 부른 이유

Sunday, January 18, 2015

greek influence on islamic civilization

Because Islam originated and has developed in an Arab culture, other cultures which have adopted Islam have tended to be influenced by Arab customs. Thus Arab Muslim societies and other Muslims have cultural affinities, though every society has preserved its distinguishing characteristics. Islamic culture inherited an Arab culture born in the desert, simple but by no means simplistic. It has an oral tradition based on the transmission of culture through poetry and narrative. However, it has been the written record that has had the greatest impact on civilization. Islam civilization is based on the value of education, which both the Qur'an and the Prophet stressed.
This dark green jade pot, 14 cm. (5½"), once furnished the Safavid palace at Tabriz, and probably passed into Ottoman hands after the Battle of Çaldiran in 1514. Before that, the dragon-headed handle suggests it may have belonged to a Timurid ruler. (Aramco World Magazine, January-February 1995; photo Ergun Çagatay).
Knowledge and Education
In the Pre-Islamic period, one of the traditions was that of the mu'allaquat (literally "the hangings"). In the city of Mecca, poets and writers would hang their writings on a certain wall in the city so that others could read about the virtues of their respective tribes. Their travels from city to city and tribe to tribe were the means by which news, legends, and exploits would become known. The tradition continued as the Qur'an was first memorized and transmitted by word of mouth and then recorded for following generations. This popular expression of the Arab Muslim peoples became an indelible part of Islamic culture. Even today Muslims quote the Qur'an as a way of expressing their views and refer to certain maxims and popular tales to make a point.
Great centers of religious learning were also centers of knowledge and scientific development. Such formal centers began during the Abbasid period (750-1258 A.D.) when thousands of mosque schools were established. In the tenth century Baghdad had some 300 schools. Alexandria in the fourteenth century had 12,000 students. It was in the tenth century that the formal concept of the Madrassah (school) was developed in Baghdad. The Madrassah had a curriculum and full-time and part-time teachers, many of whom were women. Rich and poor alike received free education. From there Maktabat (libraries) were developed and foreign books acquired. The two most famous are Bait al-Hikmah in Baghdad (ca. 820) and Dar al-Ilm in Cairo (ca. 998). Universities such as Al-Azhar (969 A.D.) were also established long before those in Europe.
Then exalted be Allah the True King! And hasten not (O Muhammad) with the Qur'an ere its revelation hath been perfected unto thee, and say: My Lord! Increase me in knowledge.
Qur'an 20:114
Islamic history and culture can be traced through the written records: Pre-Islamic, early Islamic, Umayyad, the first and second Abbasid, the Hispano-Arabic, the Persian and the modern periods. The various influences of these different periods can be readily perceived, as can traces of the Greek, the Indian, and the Pre-Islamic Persian cultures. Throughout the first four centuries of Islam, one does not witness the synthesis or homogenization of different cultures but rather their transmittal through, and at times their absorption into, the Islamic framework of values. Islam has been a conduit for Western civilization of cultural forms which might otherwise have died out. Pre-Islamic poetry and prose, which was transmitted orally, was recorded mostly during the Umayyad period (661-750 A.D.) when the Arab way of life began shifting from the simple nomadic life prevalent in the peninsula to an urban and sophisticated one. Contacts with Greece and Persia gave a greater impulse to music, which frequently accompanied the recitation of prose and poetry. By the mid-800's in the Baghdad capital of Abbassids under Harun al-Rashid and al-Ma'mun, Islamic culture as well as commerce and contacts with many other parts of the world flourished.
In the fourth century B.C., when Alexander the Great conquered Asia Minor and founded Alexandria, he set the stage for the great migration of Greek philosophy and science to that part of the world. During the Ptolemaic period, Alexandria, Egypt, was the radiant center for the development and spread of Greek culture throughout the Mediterranean. That great center of learning continued after 641, when Egypt became part of the Muslim state. Thereafter Syria, Baghdad, and Persia became similar channels for the communication of essentially Greek, Syriac, pre-Islamic Persian and Indian cultural values. As a result, Islamic philosophy was influenced by the writings of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. The great Muslim philosophers such as Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), Ibn Sina (Avicenna, d. 1037), Ibn Rushd (Averroes, d. 1198), al-Farabi and al-Ghazali translated the works of earlier Greek philosophers and added their own significant contributions. It was essentially through such works, intellectually faithful to the originals, that Western civilization was able to benefit from these earlier legacies. In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas, the founder of Catholic naturalism, developed his views of Aristotle through the translation of Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Ibn Rushd (Averroes). These great philosophers produced a wealth of new ideas that enriched civilization, particularly Western civilization which has depended so much on their works. The influence of Islam ultimately made possible the European Renaissance, which was generated by the ideas of the Greeks filtered through the Muslim philosophers. The same is true of early legal writings of Muslim scholars such as al-Shaybani, who in the seventh century started the case method of teaching Islamic international law that was subsequently put into writing in the twelfth century by a disciple in India. It was the basis for the writings of the legal canonists of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries on certain aspects of international law, in particular the laws of war and peace.
The study of history held a particular fascination for Arab Muslims imbued with a sense of mission. Indeed, because Islam is a religion for all peoples and all times, and because the Qur'an states that God created the universe and caused it to be inhabited by men and women and peoples and tribes so that they may know each other, there was a quest for discovery and knowledge. As a result Muslims recorded their own history and that of others. But they added insight to facts and gave to events, people, and places a philosophical dimension expressed in the universal history written by al-Tabari of Baghdad (838-923). In the introduction to his multi-volume work he devoted an entire volume to the science of history and its implications. Al-Tabari also wrote an authoritative text on the history of prophets and kings which continues to be a most comprehensive record of the period from Abraham to the tenth century.
The West's fascination with Arabo-Islamic (culture can be seen in many ways. "The Thousand and One Nights" captured Western Europe's cultural and popular fancy in the 1700's (first translated into French by Galland in 1704, then into English). Dante's "Divine Comedy" contains reference to the Prophet's ascension to Heaven. Shakespeare in "Othello" and the "Merchant of Venice" describes Moorish subjects. Victor Hugo writes of Persians as do Boccaccio and (Chaucer. Even "Robinson Crusoe" and "Gulliver's Tales" are adaptations of "The Thousand and One Nights." Arabo-Islamic culture, knowledge, scholarship, and science fed the Western world's development for five hundred years between the tenth and fifteenth centuries.
The Sciences
From the second half of the eighth century to the end of the eleventh century, Islamic scientific developments were the basis of knowledge in the world. At a period of history when the scientific and philosophical heritage of the ancient world was about to be lost, Islamic scholars stepped in to preserve that heritage from destruction. Indeed, without the cultivation of science in these early centuries by Islamic scholars, it is probable that texts which later exercised a formative influence over Western culture would never have survived intact. It is certain, moreover, that the modern world would look much different than it does today. For the culture and civilization that were founded on Islam not only preserved the heritage of the ancient world but codified, systematized, explained, criticized, modified, and, finally, built on past contributions in the process of making distinctive contributions of their own.
The Wonders and Curiosities of Creation
Iran or Iraq
14th c.
(Aramco World Magazine, November-December 1995; photo courtesy of ARCH).
The story of Islam's role in the preservation and transmission of ancient science, to say nothing of its own lasting contributions, is truly fascinating—and a bit of a puzzle. Why is it that so many ancient Greek texts survive only in Arabic translations? How did the Arabs, who had no direct contact with the science and learning of the Greeks, come to be the inheritors of the classical tradition?
The answers to these questions are to be found in a unique conjunction of historical forces. From the first, it appears, the Umayyad dynasty located in Damascus evinced an interest in things Greek, for they employed educated Greek-speaking civil servants extensively. Early friezes on mosques from the period show a familiarity with the astrological lore of late antiquity.
The theory of numbers, developed and expanded from the original Indian contribution, resulted in the "Arabic numbers" 1 through 9. Islamic scholars also used the concept of zero, which was a Hindu concept. Without the zero, neither mathematics, algebra, nor cybernetics would have developed. Algebra was essentially developed by the Arab Muslims; the very word derives from the Arabic al-jabr. Among the most prominent scholars is the Basra born Ibn al-Haytham (965-1030), who developed the "Alhazen problem," one of the basic algebraic problems, and who made great contributions to optics and physics. He had advanced long before Newton the thesis that extraterrestrial scientific phenomena governed the motion of the earth and stars. He also developed experiments on light which were nothing short of extraordinary at that time. He demonstrated the theory of parallels, based on the finding that light travels in straight lines, and the passing of light through glass. Astronomy, developed by the Babylonians, continued to flourish under Islam. It soon expanded beyond the science of observation into the design of measuring instruments. In addition, it gave rise to the development of planetary theory.
The Arabic alphabet developed from the ancient script used for Nabataean, a dialect of Aramaic, in a region now part of Jordan. The Arabic alphabet has 28 letters. However, additional letters have been added to serve the need of other languages using the Arabic script; such as Farsi, Dari, and Urdu, and Turkish until the early part of the 20th century. The Qur'an was revealed in Arabic.
Traditionally the Semites and the Greeks assigned numerical values to their letters and used them as numerals. But the Arabs developed the numbers now used in languages. The invention of the "zero" is credited to the Arabs though it has its origins in Hindu scholarship. The Arab scholars recognized the need for a sign representing "nothing," because the place of a sign gave as much information as its unitary value did. The Arabic zero proved indispensable as a basis for all modern science.
The medical sciences were largely developed throughout the works of Ibn Sina (Avicenna), al-Razzi, and Husayn bin Ishak al-Ibadi, who translated Hippocrates and other Greeks. Razi (860-940) is reported to have written 200 books on medicine, one of them on medical ethics, and the Hawi, a 25 volume practical encyclopedia. Ibn Sina (980-1037) became a famed physician at 18 who wrote 16 books and the Canoun, an encyclopedia on all known diseases in the world. It was translated into many languages. But medical science soon led into zoology, veterinary medicine, pharmacy, pharmacology and chemistry. Indeed the word "chemistry" derives from the Arabic word al-kemia or alchemy as it was later known. The most important medical school was that of Judishapur, Iran, which after 738 became part of the Muslim world. It was managed by Syrian Christians and became the center for most Muslim practical learning and the model for the hospitals built under the Abbasids (between 749-1258).
The Arabs clearly followed the Hadith of the Prophet urging them to pursue knowledge from birth to death, even if that search was to be in China (deemed the most remote place on the earth.)
The Abbasids, who displaced the Umayyads and moved the seat of government from Damascus to Baghdad, made the first serious effort to accommodate Greek science and philosophy to Islam. The Abbasid rulers, unlike the Umayyads who remained Arab in their tastes and customs, conceived an Islamic polity based on religious affiliation rather than nationality or race. This made it easier for people of differing cultural, racial, and intellectual heritages to mingle and exchange ideas as equals. Persian astronomers from Gandeshapur could work side by side with mathematicians from Alexandria in the cosmopolitan atmosphere of Baghdad.
Then, too, the success of the Islamic conquest had erased existing national boundaries which had worked to keep peoples linguistically, politically, and intellectually apart. For the first time since Alexander the Great former rivals could meet and exchange ideas under the protection of a single state. The rise of Arabic as the international language of science and government administration helped matters along. As the cultivation of the sciences intensified and the high civilization of the Abbasids blossomed, the expressive resources of Arabic blossomed as well, soon making Arabic the language of choice for international commerce and scholarship as well as divine revelation.
Most important of all, however, it was the attitude that developed within the Islamic state toward the suspect writings of the Greeks. Unlike the Christian communities of late antiquity, whose attitudes toward the pagan philosophers were shaped by the experience of Roman persecution, Muslims did not suffer—or at least to the same degree—the conflict between faith and reason. On the contrary, the Qur'an enjoined Muslims to seek knowledge all their lives, no matter what the source or where it might lead. As a result, Muslims of the Abbasid period quickly set about recovering the scientific and philosophical works of the classical past—lying neglected in the libraries of Byzantium—and translating them into Arabic.
The task was herculean and complicated by the fact that texts of the classical period could not be translated directly from Greek into Arabic. Rather, they had first to be rendered in Syriac, the language with which Christian translators were most familiar, and then translated into Arabic by native speakers. This circuitous route was made necessary by the fact that Christian communities, whose language was Syriac, tended to know Greek, whereas Muslims generally found it easier to learn Syriac, which is closer to Arabic.
A doctor and patient discuss vitrified lead poisoning on this page from the Materia Medica of Dioscorides. The Greek work, from the first century BC, was translated into Arabic in the ninth century; this is a 13th-century copy made in Iraq. (Aramco World Magazine, January-February 1989; photo Jeffrey Crespi).
The translation effort began in earnest under the reign of the second Abbasid caliph, al-Mansur (754-75). He sent emissaries to the Byzantine emperor requesting mathematical texts and received in response a copy of Euclid's Elements. This single gift, more than any other perhaps, ignited a passion for learning that was to last throughout the golden age of Islam and beyond. The effort was subsequently systematized under al-Ma'mun, who founded an institution expressly for the purpose, called the Bait al-Hikmah or House of Wisdom, which was staffed with salaried Muslim and Christian scholars. The output of the House of Wisdom over the centuries was prodigious, encompassing as it did nearly the entire corpus of the Greek scientific and philosophical thought. Not only Euclid but Aristotle, Galen and Hippocrates, and Archimedes were among the authors to receive early treatment.
It would be wrong to suggest that the scholars of the House of Wisdom were occupied with task of translation only. Muslim scholars generally were concerned to understand, codify, correct, and, most importantly, assimilate the learning of the ancients to the conceptual framework of Islam. The greatest of these scholars were original and systematic thinkers of the first order, like the great Arab philosopher al-Farabi who died in 950. His Catalog of Sciences had a tremendous effect on the curricula of medieval universities.
Perhaps the most distinctive and noteworthy contributions occurred in the field of mathematics, where scholars from the House of Wisdom played a critical role in fusing the Indian and classical traditions, thus inaugurating the great age of Islamic mathematical speculation. The first great advance consisted in the introduction of Arabic numerals—which, as far as can be determined, were Indian in origin. They embody the "place-value" theory, which permits numbers to be expressed by nine figures plus zero. This development not only simplified calculation but paved the way for the development of an entirely new branch of mathematics, algebra.
The study of geometry was sustained by a remarkable series of scholars, the Banu Musa or "Sons of Musa," who were all, quite literally, sons of the al-Ma'mun's court astronomer, Musa ibn Shakir. Their activities were all the more noteworthy because they carried on their research and writing as private citizens, devoting their lives and expending their fortunes in the pursuit of knowledge. Not only did they sponsor the translation of numerous Greek works but contributed substantial works of their own. Al-Hasan, one of the sons, was perhaps the foremost geometrician of his time, translating six books of the Elements and working out the remainder of the proofs on his own.
Arabic Words That Entered the Western Vocabulary
The enormous intellectual energy unleashed by the Abbasid dynasty left no field of knowledge and speculation untouched. In addition to mathematics and geometry, Abbasid scholars in the House of Wisdom made important and lasting contributions in astronomy, ethics, mechanics, music, medicine, physics, and philosophy to name a few. In the process men of enormous intellect and productivity rose to prominence. One of these was Thabit ibn Qurra. Recruited from the provinces—where he had worked in obscurity as a money changer—he came to the Bait al-Hikmah to work as a translator. There his exemplary grasp of Syriac, Creek, and Arabic made him invaluable. In addition to his translations of key works, such as Archimedes' Measurement of the Circle (later translated into Latin by Gerard of Cremona in the 12th century), he also wrote over 70 original works on a wide range of subjects. His sons, too, were to found a dynasty of scholars that lasted until the 10th century.
But it wasn't only the pure or abstract sciences that received emphasis in these early years. The practical and technical arts made advances as well, medicine the first among them. Here several great scholars deserve mention. Hunain ibn lshaq not only translated the entire canon of Greek medical works into Arabic—including the Hippocratic oath, obligatory for doctors then as now—but wrote 29 works by his own pen, the most important a collection of ten essays on ophthalmology. The greatest of the 9th century physician-philosophers was perhaps Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi, known to the west as Rhazes. He wrote over 184 books and was an early advocate of experiment and observation in science.
Simultaneously, in far off Spain (al-Andalus), the social and natural sciences were being advanced by men such as Ibn Khaldun, the first historian to explicate the laws governing the rise and fall of civilizations. The brilliant flowering of Islamic science in Andalusia was directly stimulated by the renaissance in Baghdad. Scholars regularly traveled the length of the known world to sit and learn at the feet of a renowned teacher.
With the death of the philosopher al-Farabi in 950 the first and most brilliant period of Islamic scientific thought drew to a close. As the political empire fragmented over the next 300 years, leadership would pass to the provinces, principally Khorasan and Andalusia. Indeed, Spain was to serve as a conduit through which the learning of the ancient world, augmented and transformed by the Islamic experience, was to pass to medieval Europe and the modern world. At the very time that Baghdad fell to the Mongols in 1258, and the Abbasid caliphate came to an end, scribes in Europe were preserving the Muslim scientific tradition. This is why, just as many Greek texts now survive only in Arabic dress, many Arabic scientific works only survive in Latin.
The death of al-Farabi is perhaps a fitting event to mark the end of the golden age of Muslim science. His masterwork, The Perfect City, exemplifies the extent to which Greek culture and science had been successfully and productively assimilated and then impressed with the indelible stamp of Islam. The perfect city, in al-Farabi's view, is founded on moral and ethical principles; from these flow its perfect shape and physical infrastructure. Undoubtedly he had in mind the round city of Baghdad, The City of Peace.
Trade and Commerce as a Cultural Vehicle
Because Arabs historically had a tradition of trade and commerce, the Muslims continued that tradition. It was due to their superiority in navigation, shipbuilding, astronomy, and scientific measuring devices that Arab and Muslim commerce and trade developed and reached so many peoples throughout the world. The Arabs were at the crossroads of the ancient trade routes from the Mediterranean, the Arabian Gulf, East Africa, and the Indian subcontinent, all the way to China.
One of the interesting results of these trading relations occurred during the caliphate of Harun al-Rashid (786-809) when he exchanged envoys and gifts with Charlemagne, the Holy Roman Emperor. As a result, Harun al-Rashid established the Christian Pilgrims' Inn in Jerusalem, fulfilling Umar's pledge to Bishop Sophronious, when he first entered Jerusalem, to allow freedom of religion and access to Jerusalem to Christian religious pilgrims.
A number of Arabic words relating to the trade and commerce have found their way into modern Western languages. (See list of words.) Muslin cotton developed in Mosul (Iraq) became a favorite commodity and a new word in the Western vocabulary, as did damask fabric (from Damascus), fustain cloth (from Fustat, Egypt).
The most interesting accounts of other cultures encountered by Arab Muslims are contained in a book on the travels of Ibn Battutah of Tangier (1304-1377), who over a period of 25 years traveled to Asia Minor, Mongolia, Russia, China, the Maldives, Southeast Asia and Africa and recounted his travels and the influence of early Muslim traders in those regions. He was the precursor of Marco Polo, whose accounts contained detailed descriptions of various cultures with which Arab and Muslims traders had long been in contact. Islamic craftsmanship in bookmaking and bookbinding were items of trade which carried the message of Islamic civilization far and wide.
Architecture and music
The word "Arabesque" entered into the Western lexicon as a description of the intricate design that characterized Arab Muslim art. But the great mosques that were first built throughout the Islamic world were not only places of worship but places of learning which remained as great examples of architecture and design. Through them civilization was transmitted in an artistic environment that was at once intellectually inspiring and emotionally uplifting. The Haram Mosque of Mecca, the Mosque of Al-Aqsa in Jerusalem, the numerous mosques in Cairo—Al-Azhar, Amr, Sultan Hassan, Baybars—the Great Umayyad Mosque of Damascus, the Quairawan in Tunisia, the Blue Mosque in Istanbul, the Cordoba Mosque in Spain and the Kutubiyah in Marakesh are among the most noteworthy. In addition to distinctive architectural characteristics, such as magnificent geometric designs, many of these contain mosaics of rare beauty, frequently painted in the blue and green of the sea, sky, and vegetation. The wood carving (masharabiyah) in most mosques are equally distinctive and characteristic of Islamic art.
At times of prayer, individuals and congregations—indeed the entire Muslim world—face Mecca. The mosque is usually a domed structure with one or more minarets from which the muadhin gives the call to prayer five times a day. The direction of Mecca is clearly indicated by the mihrab, a decorated niche in the wall. The larger mosques have a minbar or pulpit. Since the worshipers should be in a pure state of mind and body before they begin to pray, a fountain is placed in the courtyard for ritual ablutions. Shoes are removed on entering the prayer hall, which is usually carpeted.
For Muslims the mosque is a place for worship and education, a refuge from the cares of the world. Its function is best described in the Prophet's own words, namely that the mosque should be a garden of paradise. Islam's greatest architect was Sinan, a 16th century Ottoman builder who was responsible for the Sulaimaniye mosque in Istanbul. His mosques visibly display the discipline, might, and splendor of Islam.
The most notable examples of masharabiyah are in the Mosque of Ibn Tulun in Cairo, the Blue Mosque in Istanbul, and the Mosque of Isfahan. After the Ka'ba in Mecca, the "Dome of the Rock" or Mosque of Umar in Jerusalem built in 685 is the oldest example of Muslim architectural genius. The technique of dome construction was perfected and passed on to the West. The technique of dome structural support was used in the Capella Palatine in Palermo (1132), while the campaniles or steeples of the Palazza Vecchio of Florence and of San Marco in Venice are inspired by the minaret which was first built in Qairawan, Tunisia (670). Similarly, the horseshoe arch, which was so prevalent in Islamic form and particularly well realized in the Great Mosque of Damascus (707), has since been copied all over the world. Probably the best known example of Islamic architecture is the Alhambra (meaning al-Harnra or the red one) palace built in 1230 in Granada, Spain.
But artistic contributions were not limited to architecture, construction, decoration, painting, mosaic, calligraphy, design, metalcraft and wood carving. They extended to music through the development of new instruments and new techniques of sound and rhythm. The Arab Muslims (al-Farabi in particular) were the first to develop a technique of musical harmony paralleling mathematical science. Arabic-Islamic music was characterized by the harmony of sound and evocative emotional expression. Musiqa is the Arabic word for music.
Islamic Fundamentalism
Many non-Muslims perceive Islamic Fundamentalism as a form of revolutionary ideology and associate it with groups and movements which engage in violent acts or advocate violence. This must be distinguished from Islamic revival which is a peaceful movement calling for the return to basic traditional values and practices. Adherents to and followers of such a movement believe that the best way to achieve the "true path of Islam" is to develop an integrated social and political system based on Islamic ideals and the teachings of the Qur'an and the Sunna. To that extent they are fundamentalists.
Reform ideas which derive from revival movements are not new to the history of Islam, nor do they advocate resorting to violence in order to achieve such a goal except where rebellion against unjust rule is legally justified. Examples of peaceful reform ideas are found in the learned teachings of the 13th century philosopher-scholar Ibn Taymiyya in Syria. In the 18th century the Wahabi reform movement developed in Saudi Arabia and its orthodox teachings continue to the present. Also in the 19th century the ideal of the "true path to justice" or al-salaf al-salih was eloquently propounded by Sheik Muhammad Abduh in Egypt, and his views continue to be studied by religious and secular scholars all over the world. These and other reform ideas have in common the search for Islamic truth and justice and their applicability to the solutions to Muslim societies' problems.
Because Islam is a holistic religion integrating all aspects of life, it follows that a reform movement predicated on religion necessarily confronts the social, economic, and political realities of the society in which it develops. Muslim societies, however, have emerged from colonialism and neo-colonialism and are seeking to develop free from certain western influences which may corrupt or subvert basic Islamic values. Furthermore in Islam there is no division or distinction between what in the West is called "Church and State". In fact westerners refer to the Islamic form of government as a theocracy. Thus contemporary political-religious groups focus on social, political, and economic aspects of Muslim societies. They oppose the secular state and instead call for the establishment of a "Muslim State".
A distinction must be made between Islamic reform and Islamic political activism conducted under the banner of Islam. The latter is sometimes characterized by extremism, fanaticism, and violence, which are contrary to Islamic precepts. But these manifestations of a socio-political nature must not be confused with the ideals and values of Islam.
Enlightened reform ideas continue to develop in the Muslim world. Institutions like Al-Azhar University in Cairo, which is the oldest university in the world, the Muslim World League in Mecca, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference headquartered in Jeddah are the examples of the contemporary, intellectual, educational, and diplomatic forces in the resurgence of Islam. The contributions they make toward a better understanding of Islam, as well as its peaceful propagation, are free from extremism and violence.
The resurgence of Islam is flourishing in every part of the world and dedicated Muslims are trying hard to meet the challenges of modern times while remaining faithful to the values of their past. This is enlightened Islamic Fundamentalism. Its continuation and growth are ongoing. But since all mass movements carry the risk of excess, extremism by some is likely to occur at times. However, one should not judge the higher values shared by the many on the basis of the extreme deeds committed by the few.

Maqam is from greek

About Maqams

The classical music traditions of Turkish, Arabic and Western music are all based on the same musical theories of scale building credited to the ancient Greek Pythagoras.Over the centuries the three traditions followed a separate path of development, each of which is now recognized as a form of high art, but each with a distinct musical 'dialect.'

By the time of J.S. Bach, Western classical music had developed into a system of tuning known as equal temperament, where the musical octave is divided into 12 equally spaced half-tones. These tones are easily visible on any piano or fretted guitar. Equal temperament enables Western composers to create works using complex harmonies and polyphony.

Arabic classical music went through an important period of early development during the 9th through the 12th centuries when the Arabs ruled large parts of the Middle East, North Africa and southern Europe. Arabic scholars made significant contributions in studying and interpreting the works of the ancient Greeks; the Arabic system of modes known as maqamat came out of these early studies. In Arabic maqamat, the octave is divided into 24 equally spaced quarter-tones. Classical Arabic composers show skill in the development of these quarter-tones not through harmony or polyphony (as in the West), but through melody. To Western ears trained in 12 tone equal temperament, these quarter-tones can sound odd at first and are sometimes referred to as micro-tones.
While Turkish classical music went through a parallel period of early development with the Arabs, the high point in the development of the Turkish classical style is during the Ottoman Empire period from the 15th through the 20th centuries. In Turkish makams, the octave is not divided equally, but proportionally using whole-tones, half-tones, quarter-tones and even smaller tones. In theory, there are 24 tones in the Turkish octave, however in practice there are probably 31 and perhaps more. Like Arabic composers, Turkish classical composers show skill in the melodic development of makams through melody. Turkish makams closely reflect Pythagorean thinking in the use of proportional tuning. The eighth-tone is equal to 1 Pythagorean Comma (approximately 23 cents), which plays a crucial role in micro-tonal pitch development within any mode. The Yeni Makam Series of composer Edward J. Hines is a series of chamber works which synthesize Western compositional technique with the ancient theory of both Turkish makams and Arabic maqamat. To accomplish this objective, in Yeni Makam the whole tone (200 cents) is divided into half tones (100 cents) and quarter-tones (50 cents). The quarter-tone is then divided again, this time into eighth-tones (25 cents). The eighth-tone is only a 2 cent difference from an authentic Pythagorean comma (23 cents) which is imperceptible to the ear. In this way, a single musical composition can explore whole-tones, half-tones, quarter-tones and eight-tones which are now common to all three musical traditions.

gyros is greek food


Though grilling meat stacked on a skewer has ancient roots in the Eastern Mediterranean with evidence from the Mycenaean Greek and Minoan periods,[5][6][7] grilling a vertical spit of stacked meat slices and cutting it off as it cooks was developed in the 19th century in Ottoman Bursa.[8]
Unlike tacos, gyros form part of the sandwich family and are differentiated from other hand-held semi-folded foods by their complete over-wrap but unsecured lower flap.[9]

kebab is greek food

Excavations held in Akrotiri on the Greek island of Santorini by professor Christos G. Doumas, unearthed firedogs (stone sets of barbecue for skewers; Greek: κρατευταί - krateutai[10]) used before the 17th century BCE. In each pair of the supports, the receptions for the spits are found in absolute equivalence, while the line of small openings in the base formed a mechanism to supply the coals with oxygen so that they remained alight during its use.[2][3] Mycenaean Greeks used portable trays to grill souvlaki, small pieces of meat and sometimes vegetables grilled on a skewer. These souvlaki trays were rectangular ceramic pans that sat underneath skewers of meat but it's not clear whether these trays would have been placed directly over a fire or if the pans would have held hot coals like a portable barbecue pit.[4][11] The skewered meat, kebab-like recipe, existed as a favorite also in Archaic Greece, referenced in Homer.[5][12][13] In Classical Greece souvlaki was known with the name ὀβελίσκος (obeliskos),[14] dim. of ὀβελός (obelos), "spit",[15] mentioned amongst others in the works of Aristophanes,[16] Xenophon,[17] Aristotle,[18] etc. A meat and bread recipe which resembles the way pita souvlaki is served today, with pita bread was also attested by Athenaeus in Deipnosophistae and called the plate kandaulos.
According to Sevan Nişanyan, an etymologist of the Turkish language, the word kebab is derived from the Persian word "kabap" meaning "fry". The word was first mentioned in a Turkish script of Kyssa-i Yusuf in 1377, which is the oldest known source where kebab is mentioned as a food. However, he emphasizes that the word has the equivalent meaning of "frying/burning" with "kabābu" in the old Akkadian language, and "kbabā/כבבא" in Syriac language.[19] Tradition has it that the dish was invented by medieval [20][21] Persian[22] soldiers who used their swords to grill meat over open-field fires. Kebab was served in the royal houses during various Islamic Empires and even commoners would enjoy it for breakfast with naan or pita.[23]

arabs learn music from greece

Condescending attitude toward ancient Greece[edit]

There it multiple times where the author(s) make condescending remarks, especially toward ancient Greek society, asserting that Arab systems are superior, below I will list a few examples.
"Arabs translated and developed Greek texts and works of music and mastered the musical theory of the Greeks"
"Mastered" is a strong word, perhaps "learned" or "expanded upon", "mastered" is condescending, a word that expresses more of a cultural harmony rather than superiority should be preferred.
"He surpassed the achievement of the Greek musicians in using the alphabetical annotation for one eighth"
Again the author(s) is trying to show they are superior to the Greeks, perhaps they the author is prejudice against Greek culture?
"the Arabic system is more complex than that of the Ancient Greek harmoniai"
This is vague, what exactly does "more complex" mean? Also it is irrelevant, the article goes on to explain the Arabic music system, that is the important information, not whether or not who's better or "more complex" at music.
The article needs to be rewritten to be more informative about Arabic music, indeed that is what I want to learn about, not hear about someones bias against Ancient Greece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BookishRogue (talkcontribs) 22:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Saturday, January 17, 2015

arab copied greek music

You certainly don't know the history of Anatolia. Before Alexander the Great, it was a mix of peoples with various languages and cultures, including Greek colonists on shores. After was transformed in a Hellenistic state, was Hellenized, Greek language became the most used. Different from other Hellenistic states and regions that preserved their original language (Egypt, Syria, Judea etc), Anatolia fully adopted Greek language, with some exceptions, like the Armenians, the Celts (Galatians) in their first period etc. In fact, it always was a region in demographic change, many peoples migrating and settling here, or leaving, especially during the Byzantine and Turkish empires. Byzantines colonized many Slavs, Armenians and other peoples, Turks too brought many Balkan peoples, Arabs etc. And Turkification (adoption of Turkish language) was a slow process, perhaps in 15th century as much as half of population was still Christian and Greek speaking if no more, as it happened earlier in the territories conquered by Arabs (Syria, Egypt etc) which remained majoritary Christian until quite late, perhaps 12th century.

The today Turks are in small percentage descendants of Altai Turks, who were a Mongoloid looking people. Altai Mountains, the ancestral homeland of Turkic peoples, is where Mongolia, China, Kazakhstan and Russia meet and the people there is East Asian looking. And in early Turkish manuscripts, they depict themselves as Mongoloids, because the aristocracy didn't mingled with the common people some centuries.

Today Turks, as genetic studies shown, are more closely related with the Balkan populations than to the Central Asian populations:
Genetic history of the Turkish people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Culturally, the Turks have adopted the superior culture of the Byzantine (Anatolian) civilization, including the music style. If you heard Byzantine (Eastern Christian, Orthodox) liturgical music, you will observe that the Islamic music is an offspring of it and similarly, laical Turkish music was an offspring of laical Byzantine music. Byzantine music, which is a canonic set of chants that are sang or read at several services over a liturgical day, was wrriten before the Ottoman conquest, in fact some of the chants as are old as 4th (not 14th) century and most was written perhaps before the year 1000:

To me, ( even though if I am unfamiliar with the sound of ancient Greek music) the sound of harp which is often portrayed on Greek drawings simply can't be anything like Central Asian instruments (that's where originally Turkish tribes came from.) And if to take in consideration that when Turks conquered Byzantium and took over Constantinople ( that's present day Istanbul in Asia Minor) they were already Islamic force, which made their culture ( music including) quite distinctively reminiscent of Arabic music.
Ofcourse Greek music from Antiquity differed from later periods. The advent of Christianity, which was a capital change in old world society (and lead to the transition from slavery to feudalism among others), has much had influenced the mentalities and as result the music. Byzantine society was extremely religious (even in the days before the Fall of Constantinople, they were debating religious dogma which seemed for them more important than the end of their civilisation). The religion was present in many if not most manifestations of their life and in fact, the great majority of artefacts, textes and buildings from the Byzantine period that survived to us are religious artefacts, textes and buildings. An this religiousness no doubt influenced the style not only of church music, but of laical music, the way we see a closeness between Islamic religious music and laical music of Islamic NE peoples.

Most of what you know as Arab music was created (as a style) during the Ottoman rule over the Arab world:

In fact, Arab music (what is usually know as that) is mostly Turkish music, not the other way around. The pre-Ottoman Arab music was different than the today one.

Central Asian music too, is different from Turkish music:

You need to only listen to "Sirtaki" (in connection with it) which everyone recognizes as "typical" Greek music to figure out that "Turkish" tune it is not.
Sirtaki is not representative for Greek music, which as I said, is similar to Turkish music but with poorer modulations.
Look a dance and song of Pontian Greeks, which are Greeks from the region on southern coast of Black Sea, that now are mostly in Greece, being descendants of the Greeks relocated from Turkey in 1923:

As you can see (if you are informed about that), the sounds are similar with the music of Balkan peoples (Croatians and Romanians excluded):

Albanian Dance:

arabs copied greek music

Ottoman and turkish music borrowed a lot from byzantine music.The byzantine music didn't survived much in Greece though,it was rebrought in greece by 20th century minor asian refugees.

arab copied greek music

Petros Houhoulis
Petros Houhoulis non è connesso Don't mess with me, I'm old bones. Petros Houhoulis's Avatar

Join Date
Feb 2012
Last Online
Yesterday @ 11:04 AM
Various Cruise ships, Also Agio Pnevma, Serres, Macedonia, Greece.
Greek with a whiff of Bulgarian
A typical Balkan bastard
Strictly Rational.
Θαλής ο Μιλήσιος
Freedom with responsibitities.
Thumbs Up/Down
Received: 3,092/1,276
Given: 4,678/3,293

Just for the record, modern Greek music has stolen from both Arabian and Indian music for many decades now (yes, they were importing and listening and then copying songs straight from India and Arabia without to bother about royalties and the like) but this is still one of the many styles of modern "Greek" music. Greece has many different music styles, differing substantially from region to region, with the Epirotans having Celtic-like music and the Aegeans having their own distinct style, and of course we have exchanges of music for millenia (a lot of that Arabic style music was produced independently from Greek composers in Turkey during the Ottoman times, hence the association with Turkey) and it is a never ending cycle...

greek music spread to arab comment

Spartan Angel1년 전
Muhammad Ramadan님에게 답장

well I guess all muslims are copying Arabic music and love it, now I see those spanish women with their salsa, start to belly dance. See Greek music has spread all over from east to west, and all Eastern music is the central attraction!!!!!!!! yalla opaaaaaaaaaa

arabs are the direct inheritor of greek civillization not europeans


Um... It is common knowledge that Ancient and Classical Greece were made up of city-states... Shouldn't that be mentioned in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
A quick search turns up 22 mentions of city-states already in the article. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
who where greek people where they come from.are they living in part of grees from the beging of talk about the origion of greek.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC) 
I think when it's mentioned how Classical Greece had an impact on the Roman Empire, maybe give a couple of examples in the introduction.--Bpio075 (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Greeks and Science[edit]

The main article currently states:
"However, it must be noted that the 'scientific' (as it would now be called) views of some the most influential Greek philosophers, particularly Aristotle, were often completely wrong. Nevertheless, such was their general authority that later on, particularly in the medieval and renaissance periods, these views were accepted uncritically as 'fact'.[18] This made it very difficult for dissenting (and correct) theories to be accepted; amongst others Copernicus and Galileo were victims of this effect.[18] Thus some Greek philosophy had the unintentional effect of hindering scientific research for over 1,000 years.[18]"
. . .and the above paragraph sites only one source. Really, the Greeks sets back science 1,000 years? Simply because their early theories proved wrong? In my humble opinion, this is a stretch, and belongs in a discussion, and not the main page.
Anyway, it's on whole a good article. Thanks. Cutugno (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Cutugno
Hmmm, that paragraph doesn't really read well on the whole. I added it (in a hurry) to try and provide some balance to the section. The point is not that the Greeks set science back 1,000 years, but that scientists 2,000 years later set themselves back by refusing to believe that Aristotle et al could be wrong; or in some cases the Catholic church told them that they were not allowed to prove Aristotle et al wrong (e.g. Galileo). It was excessive respect for these philosophers, rather than the philosophers themselves that was the problem.
Whilst I don't think that this is a controversial point, it's true that the paragraph in question does not put across the point properly. Sadly, I can't make any changes at the minute because the article is protected, but any administrators out there are welcome to give it a go! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with the original comment on this topic. It has to do with the systematic manner in which Europeans have tried to efface the influence of Islamic civilization on the European Renaissance (much the way Nazi Germany tried to discredit the contribution of Jewish scientists). Islamic science has a closer relation to modern science than the greeks ever did. For example, Abul Hassan's invention of the telescope mirrors Galileos work much later. Nicholas Copernicus actually USED the trigonometric results of Ibn Shatir which themselves indicated that the solar system was heliocentric. The 'scientific method' created by the Arab scholars formed the cornerstone of the future of modern science as opposed to the rational logic of Aristotle. Deduction which was intrinsic to Greek philosophy had a tendency to hold back science while Islamic science used the inductive approach engendered by the 'scientific method'. Empiricism is thus a far more potent force in inquiry.
Sources for Greek rationality vs Islamic Scientific Method and how the latter has far greater importance in modern science: Robert Briffault (1928). The Making of Humanity, p. 191. G. Allen & Unwin Ltd.
Ibn Khaldun's, father of of the Social Sciences and his use of the scientific method in the social sciences: Franz Rosenthal, N. J. Dawood (1967), The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History. Princeton University Press, ISBN 0691017549. Will Durant (1980). The Age of Faith (The Story of Civilization, Volume 4), p. 162-186. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0671012002.

Robert Briffault in 'The Making of Humanity' states this: "The debt of our science to that of the Arabs does not consist in startling discoveries or revolutionary theories; science owes a great deal more to Arab culture, it owes its existence. The ancient world was, as we saw, pre- scientific. The astronomy and mathematics of the Greeks were a foreign importation never thoroughly acclimatized in Greek culture. The Greeks systematized, generalized and theorized, but the patient ways of investigation, the accumulation of positive knowledge, the minute methods of science, detailed and prolonged observation, experimental inquiry, were altogether alien to the Greek temperament... What we call science arose in Europe as a result of a new spirit of inquiry, of new methods of investigation, of the method of experiment, observation, measurement, of the development of mathematics in a form unknown to the Greeks. That spirit and those methods were introduced into the European world by the Arabs."
I think this evidence gives enough reason to exercise caution when overemphasising the hand that Greek science had in the European renaissance and the global Scientific Revolution taking place today. Scholarship easily disputes this as there is a great discontinuity between Greek learning and modern science. It is closer to Islamic science than it is to what the Greeks established. The Executor (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Intro edits regarding what came from whom[edit]

I made some edits to the intro which RJC modified a little. I, respectfully, disagree with these modifications so I think some discussion is in order.
Certainly since the latter parts of the Renaissance it has been common for Western Europe and the cultures that derive from it (the Americas, Australia, etc.) to feel "ownership" of Ancient Greece and to feel that we are the unique cultural decendants of that civilization. One can see a parallel to this thinking in the Protestant Christian philosophy that God's covenant passed from the Jews to Roman Empire to the Roman Catholic Church to the Protestant churches as the "true" believers. The theory of a unique connection between Western Europe and Ancient Greece, however, is a myth invented to mangify the self image of Western Europe at a time when the civilized world had recently seen them as backward barbarians.
If we trace the influence of Ancient Greek culture we can summarize it in this way.
  • Ancient Greece was conquered by the Macedonians and then, under Alexander the Great, Greek culture was spread through most of the Mediterranean (in particular most of the civilized areas of the region) and eastward all of the way to India.
  • Greek became the primary language of scholarship not only in the Mediterranean but throughout Southwest Asia and even to a degree in South Asia. All of these cultures would derive a great deal directly from the Greeks.
  • The Romans conquered the Western fragment of the western Macedonian empire which by then had fragmented. Still the Persian portion of Alexander's empire used the Greek language substantially although the Persian language was beginning to assert itself.
  • The Romans were already partly Hellenized even before the expansion but shortly after they conquered the eastern Mediterranean Greek became the main scholarly language throughout the Empire (in the 4th and 5th centuries the western provinces began to switch back to Latin but since they crumbled so soon after than it makes no real difference). The Romans fused the inheritance of ancient Greece into their own culture. But they were not the unique inheritors of that culture.
  • Italy and the West crumbled in the 5th and 6th centuries under the onslaught of Germanic invasions and almost all scholarship or high culture died there. The Roman (Byzantine) Empire in the East, however, continued and maintained Roman culture (including the inheritances of Ancient Greece). In the West the church, still tied, to Constantinople was essentially the only part of the west that maintained any connection to the intellectual traditions of Greece and Rome and, even then, not to any great degree. Excepting the traditions of the commoners and the Latin language the West lost almost all connection to the Romans and the Greeks (including the fact that all knowledge of ancient Greek was lost in the West). Western Europe became more Germanic than Roman or Greek.
  • In the 8th century the Arabs conquered the majority of what was left of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire in the East. Much of the territories they conquered (Egypt, Syria, etc.) were major intellectual centers of the Empire and so they then fused the Roman and Greek cultures into their own. The also conquered Persia, itself a major inheritor of Greek knowledge and culture.
  • Building on this inheritance the Muslims rapidly created their own Golden Age in which they expanded on the intellectual accomplishments of the Greeks and the Romans. They and the eastern Romans/Byzantines were the major cultural inheritors of the Greeks.
  • During the late Middle Ages Western Europe redeveloped and Western scholars traveled the Muslim world studying at Muslim universities. In addition to learning the latest accomplishments in art and science they also became aquainted with the history of Ancient Greece.
  • As the Roman/Byzantine Empire and the Muslim world declined scholars immigrated to Western Europe helping to fuel the Renaissance. Attempting to assert their own sense of entitlement Western Europeans tended to trace their own scholarly history to Rome and Greece through the Church ignoring the millenium in which Constantinople and the Muslim world had been the intellectual leaders and the fact that those cultures had taught the Europeans most of they knew.
The point of all of this is to say that Western Europe cannot be legimately considered the only major inheritor of Ancient Greek culture. At most it could be considered one of the primary inheritors of that culture although even that could be argued as being gratuitous. We like to point out the fact that so many Greek words are part of the Western European languages but that is mostly not because of an inheritance from Ancient Greece but rather because Renaissance and modern scholars chose to incorporate Greek into our languages. And note that most of what they incorporated was not Ancient Greek but Medieval/Byzantine Greek (e.g. the names of the letters Alpha, Beta, etc. are Medieval Greek, not Ancient Greek).
I'd like to change the intro back to clearly avoid trying to emphasize Western Europe at the expense of other cultures.
--Mcorazao (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
These are all arguments regarding the truth of the matter, while WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V emphasize what has been stated in reliable sources. If there is this misconception, as Mcorazao urges, Wikipedia is not the place to correct it. RJC TalkContribs 18:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Mcorazao on what he's saying, but I also have to agree with RJC that something like that needs to be reliably sourced before the article can be changed. --Athenean (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Folks, thanks for the feedback. A couple of points:
  • I don't disagree with what you have specifically stated but, with respect, what is implied is hypocritical. The Euro-centric statements have not been sourced so it makes no sense to imply that my edits are less valid.
  • The edits I made are very neutral statements that do not emphasize one culture over another. RJC's version, by contrast, very specifically emphasizes a Euro-centric bias.
The point is that, if there is debate about whether a certain bias is appropriate, we should stick with a more neutral viewpoint until the bias can be reasonably substantiated (by authoritative references and consensus among the authors). The fact that a bias tends to be a common perception is not the same as scholarly consensus. I don't think there is any debate that the Ancient Greeks substantially influenced all of the cultures around the Mediterranean and in Europe. The only debate here is whether there is a legitimate basis to claim one culture has more of a claim to this legacy.
I would request that we revert to more neutral wording until a basis for more the cultural bias can be established. I'll look for a authoritative references that makes the major points I've stated succintly.
--Mcorazao (talk) 04:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Mcorazao's point is that Ancient Greek influence is present both in the western Renaissance and in the Islamic Golden Age. I do not think this is disputed, so let's just state it in these terms.
I do not see any Eurocentric bias. It is a little silly to say an article on Ancient Greece is "Eurocentric" seeing that Greece itself is in Europe, and indeed is at the root of the very definition of Europe (vs. Africa and Asia). The very notion of "Europe" is derived from Ancient Greece.
The Western (European) civilization grew out of a combination of Greek, Latin and Germanic roots, with some Arabic ("Moorish") admixture. The Islamic civilization grew out of Arab, Persian and Turco-Mongol roots, with some admixture of Greek (Byzantine) influences. It is perfectly fair to give Ancient Greece credit for its foundational role in Western civilization, but it is important not to overstate this connection. It is unwise to base any argument on a reflex to eliminate "Eurocentric bias". It is just as easy to argue that it is Eurocentric bias to emphasize the European (Greek) influence on Islamic culture.
Be that as it may, this is the article on Ancient Greece itself, and not on the cultural legacy of Ancient Greece, and discussing these questions in the WP:LEAD is inappropriate. If Mcorazao can present some scholarly source backing up his point, let him discuss it under a "legacy" section, but not in the lead. --dab (𒁳) 19:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Stating that Greek civilization "inspired" the Islamic Golden Age is plain wrong. Especially stating it in WP:LEAD is inappropriate. While the Islamic civilization did study Greek science and adopt much of it, almost anyone with a knowledge of science and its history knows that the most notable aspect of the Islamic civilization was it's creation and use of the 'Scientific Method' (inspiration for this taken from their religious text: the Quran). The older Greek system of inquiry was reductionist in nature and emphasized use of deduction rather than induction. The cornerstone of modern science is also this inductive (i.e. the 'Scientific Method') approach rather than the outmoded Greek system. If this article is going to preserve any historical accuracy, then this term "inspired" should be taken out. If you must have it in the lead then at least change it to, say, 'influenced', which would be more accurate. 'Inspired' is too strong a term for the relationship that the Greek science had with Islamic civilization. Furthermore, modern scholarship has shown how Europeans have tried to efface the influence of Islamic civilization (through Al-Andalus in ancient Spain) on Europe and its subsequent renaissance. But the cornerstone of the Scientific Revolution was in fact the 'Scientific Method' developed by the Saracens, rather than deduction and rational logic propagated by the Greeks. The Executor (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Dbachmann, I am disturbed that we cannot be more objective about this. First, let's be clear. All I said was that the lead should not be stating that Western Europe has more claim to the legacy of Ancient Greece than other cultures around the Med. That's it. I said the lead should be LESS BIASED. You guys are deliberately trying to put words in my mouth as an excuse to keep the wording biased toward Western Europe.
Anyway, to respond to some specific points:
  • "Eurocentric ...seeing that Greece itself is in Europe" - This is a strawman argument being deliberately over-literal with the wording. The term "eurocentric" is commonly used to refer to Western Europe (although depending on the context it is sometimes used to mean all of Europe). I think what I meant was fairly obvious so I cannot find a way to take this as a serious comment.
  • "Western (European) civilization grew out of ..." - This is a misinterpretation of history as I described above. People like to believe that cultures have walls between them and when studying the roots of a culture you simply have to look at which side of the wall the culture was on. This is false. In the Ancient Greek period the Greeks contact with a lot of cultures but had far more interaction with cultures of the Eastern Med and Persia than most of Western/Northern Europe. Italy did have some major Greek colonies but that was mostly as far west as it went. When Alexander the Great spread Greek culture around he spread it eastward and southward not westward or northward. It was not until the Roman Empire that Greek culture finally made major inroads into most of Western Europe. Even then Greek culture was still more firmly established in what we now call the Middle East, Greece, Turkey, and Iran (although in Iran the Persian language gradually reasserted itself over the Greek language). But after the Goths overran Western Europe virtually all of Roman and Greek culture died there and Western Europe did not reacquire most of that until the Renaissance. When the Arabs overran the Eastern Roman Empire they did not destroy the Greek culture there but simply absorbed it, although the Greek-speaking scholars in those lands gradually switched to using Arabic. Western Europe gained its knowledge of Ancient Greece from the Muslims as well as the Greek-speaking "Byzantines". But bear in mind that even the "Byzantines" (re-)gained a great deal of their knowledge of Ancient Greece from the Muslims (ironically translating some Greek works back from Arabic).
  • "that Greek civilization "inspired" the Islamic Golden Age is plain wrong" - Although I agree with most of your details I think your thesis is unfair. It is rather like arguing that Einstein was not inspired by Newton because he approached things from a radically different perspective (Einstein himself would profoundly disagree). The Muslims went through a LOT of trouble to translate the Ancient Greek texts and quoted heavily from them. Many of their works were in fact commentaries on the Ancient Greek works (a pattern that Western Europe would later follow). Certainly by the Islamic era philosophy had evolved substantially from the Ancient Greek era but saying that they were not inspired by the Greeks when they so clearly admired and quoted them does not make a lot of sense.
BTW, what seems to be implied in a lot of what is being said here is that Greece is part of "Western Europe". This association is a modern convention born out the 19th century Greek revolution (the Greeks used Western assistance to gain independence from the Ottomans by portraying themselves as Westerners). In reality, the modern Greeks are culturally mixed descendants of the Eastern Romans (Byzantines) and the Turks. Their culture has more in common with Eastern cultures (including the Muslim world) than Western cultures and the very concept of "East" and "West" came from the distinction between the Latin-speaking Roman provinces in the West and the Greek-speaking Roman provinces in the East.
In terms of scholarly references here are a few quick ones:
  • "Paths from ancient Greece " by Carol G. Thomas - The chapter Hellenism in Islam talks a great deal about the fact that much of early Islamic culture and philosophy was essentially adaptations of Ancient Greek philosophy and culture.
  • "Islamic science and the making of the European Renaissance " by George Saliba - The book starts by critiquing the notion that the Muslims simply translated a few Greek works and did little more. It discusses the direct influences of Greek thinking in Islamic philosophy and then how these later help generate the Western Renaissance.
  • "Greek thought, Arabic culture" by Dimitri Gutas - The chapter The Background of the Translation Movement talks about how Greek-speakers and Greek scholars were part of the near East, some having been there before the Roman period and some coming there during the Roman period to escape religious persecution. That is, it talks about the fact that the Arabic translation movement was in large part translation of culture and literature that was already a part of the culture in these lands.
  • "Theology and modern physics" by Peter Edward Hodgson - The Introduction itself has some good commentary on how science developed passing the Greek legacy from Greece to the Muslims and then to Western Europe.
--Mcorazao (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Folks, this discussion has sat silent for a while and nobody has provided a plausible reason for the bias toward Europe. In the absence of a reason for bias I am asserting that we need to revert to more neutrality for the sake of NPOV. The questions raised in the rest of this discussion can be raised as appropriate in other sections of the article.
--Mcorazao (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Everyone who has taken part in this discussion has said that you need to support your edits with references; saying that this amounts to there being no plausible reason for the article as it stands does not accord with WP:CONSENSUS. RJC TalkContribs 15:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Nobody claimed that "Western Europe has more claim to the legacy of Ancient Greece than other cultures around the Med". Or have you ever heard anyone claim that Western Europe is any more Greek than Greece itself. The claim is simply that Europe, including Greece and Eastern Europe, has more claim to the legacy of Ancient Greece than the Near East. Which as far as I know is pretty much stating the obvious. Nobody disputes that Greek culture exerted influence as far east as India. Only, that influence remained comparatively limited compared to the lasting influence it had in Europe, particularly Eastern Europe and Orthodox Christianity. If Mcorazao is going to continue to claim that this is misstating things, he would better begin to present credible sources to the effect. Just presenting sources saying that Muslim science was influenced by Greek authors is futile, since nobody ever claimed this wasn't the case. The topic of "Hellenism and Islam" as such would be rather interesting, but hardly suited for this article. --dab (𒁳) 17:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"...That influence remained comparatively limited compared to the lasting influence it had in Europe, particularly Eastern Europe and Orthodox Christianity" -- I think Dab's hit the nail on the head without realizing the implications, in the sense that that is what the other user is arguing. Ancient Greece's influence to Western Europe development tends to be over emphasized. Ancient Greece has had a bigger influence in Eastern Europe and the Orthodox church then on where is commonly identified as "Western Europe".
I would agree with Mcorzao, in as much as we should try to drop lines in the lead that look more like advertising campaigns for the said countries.Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) pythagoras and many more philosophers said helliocentric so why are galilao and coppernicus still in our history books. by the way they knew each other and were friends and stole the greeks ideas. theres alot of antihellenism going on in these so called facts of history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbobcoolman (talkcontribs) 18:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I would like to make a different point about the intro: the current second paragraph makes it sound like Ancient Greek civilization only had an impact on the world indirectly, due to its influence on Roman civilization. Isn't this viewpoint a tid bit narrow? (I won't say Euro-centric, as a previous commentator, but definitely Roman-centric). First of all, Greek culture influenced many more Mediterranean cultures (and beyond) other than and independently of the Romans. Secondly, I don't understand the emphasis that the intro puts on "particularly Greek philosophy". What about the arts (visual and literary), mathematics and science (related perhaps, but not identical to philosophy, even by ancient understandings of philosophy), material culture and language? (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy?[edit]

What is the wikipedia policy concerning dates they are listed as BCE and CE shouldn't that be BC and AD? Ghtoy (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually I thought the wikipedia policy was to use BCE / CE format and not BC / AD. Rjfranco (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
It's neither. WP:ERA isn't policy, but it says to be consistent and use whichever was used first. RJC TalkContribs 03:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
whole lot of antihellenism going on here in an attemt to rewrite history  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbobcoolman (talkcontribs) 19:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC) 

Revisiting Western bias[edit]

I've been checked out from this article for a while. The Western bias in the lead persists. I'm placing the "globalize" template on the article for now. My original concerns still stand. It should also be pointed out that Greek was the official language of Persia and other regions of Asia for a long time after the demise of the Macedonian Empire. In reality when we talk about the legacy of Ancient Greece we cannot even just talk about the Mediterranean.
Anyway, we can hope there is room for some consensus this time around.
--Mcorazao (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Since the consensus when this was last discussed was that the article is not euro-centric, I will remove the template. If you wish to rehash this in the hopes that old users have drifted away and that new ones have come in, you might wish to briefly restate your points rather than asking readers to wade through that discussion. My objection was that you were making truth claims, rather than pointing to reliable sources that could verify substantial support for the position such that it was not original research. That objection still stands. RJC TalkContribs 21:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
RJC, there was not a previous consensus. That was why there was no change (in fact, shortly before that discussion the lead had become a little more West-centric than it was last year). I had previously offered some references which you dismissed without discussion.
I didn't want to get into a cat fight then and I don't now. If there is some willingness to have a real discussion then that would be great. That was not the case previously. I had hoped in the interim to have seen a change happen and it didn't. So the objection stands for now. --Mcorazao (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
P.S. For convenience, here's a cut-and-paste of the references I previously dotted off.
  • "Paths from ancient Greece " by Carol G. Thomas - The chapter Hellenism in Islam talks a great deal about the fact that much of early Islamic culture and philosophy was essentially adaptations of Ancient Greek philosophy and culture.
  • "Islamic science and the making of the European Renaissance " by George Saliba - The book starts by critiquing the notion that the Muslims simply translated a few Greek works and did little more. It discusses the direct influences of Greek thinking in Islamic philosophy and then how these later help generate the Western Renaissance.
  • "Greek thought, Arabic culture" by Dimitri Gutas - The chapter The Background of the Translation Movement talks about how Greek-speakers and Greek scholars were part of the near East, some having been there before the Roman period and some coming there during the Roman period to escape religious persecution. That is, it talks about the fact that the Arabic translation movement was in large part translation of culture and literature that was already a part of the culture in these lands.
  • "Theology and modern physics" by Peter Edward Hodgson - The Introduction itself has some good commentary on how science developed passing the Greek legacy from Greece to the Muslims and then to Western Europe.
This was just a quick sampling, of course. --Mcorazao (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The question last year was not whether the Greeks exhibited some influence upon some aspects of non-Western societies, but whether that influence was on a par with that exercised over Western societies. No literate person can deny that Greek philosophy had a profound impact upon medieval Islamic philosophy. Yet sources attesting to this do not establish the larger point that Greek philosophy played a central role in the medieval Islamic world, let alone the even greater point that it continues to do so to this day. You could even say that the Western world was decisively influenced by the medieval Islamic world and that the primary influence of the Greeks upon the West came through Islam, but this is again not the same as saying that Greek thought influenced non-Western thought in the same way that it has Western thought. RJC TalkContribs 23:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I am supposed to respond. First of all, are you suggesting that the Islamic world was affected enough by Greek thought to have passed it on to the West and then just forgot that influence? Second are you suggesting that the West carefully picked up Greek influence from the Muslims but mostly avoided other influences to such a degree that we can say our culture uniquely inherited from the Greeks more than it inherited from anything else the Muslim nations gave us? That's pretty far-fetched.
The point is that if you are going to make such far-reaching claims they really have to be backed up by references that demonstrate a scholarly consensus around this idea (said consensus does not exist, though). I am simply suggesting that we not attempt to make such claims and simply acknowledge that the Greeks influenced a very large part of the world. There is nothing controversial about that. The difference between our part of the world and some of the others is that, as a society, the West takes a great deal of pride in its influence from the Greeks whereas many other parts of the world have downplayed this influence for sociopolitical reasons (a lot having to do with the politics of the Renaissance and the modern era). --Mcorazao (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I am not going to argue the truth with you (although, yes, al-Ghazali is credited with having exposed the incompatibility between Greek and Islamic thought, which put a damper on Greek influence). If other parts of the world have downplayed the influence the Greeks had on their civilization, I presume this means that there are fewer modern sources attesting to that influence. Finding a source that the Greeks influenced the West in profound and even foundational ways is a fool's errand. In any case, you are not suggesting that we remove the statement that they influenced the West, but rather that we add a statement that they influenced others. By your own argument, such a source will be difficult to come by. As I said above, your sources do not add up to that statement. The consensus was against this template. Unless someone speaks up on its behalf, I will presume that it remains against that template. RJC TalkContribs 14:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
As I say, I'm not going to get into a cat fight. I've offered evidence which you refuse to discuss.
But please stop vandalizing. You are free to disagree with me but that is not a license to violate policy. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
For the record, if anyone else out there would actually like to have a discussion about this please feel free to comment. --Mcorazao (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
For the record, flagrant misuse of vandalism templates in an editing dispute [1] is tendentious at best. No one else shares your concerns, while several editors are on record from the last time you pushed this nonsense against there being a need for a change to the lede. RJC TalkContribs 17:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request (Whether or not the {{Globalize}} template is appropriate):
I intend to provide my opinion on whether or not this article suffers from systemic bias and needs to be tagged for cleanup with the {{globalize}} template. I do not intend to (and frankly, don't feel capable of) providing an opinion on the content dispute regarding the extent to which Ancient Greece affected the culture of Western Europe.
The {{globalize}} template is for articles that suffer from systemic bias. Systemic bias is characterized by geographically imbalanced coverage of a topic (i.e. that the article does not "represent a worldwide view of the subject"). A simplistic example: if the article on the Telephone only discussed how phones work in America, with no discussion on how they work in other parts of the world. That would be systemic bias. In my opinion, this article does not suffer from systemic bias because there is not a perspective that is missing from the article. What we have here is simply a content dispute (on which, again, I don't plan on commenting). Some editor(s) believe that the lead gives undue weight to the influence of Ancient Greece on Western Europe. Other editor(s) disagree. So, the article is discussing the content from a global perspective. The question is whether or not the content of that discussion is correct, not if the discussion is entirely missing from the article. Therefore, my opinion is that the {{globalize}} template should be removed from the article, and civil discussions regarding the content dispute should continue until a consensus is reached (assuming that hasn't happened already). Also, edit warring over cleanup templates is not constructive, and neither is characterizing cleanup templates as vandalism. —SnottyWong confer 01:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, keep in mind that the primary purpose of cleanup templates like {{globalize}} is to draw attention to articles that need help. It appears that this article has plenty of attention being paid to it, to the point that discussions regarding the perceived problem are currently ongoing. Thus, repeatedly inserting a disputed cleanup tag is arguably pointy and should be reconsidered. SnottyWong spout 03:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I've boldly removed the template, as there does not appear to be any support for it apart from one editor. If necessary, please continue the content discussion here until a consensus is reached (using other means of moderation if necessary) on whether changes to the lead are supported by the sources. Thanks. SnottyWong confess 03:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Snottywong, thank's for offering feedback.
I realize that the {{globalize}} template is a bit of a stretch but it was the best one I could find to fit the situation (if you have a better suggestion please feel free to offer it). Unfortunately there cannot be a template for each and every nuance.
You are partially correct that the purpose of these banners is to get attention in order to attract other commentators (I am not sure how you can argue that this thread has plenty of input since at the moment you are only the 3rd person to comment). But that is not the only purpose of these banners. It is also a notice to the readers that the content potentially has issues and should not be considered reflective of consensus among the editors. Regardless, though it is reasonable for you to remove a cleanup template if you believe in good faith that it was placed mistakenly, I think we both know that is not the case here and as such removing it was a policy violation.
As you are unwilling to discuss the issues (as is the case for RJC) I'm not sure what more there is for me to say.
--Mcorazao (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
A few responses: I'm the third person to comment on the applicability of the cleanup template, not the content discussion. This talk page has multiple discussions which address your complaint, and it has been discussed by significantly more than two editors. Admittedly, some of the discussions were over a year ago, but on the other hand, it doesn't appear as if anyone has agreed with you in any of these discussions yet. Whether or not there is consensus against your complaint is unclear. Secondly, how is removing an irrelevant cleanup template a policy violation? The cleanup template you added (in good faith) does not apply to the perceived problem you have with the article. If you insist on adding a cleanup tag to the article, find a more relevant one. Perhaps an inline tag (like {{dubious}}) next to the offending statement in the lead would be more appropriate. Thirdly, it's not that I'm unwilling to discuss the issues, but I know I don't have the knowledge and background on the subject to make an informed opinion, nor do I have the time or motivation to spend hours reading to learn about it. If you believe more discussion is required, consider starting an RFC on the topic, or entering into mediation if necessary. SnottyWong chatter 19:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I've replaced the globalize tag with a dubious tag. Feel free to move the dubious tag to a more appropriate location, if necessary. If you add the globalize tag to the article again (without making a convincing argument for why it's relevant), I will seek administrator intervention. SnottyWong squeal 20:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Snottywong, I think using the {{dubious}} template somewhat hides the concern but for the moment I won't quibble over that. If, however, you ever make an unprovoked threat like this again I will see to it that you are barred from Wikipedia.
Regarding the earlier content discussion I should state for the record that I was not the only one that advocated a change. And regardless there wasn't enough of a discussion or enough editors involved to argue that there was strong support for any particular viewpoint. I myself withdrew from the discussion at the time because I wasn't in the mood childishness and knowing some of the folks involved it was clear that was where this was heading (as it has now).
I would remind everyone again that Wikipedia's policies are there for a reason. Following them can be uncomfortable at times but Wikipedia is much better off if we adhere to them. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Do not threaten editors who participate in the Third Opinion Project, as we need them. RJC TalkContribs 23:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
FYI: I have started a complaint at WP:ANI#Edit warring over cleanup templates. SnottyWong converse 22:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Rfc: Western bias[edit]

Folks, I have a general concern that the lead and the rest of the article should not attempt to imply, directly or indirectly, that Western culture is the primary or exclusive inheritor of Ancient Greek culture. Instead I have suggested that the statements be broadened to indicate that the ancient Greeks influenced cultures throughout the Mediterranean region, Europe, and western Asia (the precise wording of that is a separate matter). Some other editors have expressed discomfort with not highlighting the influence on the West as being of particular importance. Any thoughts or feedback on the proper way to address the legacy of Ancient Greece are appreciated.
--Mcorazao (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Once again: cite your sources. Where is there anyone who has said that the Greeks have exercised the same sort of influence on other civilizations as they have on European civilization? You have referred only to sources that say that there was influence of some kind, but not sources that speak to the greater point that that influence was somehow decisive or seminal in forming the cultures of every civilization that the Greeks ever conquered or came into contact with. Their influence can be discussed at length in the section entitled "legacy," but not in the lede. No one has supported you in this, yet you have persisted in pushing this edit, misused vandalism warning templates, misused maintenance templates, and threatened the editor who provided a Third Opinion for warning you to stop misusing the maintenance template. For those responding to this RfC, the question is not about presence in the article, but about the presence of these statements in the lede. The fact that Mcorazao's claims are unreferenced and dubious is also important, but his summary of this dispute gives the impression that this is about article content in general, rather than just the lede. RJC TalkContribs 14:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Uninvolved editor comment: I do not find Hodgson persuasive, as it is passim in an introduction. Please provide full citations of the following, including publisher, year and place of publication Fifelfoo (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Carol G. Thomas, Paths from ancient Greece
  • George Saliba, Islamic science and the making of the European Renaissance
  • Dimitri Gutas Greek thought, Arabic culture
The Thomas book is already cited in the article in support of the claim that Greece had a central impact on Europe, albeit mediated by Rome and Islam. (Mcorazao demanded citations to this effect as an answer to requests for citations that Greece had a similar impact on Arab, Persian, Turkish, etc. (I may be missing one) culture.) Carol G. Thomas, Paths from Ancient Greece (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1988). Mcorazao will have to provide the page numbers, I'm afraid. RJC TalkContribs 15:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I found a page in the Thomas book that discusses this question, although I feel sure it is not the page that Mcorazao is thinking of. P. 91: "Hellenism, scientific, philosophical, or literary, had no place in it [Islamic education], and so no place in the education of the Muslims who shaped the society and gave it its religious and cultural ideals." This is the concluding sentence of the passage, "Hellenism and Islam," to which he points, but as it argues against rather than for the statement that Ancient Greece had an impact on Islam similar to that on Europe, I am certain that this cannot be what he meant. RJC TalkContribs 15:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Let's be clear. The burden of proof is on those attempting to claim the uniqueness of Western inheritance. I am simply advocating eliminating biased claims. I have yet to see even one reference to support this uniqueness. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Fifelfoo, thanks for joining the discussion. I am not sure what you are looking for, though. What do the publishesr, years, and places of publication have to do with this discussion? I have provided Google links if you are curious in that regard. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
A full citation provides most of the requirements for verification of Reliability and High Quality reliability. It is a scholarly courtesy to provide citations full enough to verify from a glance. It also allows me to step through a number of other procedures much faster than spending five to seven searches in google books, worldcat, and various other catalogues. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
This conversation continues to move in a bizarre direction. I don't think there is any disagreement as to the fact that the Greeks influenced many cultures. The only disagreement is how much different cultures were influenced. The article currently asserts/implies that influence was predominantly on the West. I have not seen any attempt to back that assertion up with references. I offered a few quick references regarding influences on other cultures as a courtesy. However, I do not have a particular motivation to spend time establishing the quality of those references since the burden of proof is not on my argument at this point.
If somebody has actual evidence they want to submit regarding preserving the bias the article currently has please offer it. Otherwise there is no basis to preserve these assertions nor is there a basis to object to putting back material regarding influence on other cultures (with proper references, of course). --Mcorazao (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Mcorazao, perhaps it would help if you identified the sentence(s) in the article with which you have a problem, and suggest a way to change those sentence(s) to address your complaints. That would clarify exactly what your complaint is about, and what your ideal solution would be. Also, it appears that you have provided sources which prove that Ancient Greece have influenced cultures other than Western Europe. I don't think anyone is disagreeing that Ancient Greece had some influence on other cultures. However, your point is that Ancient Greece had more influence on other cultures than this article represents. Rather than simply providing individual sources which prove that there was some influence on other cultures, can you provide a source which establishes the relative proportion of influence between Western Europe and other cultures? SnottyWong talk 22:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Snottywong, thanks for attempting to have a productive discussion. This is helpful. I must, however, take exception with the way you are rephrasing the discussion. Parts of the article currently imply that Ancient Greece had more influence on the West than other cultures. I am simply suggesting that such implications be removed and that the article be more balanced.
The text I had originally attempted to use in the lead a long time back was the following:
It is generally considered to be the seminal culture which provided the foundation of cultures throughout Southwest Asia, Europe, and North Africa. Greek culture had a powerful influence on the Roman Empire, which carried a version of it to many parts of the Mediterranean region and Europe. The civilization of the ancient Greeks has been immensely influential on language, politics, educational systems, philosophy, science, and the arts, inspiring the Islamic Golden Age and the Western European Renaissance, and again resurgent during various neo-Classical revivals in 18th and 19th century Europe and the Americas.
Note that this was simply a modified version of what was in the lead at that time. I am not, though, married to this text. Certainly this can all be phrased in a lot of different ways.
In response to you request for specific items of concern my concern is not that there is an explicit problem with the inclusion of any one statement. The current lead makes a point of singling out the West (the lead has also been shortened too much for reasons I don't understand):
  • "Classical Greek culture had a powerful influence on the Roman Empire, which carried a version of it to many parts of the Mediterranean region and Europe, for which reason Classical Greece is generally considered to be the seminal culture which provided the foundation of Western civilization."
Other sections tend to focus explicitly on the relationship with the west as well, e.g.
  • "Many authors consider the western literary tradition to have begun with the epic poems The Iliad and The Odyssey ..."
The legacy section makes at least some effort to mention influences on different cultures though it could use some work (it implies that the hellenistic influence in the Islamic world came strictly from the Byzantines; in reality, of course, the hellenistic influence was far older than that).
--Mcorazao (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Sadly it is clear that, no matter what, this discussion will not be allowed to proceed. From previous comments on this page and discussions on other pages I know there are editors who might have been interested in participating in the discussion and were probably scared away by the acrimony. Ultimately human nature always wins.

You should just take the problem the other way : the ancient Greeks are indeed the ancestors of modern western civilization. Precisely because westerners have claimed this legacy. The near east (while objectively influenced by Greece too) is not because it has chosen not to follow in the path of the Greeks. Meaning that generations of westerners (sadly not anymore) have grown up learning a lot about classical Greece and Rome, learning their languages, their culture etc. while the Arabs, for example, haven't (and never did : during their golden age, they were interested in Greek knowledge, not their culture or language. Translations were made by Christians who lived there before the Arabs). The Greeks saw themselves as unique, neither western or eastern, just Greek. For them, all the others were barbarians (except for the Romans...because the Romans wanted to be considered as non barbarians and they were dominating the Greeks), in which much was to admire (the bravery, the freedom and the strength of the celts, the refined culture of the persians etc.), but who were inherently inferior to the Greeks (who combined all these qualities). While the Greeks were mostly europeans (in the geographical sense) lots of them were from Asia. They saw themselves as western, just because their main enemy was in the east. They were certainly not western in the modern sense, nor where they eastern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

146 BC as an end date for Ancient Greece?[edit]

Does anyone else see a problem with this? The periods of Roman Greece and Late Antiquity are both mentioned in the chronology section as belonging to the epoch of Ancient Greece, yet the very first sentence in the article's introduction attempts to contradict this. Since the period of Classical Antiquity did not end until the Early Middle Ages, shouldn't "Ancient Greece" end with the rise of the Byzantine era following Justinian I? It seems so obvious to me, but if someone could get a reliable source to state the exact claim that would be helpful.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
You are correct, Roman Greece is considered the last stage of Ancient Greece. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Architecture of ancient Greece[edit]

  • Would someone with detailed knowledge please check the introductory sentences with regard to preferred dates, terminology.
Don't worry too much about the rest. I'm about to rewrite it.
  • I plan to move the page to Architecture of Ancient Greece, on the grounds that when we use the term "ancient" with regard to Greece, it is not understood merely as an adjective (e.g. "the Parthenon is an ancient building"). The terms "Ancient Greece" and "Ancient Rome" are used to designate specific and define periods and cultures. I notice that the post immediately above, accepts this as convention, but it can be very difficult when some well-meaning editor who knows all the rules but nothing about the subject decides to enforce their interpretation of the Wikipedia MOS.
Amandajm (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Iron Age[edit]

The "Iron Age" is conventionally used only for pre-Classical Greece. Here's an example of a conventional division of periods of ancient Greek history: Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, Classical, Hellenistic. The same error has appeared at Roman Republic and Roman Empire. The editor who wishes to assert that Ancient Greece in its entirety is an Iron Age culture must produce multiple sources (preferably from university presses, Routledge, Brill, etc.) that state something along the lines of "Ancient Greece is characterized by an Iron Age culture" or "Iron Age culture is characteristic of ancient Greece in all periods" or "The term 'Iron Age' is conventionally used to describe that part of Greek history considered 'ancient'," or some such. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


I was reading about the musical theories of Ancient Greece on another Wikipedia page and was linked here, curious about music in these times more generally. There is no subdivision under Culture and no links to a more specific article.
Renfield (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Good suggestion. I added a hasty little section based on the intro to Music of ancient Greece, directing the reader to that article for more. Thanks. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
a — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggested change to "Ancient_Greece" page[edit]

I think a sentence in the "Philosophy" section of the "Ancient_Greece" page should be changed.
The sentence:
"Some well known philosophers of Ancient Greece were Plato, Socrates, and many others."
I think should be changed to:
"Some well known philosophers of Ancient Greece were Plato, Socrates, Aristotle and many others."
as all these three named philosophers are (I think) equally well known.
Just a suggestion... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Social structure Section needs work[edit]

This section is extremely useful and lacking. I would venture as being even in contradiction to the rest of the text. Greek social structure was more fixed than the later Roman, and the text at some point makes that clear but in this section we are given the idea that simple economic power could move a person from the existing cast system. (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

antihellene assumptions[edit]

literacy had been lost and mycenaean script forgotten? who comes up with this stuff? and what solid basis do they have for coming up with this theory that is presented as fact, and that goes for the assumption that greek came from phoenician as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbobcoolman (talkcontribs) 03:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


we know that pythagoras and other ancients said the earth travels around the sun, so why is coppernicus and galileo still in our history books,both of which were friends and had access to ancient greek text and arabic text that was translated from the greek thus giving the moslems a wealth of knowledge that they didnt have prior to that period. and if you ask me something isnt right about aristotle saying the earth is the center because he would of known better and that goes for ptolemy as well. which leaves the question the popes and kings of western europe knew of pythagoras and all the others through there priveleged education so why did they chose to go with ptolemy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbobcoolman (talkcontribs) 04:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

just the facts please[edit]

80% of the history of greece on wiki is bias and twisted and in many cases strait out False — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbobcoolman (talkcontribs) 04:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Bigbobcoolman, your three comments in a row here are starting to look a bit like mere rants. I think we get that you're unhappy with the article. Either add material yourself, with footnotes, or please be quite specific about what "facts" you want corrected or added, and what sources you think should be used to add this material. Without something more concrete, your comments won't do the article any good. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Cynwolfe.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


"Homosexuality" as a highlighted link under the Google search for Ancient Greece Wiki? That existed everywhere. You forgot to highlight the other milestones. Grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprinks00 (talkcontribs) 20:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Definition of "Ancient Greece"[edit]

Is it normal to define "Ancient Greece" as begining with the Archaic Period (800BC onwards)? I.e. excluding the Mycenaeans and earlier civilizations (and by extension, meaning that most of the "Ancient Greek Myths" didn't take place in "Ancient Greece")? Iapetus (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Did myths take place anywhere? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's standard among classicists, archaeologists and historians to make that division. Mycenaean civilization and society were fairly different from anything seen later in Greece on lots of counts, and later Greeks had no real awareness of what had been going on back then outside of the myths, which do not represent history. (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
However, I can't see a clear division in bibliography. Authors prefer to include in their timeline of 'Ancient Greece' Prehistoric & Bronze Age Greece too [[2]], [[3]].Alexikoua (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

As I see there is a confusion between Ancient and Classical Greece.Alexikoua (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, there's also a difference between the usage of "Classical Greece" as an epoch designation among professionals - archaeologists and historians working on these times - and the broader public. In popular books with a wide scope and in colloquial talk, "classical Greece" sometimes refers to, like, the entire period from Homer to Alexander or beyond (in travel books sometimes even Mycenae), about 800-323 BC. To classically trained researchers, by established convention it means the period from the Persian invasion in 480 BC to the death of Alexander in 323 BC. What came before, back to about 800 BC, is the pre-classical age (or the archaic age). You'll find that division in any book about the history of ancient Greek art, political changes or Greek literature. When a popular book about let's say world history sets up a bibliography or a list of further reading at the end, it's not likely to split this up into the kind of multi-level periodization that specialists on the ancient world habitually observe, and the latter group have little interest in quarrelling with people who write schoolbooks or coffee-table books about general history. (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Sure, classical Greece is a part from Ancient Greece, this should be not confused. But there is no book that claims that 'Ancient Greece' starts after the Greek Dark Ages. See for example Ancient Egypt, the predynastic (prehistory) period is also included. Thus, I see no reason to avoid adding a background section about Prehistory here too.Alexikoua (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


D. Schaps (the invention of coinage...) confidently dates the first-ever coins to 620 BC (p. 95.); silver coins in mainland Greece are found in 511., their spread probably began about 550 (p.101). 680 BC mentioned in Archaic Greece is just some gibberish, not to mention it cites Zizek who cites another source. Please fix this someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Legacy: translation of quotation from Horace[edit]

The Latin word 'ferus' means 'wild, untamed, uncultivated' rather than fierce. Perhaps there is confusion with 'ferox' which does mean fierce. (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

german picture[edit]

In the section colonies there is

this picture
the first thing you notice is that it's German. for as far as I know you have English pictures at and English wiki and German pictures at a German wiki.--Casvdschee (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

" The Danube civilization is also the roots of the Greek civilization"[edit]

Just removed this claim and similar ones from Danube civilization, a truly bad article (see talk page and the AfD) presenting Gimbutas's pov as though it is mainstream and factual, and based on a number of non-archaeological sources. Dougweller (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2014[edit]

fgn vnk ,wn wlb wl e'nmrp ,e. (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)looline (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 20:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Blog Archive