Jump to content

Talk:Crete

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

Spartan connection

[edit]

[http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Cretan/Spartan_connection Wikinfo:Cretan/Spartan

DMT AO US 36530 John fort (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mountains of Crete

[edit]

On the main page, someone erroneously states that Mount Ida (a.k.a. Idha, Ídhi, Idi and now Psiloritis) is the highest mountain in Greece.

Untrue. Mount Olympus is much taller (9570 feet/2919 meters, vs. 8057 feet/2456 meters for Mount Ida).

The current text appears a bit inconsistent to me: it states "Crete is extremely mountainous, and its character is defined by a high mountain range crossing from west to east, formed by three different groups of mountains. These are:" and then gives a list of five mountains! Some authors elsewhere give a list of four mountain groups (Lefka Ori, Ida, Dikti and Sitia mountains) but of course there are also other possibilities (and other mountains, e.g. the Asteroussia mountains south of Messara Plains).--Sivullinen (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Cretans

[edit]

Ummm...under famous Cretans, the first "person" listed was (before I changed it): Zeus. Are we serious? Yeah, I know, according to the myth he was born in Crete, or was raised there. But let's be serious folks. Zeus is not a "person". He's a literary and mythological figure to most people and, to others -the very few people who have revived the old pagan religion- a god, not a person (not even both human and god like Jesus Christ. Just a god). I deleted him from the list. Skyduster (talk) 07:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of Crete

[edit]

I suppose that the word "Cre-te" is derived from word "Grae-ces" or "Graiae". Perhaps, Graices are Curetes (peoples of Acarnania and Crete) were the same tribe. Note: the suffices "-tes" and "-ces" or "-cae" were usual in ancient Greece. --IonnKorr 19:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why the supposed nymph called Crete who supposedly gave her name to the Island is not metioned anywhere in this article. She is refered to elsewhere (eg http://www.forumancientcoins.com/cparada/GML/Crete.html and http://wiki.heraklion-crete.org/index.php?title=Main_Page, as well as the Wikipedia-blocked pantheon.org). Whilst obviously this is not "real" historical etymology, it should be mentioned (discussed) if the wide ranging nature of an encyclopedia is to stand. Incidentally, does anyone know why the nymph isn't mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia - not even the disambiguation page? The Lesser Merlin (talk) 13:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The external links of this article seem to be an eternal problem, as tourism link are countinuosly k. It may be a good idea to take a decision once and for all about whether we accept these kinds of links or not. In particular, if we decide they are not needed, they all should go, as one link encourages new ones. I know there are a number of people having this article in their watchlist, and I would like their opinions. - Liberatore(T) 12:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to keep these links out. If people want them they can search Google. --Joshuagross 17:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are not so much good photographs in the internet, the link http://www.picturechoice.org/crete/index.html can be useful to get only a visible impression of the island. --[ozes] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.22.179.161 (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Warning" for tourists

[edit]

Removed from the article by me, posted by an unregistered user:

Warning:
The main airport in Crete is called Heraklion (sometimes spelled as Ieraklion). Just next to this airport, there is a Millitery air base (ΒΑΣΗ ΑΕΡΑ in Greek). For tourists, be aware that please do NOT take photos of the air base, you might be charged seriously because of that. For those who do not understand Greek language, it is particularly dangerous because the airbase has no English signs. I was questioned 2 hours in police station in Heraklion town because they suspected me as a SPY to shot photos of the air base!

I think it's good info (if it's true) but it was placed in the See Also section. Either a vandalism or a clueless editor. So, it should either be ignored or verified. --Joshuagross 22:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably entirely true. A few years ago there was a huge contretemps between Britain and Greece when about ten British plane spotters were imprisoned for practising their hobby in Greece, which is supposed to be a democracy and a NATO ally. Hoylake 17:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop your foolish hobby, then, and stop taking photos of military bases. It is forbidded throughout Greece. Panos,
Hoylake: I glanced at the talk section of your wiki profile, and apparently you have a habit of attacking people in talk pages, regarding editorial disagreements. Please don't be childish, Hoylake. Greece being a democracy and a NATO country (as if NATO membership is supposed to be some sort of stamp of approval) has nothing to do with the Brit tourists that were arrested taking photos of military installations. Similar incidents are hardly tolerated in the United States (where there are several sensitive military installations with signs all around them warning against photography, and the possibility of photographers being prosecuted), and in the UK, photographers get into hot water all the time over all sorts of paranoid matters, including "threats of terrorism". The British media itself noted that photography of military installations in the UK and US, especially post-9/11, would also have been sensitive hot-water incidents (regardless of the nationalities of the transgressors) and that Greece was being treated unfairly by the tabloids. Of course, it's sort of sad that the US and UK have to be brought up as comparative measures in the first place ("since they do it too, it's okay then"), but you brought up NATO membership as some sort of civilizing marker, not me. In any case, these may be policies we dislike, but attacking an entire country and calling its democracy into question is a bit childish, don't you think? Clearly your intentions here are not a genuine concern about an encyclopedia entry for Crete, but rather, you're just a pathetic loser who -for whatever reason- just wants to bash Greece on something. Whatever your intentions, take it elsewhere. As Joshua noted, this isn't a photography or travel advice website. It's an encyclopedia entry. So grow up, Hoylake. Skyduster (talk) 07:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added List of earthquakes in Greece as a general warning.78.17.16.157 (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mention Ottoman name?

[edit]

There is a revert war about whether the Ottoman name should be mentioned. I will not revert again today. I prefer that the issue be resolved on the Talk page. The arguments that have been given so far for not including the Ottoman name include (from the edit comments): 

 1. no minority population
 2. no proximity to turkey
 3. no such historic importance
        ? what does this mean
 4. it comes from the greek name
 5. why not include the Latin and Arabic names: it was Roman for 400 years and Arab for 150

All of these points are true but largely irrelevant. The question is: what is the criterion for including a name in a given language? I would think that being Ottoman from the 1669-1897 would be a major argument for including the Ottoman name -- that is both a long time, and recent -- but I have no problem with including the Latin and Arabic names. After all, we do we include the Venetian name. --Macrakis 19:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonably, 2 reverts by two different users do not constitute the 'revert war' definition, but anyway...
Apart from the arguments above, i can list some more:
6. The Cretan Turks (who were mentioned in the last revert) were greek-speaking, thus there is no reason to mention the turkish name in the first paragraph, since they called the island simply 'Kriti', as the rest of its inhabitants.
7. (this one may seem nationalistic, but it's not) The greek name has repeatendly been removed from Istanbul, the article about a city that has every single reason to deserve the greek name in the beginning. we will either reach a concensus regarding the placenames in the region, or we will be 'trapped' in revert-wars. personally, i will ,get the challenge in order to prevent POV pushing from both sides of the Aegean. sorry, but since i cannot force to include the name 'Constantinoupolis', i will remove the turkish name from Crete (->seems NPOV, but un-encyclopedic, though...:(...). and since Macrakis is not bothered by the removal of the name 'Constantinoupolis' from Istanbul, i cannot see his point here.
8. the turkish name was not the original one that would might have the right to be mentioned in the beginning of the article.
Concerning Macrakis' 'major argument' i see it as 'weak'... If we adopt this, we shall add the turkish name in every single place-article of the Balkans, Middle East and Northern Africa (for places that remained under ottoman rule longer and till more 'recently'). according to this, we shall add the greek name in e.g. Kabul, since it stayed under greek rule longer than crete stayed under ottoman...
By saying 'no such historic importance' i meant the obvious: comparing the importance of Crete for the Turks with the importance of e.g. Smyrni or Nikomedia for the Greeks... (i guess there is no need for comments and explanations here...) --Hectorian 20:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I might understand the case of Eastern Thrace, Komitini, Xanthi and other places but in the case of Crete I don't see a reasonable argument to label it with an alternative Turkish or Ottoman name. Macrakis' arguments are at the least childish, if for no good reason, beacause they're not followed by equivalent wikipedia articles. I don't see many French or British colonies carrying the names of their conquerors in their respective articles. Wikipedia even uses "Istanbul" over "Constantinople", eventhough the Ottoman name had _always_ been the latter, and no-one has ever got into trouble to correct this anachronistic nonsense. There's a limit to everything. Miskin 19:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's due to the historic Turkish population that lived on Crete. Also note that the Greek name is at the top of the Istanbul article... —Khoikhoi 19:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'll give it a chance. Let's see how long the French name will last in Algiers and the Greek name in Istanbul. Miskin 19:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget about İznik, Edirne, Bursa, İzmir, Trabzon, Kırklareli, Sinop, Mersin, Bergama, Bodrum, Muğla, Kastamonu, Eskişehir, and Konya... —Khoikhoi 19:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way the article "Cretan Turks" is a bunch of Turkish POV. There used to be in total 500,000 MULSIMS (which was not equal to 'Turk' until very recently) in the entire of Greece, and I can guarantee you that they were not concentrated in Crete as the article's figures imply. Miskin 19:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were 73,000 Muslims (26%) in the 1881 (last) Ottoman census (see sources in History of Crete); and perhaps 130,000 (50%) in 1821 (see Britannica 11th ed).
As for "Turk" vs. "Muslim", you have it backwards. The terms "Turk" and "Muslim" were routinely conflated until the early 20th century, just as "Greek" and "Orthodox Christian" have been conflated at many times, so I think that is an innocent mistake. --Macrakis 16:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the name appears in Crete, surely every Greek place on wikipedia should have the Turkish name? I dont see why the etymology, the arabic and latin terms for crete, cant appear later in the article but why would they appear at the top of the article

Sofixit. ;-) —Khoikhoi 19:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I take that back...please refrain from "fixing" it. —Khoikhoi 20:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I prove to you that I'm right will you apologise for having said that? Miskin 20:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will. —Khoikhoi 20:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, then get ready. :) Miskin 20:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(moved some stuff to Talk:Cretan Turks) —Khoikhoi 22:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are fighting about the Turkish name..

[edit]

... while the Greek governmnet is trying to convert Crete into an Asian colony, a polluted chinese type tansit port. Why don´t you try to improve the article about the plans. You might save Crete

Local people are divided on the issue. Why not bring in for and against arguments based on available research and information. Wiki is currently the only website that goes beyond simple formulaic arguments; dirty and disastrous for tourism, versus economic gain and.... well, economic gain is a big one. There are other considerations that might unite opinion; for example, a cast iron protocol for checking pollution and statutory testing (already partially in effect) of water quality. the area of Messara cannot exist on the vagueries of fruit and vegetables (greenhouse grown) in a changing eco-conscious world. Tourism, important as it is, in this part of Crete will only ever be marginal, based on individual taste rather than the package tour hell that strangles the North Coast.

Messara is poor in opportunities. Allow money to come in but 'ring-fence'(a solid contract)a significant amount for socially beneficial works; housing, projects for immigrants and education for all. No influx of foreign trade without immediate and tangible results in better communities. That would unite many opposing views. –Louis

Cretan demonym

[edit]

I added the demonym "Cretan" to the infobox, but it was reverted because demonym "isn't a field." Yet it's a field in other infoboxes. Why not here? I know the term "Cretan" appears elsewhere in the article, but I'm trained to check the infobox for demonyms whenever I wonder, "What are people from that place called?" 68.165.76.80 (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are Kritikoi, I suppose we are Cretans in your language, but you obviously find the word silly. It's really not something related too much to actual Cretans since it's not our language. --Apotetios (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Heritage

[edit]

This article is in desperate need of cleansing of its highly nationalistic tone. The arguments about Turk vs Muslim vs Ottoman is repulsive. As far as names, go check Istanbul article, it deals with it nicely. In fact, there is a whole article just about that. What did Ottomans do and build for all those centuries there? No mention. What about the other groups, Jews for example. Their fate desreves a mention I think.--Murat (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What region, city, or town doesn't have, or hasn't ever had ethnic minorities? The question is, have these minorities been significant enough in the region's history to be mentioned in the article? The Jewish communities of Ioannina and Thessaloniki are well-documented in those cities' respective Wikipedia articles. They were never a major community in Crete. As for the article's treatment of Muslims and Turks, I don't see what's "repulsive" about it, at least not at the time of writing this (2012). What exactly do you find repulsive? And what "Ottoman contributions" are being neglected? Just having been ruled by the Ottoman Empire, doesn't necessarily mean that Crete ever had a significant Turkish population or that it was significantly influenced by the Ottomans. If you disagree, then tell us right here, what specific passages are wrong in the article? What should be added? Can you provide sources? It would be nice if you could contribute, if you actually had something to contribute or even had a suggestion, rather than order others to do the research and look for some sort of "suppressed Ottoman influence" that may not exist (aside from a couple mosques left behind). If you're so sure of it, then contribute, instead of giving orders. Skyduster (talk) 07:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History section & famous Cretans

[edit]

A)I don't see the reason why Jews get so much attention in the article as they didn't have a big community there (as in Thessaloniki) especially with references like "greedy Venetians". Orthodox Christians were the vast majority there and we don't get to much details anyway. This is a summary.

B)I see a citation about Ottoman rule bringing Christianity to an end in the article. That's totally rubbish. In fact religious oppression was very strong during Venetian times and Ottoman empire was known for it's religious freedom. In any case Christianity survived as the history itself proves it.

C)Muslim Cretans weren't Turks. In fact Crete was one of the least settled regions by Ottomans (who themselves aren't quite accurate to be described as Turks only). It is known and a well recorded fact that for a variety of reasons the catholic and many of the orthodox community converted to Islam as a Muslim had more rights than a Christian to the Ottoman empire's theocracy.

--

D)Famous cretans are people who have been recognized for their work in various fields and not people who have received TV exposure. There is a huge difference here. A model or a footballer can't be regarded to the same level with Kazantzakis. In fact the only sports person that can be noted is Machlas who won the golden boot. I can't see how Samaras or Daniiliodou or Glyniadakis or models can be fit here. Also we should refer to noted and important politicians. Kefalogiannis is just a MP never had a defining role in Greece's politics. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're notable enough to have their own articles. El Greco(talk) 22:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"In fact religious oppression was very strong during Venetian times"
Utter nonsense. Skyduster (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an argument at all --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Population Genetics

[edit]

We had a recent discussion for adding genetic findings in articles about small regions at Talk:Epirus (region). The article should not be an index of specialized topics about Crete. I really can't see how a reader searching for this article would expect to see or would be interested in this section (or even be able to understand it for that matter). For anyone interested in genetics we have Genetic history of Europe, and we could even have a Genetics of Greece or Greeks or Genetics of the Mediterranean if we had enough material. Crete is not specifically notable from this scientific research as far as i know. I'm repeating what i've said in my edit summaries, since genetics is not an established topic in this kind of articles, inside wikipedia or in other encyclopedias, the question should not be what we can find on genetics about Crete (using genetic research sources) but if some genetic results about Crete are being noted in sources of a more general interest. Say for intance we have the topic "Cancer research", Crete has a renowed med school which does research on cancer, we can find specialized sources proving that but neither the local university nor Crete are known for the cancer research that is conducted there, that would be a job for, say, a newspaper article, an encyclopedia or a publication not focused on cancer to show. Knowing very little about genetics, i'm not even getting into the issue of a possible POV fork here. --Δρακόλακκος (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Talk:Epirus (region) - I had to look at your contributions to find this. With the development of genetics I'm sure we will see more information in articles about areas such as Crete (which as an island I'm not sure is quite the same as a small region), but I take what Future Perfect said seriously. I don't think that 'other articles don't have this' is a good reason (it's like 'othercrapexists'). However, and I just found this after I wrote the last sentence, we have another problem. How can we ignore it in this article when it is a major part of Archaeogenetics of the Near East? We need somehow to link the two articles together - I don't see how we can avoid a mention of genetics in this article. Dougweller (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but the article you found doesn't make any difference to me, just the same formalistic wording mixed with some archaeological theories, searching for some clues in genetics, in lack of another direction to look for. "Not being established" was more of an easy way to show that its relevance is debatable in general, if it was common practice then i suppose i'd have to accept that some of my concerns were already addressed, but i understand why it could seem like an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. To my undestanding the problem is that genetic research on population origins cannot be usually expressed in a sequence of definite interpretations that the average reader could understand, if you have no idea about the process and the theoretical preassumptions you can't evaluate the results, at least not in a useful manner. I mean realy, what can a reader with no background knowledge make out of the current paragraph ? A loose connection with the lands across the sea in every direction ? I can't say i find it interesting but i might be wrong about the number of people that do. If this kind of research is getting into mainstream that much we should be able to find something about Crete in a non-specialist source, which would also help pull out a more accessible wording and/or theme. I've taken a look at Talk:Archaeogenetics of the Near East and understood that Crete is mostly mentioned to address the question of the Philistines' origins, it's not obvious to me why that fact, which led to so much material being added there. should bare any weight in this article. To be honest i don't want to spend much time debating this, if you think that enough people would benefit reading it then lets keep it. I can't help you with adding further material unless we find a source i can fully understand. --Δρακόλακκος (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must apologise as for some reason I seem to have been reading Phoenicians for Philistines, probably because I had already found this [1] BBC story linking Phoenicians to Crete. I am not at all convinced at the moment that that the paragraph about Philistines in the section in the Archaeogenetics origins isn't OR. I'll check it again and probably delete it, as the article is, after all, about genetics. I appreciate very much your discussion here, as at first I wasn't sure if this was just another one of those pov edits I frequently find concerning nationalities. I'm happy with whatever you do about this right now. Dougweller (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted that entire section - you may disagree, but I didn't think Crete was 'Near East'. Dougweller (talk) 07:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cretan diet

[edit]

This was not only written in the first person, which we deprecate, and was unverifiable as there were no page numbers, it was purely promotional. It is from [2], " a non-profit organization founded by the four Prefectures of Crete to rescue, promote and disseminate the model of the Cretan diet and the certification of catering offering Cretan cuisine". I'm dubious about the parent article Cretan diet. It also breaks the licence of the web page from which it was copied. Even if that were fixed, it's inappropriate. Dougweller (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you thing that an AfD might be in order? Constantine ✍ 07:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, go for it and see what happens. It's pretty bad. I suspect a sock puppet here also. Dougweller (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, perhaps reducing it to a stub with the main features of the diet, without any of the promotional commentary on the benefits, would be better. I'll go ahead and give it a try... Constantine ✍ 12:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I'll keep it on my watch list. Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Kalliakis

[edit]

I've removed the image of Nicholas Kalliakis. Though this person may be notable enough to have an entry in Wikipedia, surely he is not notable enough to justify more than a brief mention on page for Crete -- especially since though he was born there he spent most of his life elsewhere. Images take up a lot of screen real estate, and should only be included when there is clear justification for them. Strawberryjampot (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image: Lassithi Plateau

[edit]

I've replaced the image of Komos beach with one of the Lassithi Plateau. Sure, the beach image was a nice photo, but it seemed to me it could be anywhere in Greece. The Lassithi Plateau image seems much more characteristically Cretan. Also, the Lassithi image corresponds to the mention of Lassithi in the adjoining text, and it is more appropriate than a beach to the Geography section. Strawberryjampot (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snake Goddess image

[edit]

I've deleted one of the antique map images -- there's nothing wrong with having an antique Cretan map image on the page, but I don't think we need two of them -- and substituted an image of the famous Snake Goddess. Some might argue this image would be more appropriate in an article on ancient religion, but surely this image is the most famous single image associated with Crete in the general public worldwide consciousness, so it seems to me we can't not have it on the Crete page. Also, it fits in with the mention of Minoan Crete in the adjoining text. Strawberryjampot (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Dorian Crete!

[edit]

Böri (talk) 10:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ikrîtış

[edit]

= Arabic name of Crete Böri (talk) 11:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


KAPTARA/KFTIU or whatever = cappadokia and not crete See this book: https://books.google.gr/books?id=jaGOAAAAMAAJ&q=kaptara&dq=kaptara&hl=el&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjp5-i3rtXLAhWiYpoKHTL9C8YQ6AEIUzAI Read this book and many other books — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.92.167.31 (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Also this book: https://books.google.gr/books?id=yT1XAAAAcAAJ&dq=caphtorim&hl=el&pg=PA284#v=onepage&q=caphtorim&f=false[reply]

So the citation in front No 2 is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.92.167.31 (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

[edit]

Out of curiosity by what definition are we using "civilization" and "Europe" in the lead. I raise this question because we see extensive agriculture and community (civilization) in say Ireland long before 2700 bc and the use of metal during the same Bronze Age as we are giving to Crete. Pudge MclameO (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Liberation"

[edit]

Using terms like "liberate" or "liberation" about early medieval warfare sounds very unnecessary and inappropriate. I see no reason to use it since the idea of what empire a certain region belonged to was a matter mostly relevant to the empires, not the local population. It's an especially poor choice of wording in an era before centralized nation states, modern democracy and monopoly on violence.

Peter Isotalo 14:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In order to "re-capture" land you must have "captured" it in the first place. The island was part of the Byzantine Empire before it was invaded by Arabs and the Byzantines captured it from no one since the Byzantines and the Romans cooperated. Then it was liberated from the Arabs by the Byzantine Empire. Prior to that the indigenous population was Mycenean Greek and Minoan who also wrote in an ancient Greek script related to Mycenean. Captured and re-captured from whom exactly? If it will make you feel any better I will also accept "recovered". Since it was recovered as well as liberated. But I cannot accept "captured" or "recaptured" because that makes it sound as though it was against the will of the indigenous people and the indigenous people were all for it.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 17:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. The Byzantines engaged in campaigns of conquest as much as anyone else in the early Middle Ages. They seized an island by force over a century after they had been forced off it themselves. I don't know if "capture" is somehow misleading, but it's a term I would use to describe military conquest in general. Using a word like "liberation" in a pre-modern context like this implies a justification of one side based on nationalist or ethnic foundations. That means using modern ideology to analyze medieval history. Neither the Emirate of Crete nor the Byzantine Empire were based on nation or ethnicity. Insisting on a word like "liberation" is basically comparing medieval warfare with the Liberation of Paris in 1944.
In your edit comment you state that "forcing the Arabs off the island was perfectly just since they had no business to be there".[3] That seems to imply a very strong anti-Arab POV. That doesn't seem compatible with WP:NPOV. A direct connection Byzantine Empire and modern Greeks is about as relevant as the connection between the Roman Empire and modern Italians. Why resist a more neutral description? And where's on earth is the evidence that the average Cretan was any kind of voluntary subject of the Byzantine Empire?
Peter Isotalo 17:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a squatter walks in to your home then your home could be described as having being captured. But when the owner comes back, and despite the ridiculous modern legal rights of squatters, forcefully takes back his home and pushes the squatters out on to the street. Then the owner has liberated or recovered his home. He hasn't captured it. The Andalusian Arabs were little more than pirate squatters who looted and plundered an island that did not belong to them. Then when they were finally evicted they got what they deserved. The Byzantines did not conquer Crete from anybody. Crete was part of the Byzantine Empire. It was not conquered by the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantines were Hellenes and also considered themselves to be Romans. Even today in modern Greece they still say "we are all Romans" (even though there is no real relationship between the two other than during the Roman Empire and the demise of the Roman Empire (and ofcourse the Romans adopted a great deal of the culture and education of Greece which made them more like the Greeks). The Byzantines did not seize the "island" by force. They forced the squatters (the Andalusian Arabs) off the island. And there is a difference since the local population wholeheartedly supported the Byzantines. Moreover, the Arabs from different parts of north Africa and the Middle East had endlessly raided various parts of Greece. The Arabs were regular looters. What the Andalusian Arabs had achieved was exceptional but temporary.
The leaders of the Byzantine Empire came from Constantinople which was in the vast majority (Orthodox Christian and Hellenic). Men from Constantinople led most of Eastern Europe. Orthodox Christians from Constantinople became royalty in countries like Moldavia and Wallachia. Many of the powerful Dragomen were Orthodox Christian Hellenes from Constantinople. The hub of the Orthodox Christian church was in Constantinople. The Hellenes of Crete inevitably welcomed the Hellenes of Constantinople and were happy to be rid of the Andalusian Arabs. The word "captured" is not WP:NPOV particularly when it was not "captured". Neither is the word "recaptured" when it was not. Personally, I like the Arabs. Have nothing against them. But if you asked me who I would rather rule my own home I would answer it's my home and only I rule it and the Arab squatter can go back to Andalusia.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 09:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, though, we're talking about medieval empire building, not interactions between modern nations. "Greeks" as a unified concept did not exist before sometime in the 19th century, and saying that all Greek-speakers were somehow allied is entirely ahistorical. Land changed hands, perhaps with more or less support from the local population, but describing anything as "liberation" in this perios is not appropriate in a Wikipedia article, since it's all based on modern concepts of national identity. "Capture" is in my view merely a matter of describing a military action. Using that will describe what happened without taking a stance on whether it was morally unjust or not.
Do you have any modern historical sources that support the idea of a Byzantine "liberation" of Crete? A highly politicized term like that needs to be backed up with something other than the opinions of Wikipedia editors. Or maybe you'd like to suggest a suitable alternative to "capture"?
Peter Isotalo 10:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to Thucydides who documented the term "Hellenes" in Ancient Greece. The Hellenic tribes were unified by language because they all spoke Hellenic and thus were referred to as Hellenes. The word "Greeks" is modern terminology which is not even used in the modern "Greek" language. The modern Greeks refer to themselves as Hellenes, their ethnicity Hellenic, and their language is Hellenika as per Thucydides. The Romans captured Crete and eventually transferred control to the eastern Roman Empire called the Byzantine Empire. It was not captured by the Byzantines. Therefore forcefully removing the Arabs is not "capturing Crete" or "recapturing Crete" when it was land that was already part of the Byzantine Empire. Here is a reference that uses the words "liberate Crete" http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ySQOI51FwpkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA305&dq=%22liberate+Crete%22+Saracens&ots=1W53jIkABQ&sig=j-ehfWMWg9aNXy0wmIHMd8bHUO0#v=onepage&q=%22liberate%20Crete%22&f=false  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 14:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're aware of that there was no political unity among Greek-speaking peoples until at least the early modern period. Using either ancient Greek historians or dissection of terminology as an argument is at best original research. The point here is that "liberate" has a whole range connotations which are not supported by any sources so far. That the wording is used by some, or even many authors doesn't make it less POV. Simply copying wording from certain authors does not make it justifiable.
I made some Google Book searches myself and found plenty of other terms used, including "capture". The point is that a term like that does not bear the political connotations you imply here. It merely means that something was taken by force, which it was. Whether it was welcomed by the local population (something which is likely impossible to prove going by 10th century sources) is another matter. But since a compromise seems to be in order here, I'm suggesting a few other terms.
Peter Isotalo 15:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting Thucydides is not WP:OR. Ofcourse there was political unity which was variable and mostly controlled by Athens and Sparta as recorded by Thucydides. Have you not read Thucydides? Thucydides is widely regarded as the first historian of political history. The Byzantine Empire liberated the slaves of the Arabs as is quoted in the reference above. The "force" used was directed at the Arabs at Chandakas.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 19:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Applying writers like Thucydides to comment on events in the 10th century is taking things out of context. It should be done with care, especially when throwing in modern concepts of ethnicity and nations. No serious modern expert on the 10th century would sign off on any theories about Byzantine pan-Hellenism. It's a completely discredited historical theory by now and is considered to be more reflective of 19th and early 20th century historiography than of the period itself.
But I'm glad you accepted the compromise, and I think your edits was a distinct improvement.
Peter Isotalo 20:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. But I wasn't applying Thucydides to events in the 10th Century. Thucydides was mentioned because Hellenes did exist as a unifying concept when Thucydides was alive and also because political unity existed before Thucydides (as documented by Thucydides).  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 20:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section on "Cretan State" needs a rewrite, IMHO

[edit]

This section has either been vandalised or half edited or badly translated. Someone who knows the subject should look at it please. kritikos99 (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A flag is missed

[edit]

I made a comparison to other Wiki pages related to regions of Greece. In each of them, I can see a respective flag in the blue box on the right side of the tube. Unfortunately, in Crete's page, there is none. Please, add! Thank you for reading. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.25.38.151 (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: 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, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that 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) 22:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History, prehistoric

[edit]

It is claimed that the first human settlement is from 130,000 years ago but the sources cited claim human or possibly prehuman/hominids. 94.65.149.245 (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Were Neanderthal remains ever found in Crete? I've never heard they were, but, that means nothing. 130,000 years ago Cro-Magnon (modern) man had emerged, and dominated with the exception of the Neanderthals, who died out no later than 30,000 years ago. So it is almost certain that the first Cretan settlers were modern humans. 104.169.22.74 (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should introductory section contain random digression about villages, including "a beautiful little village called Pinochiano"?

[edit]

It seems to be that everything after "...earliest recorded civilization in Europe" doesn't belong in the introduction. Perhaps the information "There are many villages up in the mountains of Crete, one of which is a beautiful little village called Pinochiano, otherwise known as Lasithi Plateau" could be moved to another section, such as tourism? Or perhaps it could be reworded to something like "Crete is notable as a tourist destination because of its mountain villages, including the Lasithi plateau"?

19:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.33.81 (talk)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Crete. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move the History section to the beginning of the article

[edit]

Could the History section be moved to the beginning of the article? For the sake of consistency. As far as I can tell, this is the preferred format (see: Sardinia, Cyprus).--Adûnâi (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Crete. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections, questions and comments

[edit]

I read the article, I made some changes to the text. Then I made a major effort trying to improve the layout by reorganizing, shuffling, resizing and removing images. I also noticed a few issues that I list below.

1. "Crete is mountainous, and its character is defined by a high mountain range crossing from west to east, formed by three different groups of mountains."

The list that follows has 5 instead of 3 groups of mountains which is inconsistent.

2. What the heck is "Human geography"? I changed it to "Geography" which makes more sense and sounds better. There is nothing human about geography.

3. The Diktaean Cave is not the only birthplace of Zeus. Crete has at least another place in the west of the island called Idaean Cave on Mount Ida (I visited both and I like Greek mythology so I'm not making it up).

4. The image [[4]] is not truly at the Heraklion Archeological Museum. I have been on site and it looks quite different. Also, it should be labeled "Bull-leaping" and not just "Minoan fresco".

5. The article talks about Giacomo Foscarini and Marco Foscarini. Was there a connection between the two?

6. "on the eve of the Greek War of Independence, as much as 45% of the population of the island may have been Muslim."

What´s the year? Most readers certainly do not know. It should be added.

7. "Tahmiscizade Mehmed Macid: Memorialst".

What the heck does "Memorialst" mean? Explain.

8. "*Likewise, as stated above, Mustafa Naili Pasha was Albanian/Egyptian."

This note is unrelated, unnecessary and useless. It should be removed.

ICE77 (talk) 06:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cretan State

[edit]

I took the liberty of doing a re-write and adding references, hope no one minds.Mickmct (talk) 08:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Various names of Crete

[edit]

For all of you who argue about various names of Crete, go to the book of William Martin Leake (1814) Researches in Greece page 64-65 where William Martin Leake apologise for english speaking people, for calling Crete anything else than Crete, as he personally observed in the early 19th century, the people of Crete only refered to the islan with its anciant name, Κρήτη, therafore all other names mentioned in this article will be removed.W5ry3 (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crete's Land Area

[edit]

Based on the latest edit, I wanted to check on what the sources were for Crete's land area. I narrowed my search parameters to Greek government sources, but I ended up with conflicting information.

My first result was the Enterprise Greek brochure attempting to attract investment on Crete, which states 8335 square kilometers. This is one off from the originally stated land area in the article of 8336 square kilometers. A second source from Greece's GeoData website, lists 8312.9 square kilometers (the file is in Greek). The Greek wiki article has a different value of 8303 kilometers squared in the infobox and 8336 in the article text.

I would like to use the 8312.9 value from the GeoData set since it comes from the Greek (Hellenic Statistical Authority), but since this change looks like it might have to apply to numerous foreign language wikis I want to be sure. Inomyabcs (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the answer, but editors need to bear in mind that the Crete region is not identical to the island itself. As the article says, there are "a number of islands and islets that surround it", such as Gavdos and Spinalonga - which are within the region and which clearly influence the measurement of the area. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crete&oldid=1239725779"