Talk:Euripides/Archive 1

Archive 1

Copyright concerns

Sections of this page are identical to some parts of this [1], which doesn't look like a mirror site. Did we take it from him, or did he take it from us? I'd guess the former, as the website writer seems to know more than the Wikipedia article contains. Would the author mind doing a rewrite so it doesn't look as though we've just copied someone's website? It would also be a good idea to cross-check the facts. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 02:50, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

I just traced the copied bit back to 2002 "conversion script", which I take it means the history is lost, so I'm going to ask the website whether they took it from Wikipedia, and if not, I'll do a rewrite myself. SlimVirgin 03:00, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Papyrus finds: Someone needs to find a more scholarly reference for the April 2005 papyrus finds, as most of these articles that appeared in April conflated new materials being read with multispectral techniques (a lot of it Philodemos stuff from the Villa of the Papyri) with older materials recovered by e.g. Grenfell and Hunt.

Incidentally, I have altered all usages of "B.C.E." so that they now read "B.C." One should not be insistent on the former; we are measuring from the Birth of Christ whether we prefer B.C. and A.D. or B.C.E. and C.E. And, according to User:Chooserr, what I have done is a restoration of the original state, so the policy of maintaining use by the original author does not favour B.C.E.--Thomas Aquinas 19:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

First version Chooserr

Incidentally, I have changed it back. One should not be insistent on using the latter, as both are acceptable, and there is no such policy mandating the use of the original style. Sortan 19:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Latest back-and-forth

I see that a group of sock puppets have decided to turn this article into their latest political football. Shame on you, whoever you are.

In the meantime, as well as the date changes, some spurious material was added in an effort to make it harder to change the dates back. I've made them invisible and requested references.

Also, I'm wondering about this: "Rhesus (mid 4th century BCE, probably not by Euripides, as maintained today by most scholars)" Does it mean that most scholars say it is not Euripides, or that most scholars say it is, but whoever added that disagrees? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

On the Rhesus subject - nearly all the sources I've read say it is probably not by Euripides, being more likely by an unknown playwright during his time. However, I haven't found any research on the subject as to why this is believed. It was traditionally believed to be by Euripides and is still included in collections of his plays. If someone can point to research on the subject, and why its no longer considered his, that would be great. Details could be included on the Rhesus (play) page. - Ravenous 5 December 2005

Hi Ravenous, it would be very helpful if you could add one of those sources to the article just after that claim. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, and coincidently I just found a source that answers my question as to "why?" as well: Euripides, Rhesus (ed. Gilbert Murray) I'll rework that line and the Rhesus (play) using this source. - Ravenous

Chooserr

Chooserr, I'm asking you please to leave this article alone. You alighted here a few weeks ago with the sole intention of changing from BCE to BC, and you've effectively held it hostage since then, although my guess is you hadn't heard of Euripides until you decided to make it one of the targets of your campaign. In reverting to BC, you're also reverting other changes, leading to a marked deterioration e.g. that he is the saddest of the three main playwrights but not the most tragic (or something like that), which is meaningless, and quotations without citations.

Also, a large part of the article is a copy of this. The question is: did we take it from them, or did they take it from us? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin,

I haven't held the article "hostage", and would appreciate it if you stopped reverting it back to an inadequant BCE version, which also has minor vandalism from some IP that came before you.

As for Cystallinks, I haven't heard much of them. The information I had was gathered from multiple sources, and personally reworded so it was conscise and understandable. If they have the same text it is probably a copy of ours. Chooserr 07:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop changing the date format, Chooserr! The arbcom has ruled that BC shouldn't be changed to BCE or vice versa without good reason. The format was changed to BCE last May (as I recall) by Mel Etitis during a general clean-up of the article. He did this (I presume) because scholarly works about Euripides are always written with BCE; at least, I have personally never seen one that isn't. Mel is an academic at Oxford, and would therefore be in a position to know this. You have therefore picked on the wrong article to make your point, because there is very good, scholarly reason to use BCE here, and the article was stable with it until you began your campaign.

Apart from this, every time you revert, you introduce errors and remove citation requests. I asked you above what "the saddest of the three, but not the most tragic" meant. You declined to explain, but you added it again anyway. So please tell me: what does it mean?

And who is the quotation from: the "the poet of the world's grief"? We need a citation. Why do you keep adding it without one? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that was a radical change. He felt that it should be BCE and changed it without consulting anyone. I changed it back, and it has laid happily except for some minor vandalism by anon IPs, until you decided to change it back. Chooserr 07:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Mel didn't "feel" anything. He works in academia, and presumably has had the same experience as me, viz. that scholarly works about Euripides use BCE, and that we should therefore do the same, in accordance with NPOV (majority view) and V (what the relevant sources do). BC did not "lie happily" after you changed it. People kept reverting you, but you and various sock puppets kept reverting back. The arbcom has since ruled definitively (as I recall) that these changes must not keep on being made by single-issue POV warriors. My guess is that you have never seen a scholarly source on Euripides, much less read one. I mean no disrespect by saying this, just as I mean no disrespect toward myself by pointing out that I've never read a scholarly work on quantum mechanics, but for that very reason, I don't turn up on quantum mechanics pages telling people how to write them.

I note again that you won't say what "the saddest of the three" means, or who said he was "the poet of the world's grief," yet you keep adding those phrases. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The change was unjustified in the first place, and he did feel BCE was a better system (maybe due to seeing it so frequently in scholarly research) or he wouldn't have changed it. Also I use sock puppets, so please do make accusations against me. Chooserr 08:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh and I didn't tell you what "the poet of the world's grief" meant because I didn't, and still don't know. It was added at 17:41, 31 January 2006 - by 71.104.153.217. I didn't add it as you can see by looking at the history and have reverted it. Chooserr 08:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Chooserr, you are holding this page hostage, even though you know nothing about Euripides. That is clearly unacceptable. Yes, Mel has seen BCE used more often by classicists, which means he knows, not feels, that BCE is more appropriate.

You added "saddest of the three" at least twice. It matters not that you weren't the first to add it: if you revert to it, you're adding it. Speaking of blind reverting, why do you keep changing "wealthy" to "financially well off"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it at least twice because it was based on GTBacchus' version before the last IPs edits - I thought it was safe. And I do believe that I was the one to put "financialy well off" in the text when I added the information - wealthy was probably a later change. Chooserr 08:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

My question was why do you prefer "financially well of" (three words, poor English, almost tautologous)) to "wealthy" (one word, completely clear)? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There you go, Chooserr, I've just had to revert myself, including the addition of material, sources, and source requests, because of 3RR, which I violated because I don't want to have to edit using your version as a basis. Thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have rereverted you, Slim. I think your version is sufficiently superior to merit defending. Although I don't really buy Slim's arguments for BCE -- founded as they are on an appeal to authority whose hollowness has been well exposed on Talk:Jesus among other places -- the article seems to have been stable, with all editors happy to work with dates expressed as BCE for some time now. It was changed as part of a larger, constructive overview of the article, and that's something we should actually be encouraging, not challenging. Changing it back is clearly not adding anything. It's just stirring up the shit, and anyone who changes it clearly knows that. So why do it? Grace Note 13:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to feel like a broken record, but anyone who changes it in either direction, including to revert someone else who's just changed it, is stirring up the shit. Nobody's clean here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I suspect that the person who originally added BCE was not aware of other people's campaigns, but as Grace Note said, added it as part of a general copy edit in an effort to make the article a bit more scholarly. The edit was an overall improvement, and the changes shouldn't be reverted by single-issue campaigners who would otherwise never have noticed this page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Remember the actual content of the article?

Ok, in these reversion games you people are playing (and I still insist that both sides are wrong), there's more than just date formats changing. I can't tell whether you disagree about that stuff or not, because everyone's too lazy to do anything but revert to an earlier version, and too afflicted by tunnel vision to even realize that more than date formats are changing with each edit. Does anyone editing this article care at all about Euripides? I can't tell, because all I see are date format edits, with a total disregard for the underlying article. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

So far as I know, Chooserr is the one who cares only about date formats. I've been trying to edit the article but keep finding the changes reverted. Perhaps you should look more carefully at the diffs. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, rereading that post, I sound like a flaming WP:DICK. I apologize. I doubt that Chooserr is the only one who cares about date formats — rather a lot of people do, on some level — but I'll stop repeating myself and being bothered by it. Life's too short. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, and no worries. ;-D Hopefully we can get back to improving the article soon, because it could certainly use it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Verse translations

I've gone through and added translations, dates, prose or verse labels, and links to full text when available to all the play pages of the three greek tragic authors. I've noticed there are several sites contianing full text of many of Edward P. Coleridge's prose translations. However there are not too many verse translations of Euripides plays publically available on the net, which is a shame. Arthur S. Way's translations are in verse, and are no longer under copywrite. I'm not sure how well they stack up to other translations, but it'd be a worthwhile project for someone to add those translations to something like wikisource. - Ravenous 02:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Changed "last" to "youngest"

As Sophocles actually lived and continued to write longer than Euripides, and since for much of his career both playwrights were active and in competition, the traditional designation of Euripides as the "last" of the Greek tragedians has for some time been seen as largely innacurate by most scholars. Therefore, I've changed "last" to "youngest" since it implies a similar idea while remaining historically accurate. (Eeesh 12:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC))

Commentary Section

This section should really be improved by someone who knows their stuff. It's really weak right now. Mysteriousinventors 10:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
This section looks for published commentary on Euripides' works?
Perhaps see Rex Warner's article "Euripides and Insecurity", in The Story of Fifth Century Athens (London, George Rainbird Ltd, 1972), which also features a copy and analysis of Greek poet George Seferis' poem "Euripides the Athenian".
New to wiki, and not sure if this is relevant though. :P Aretemi 11:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

"Euripides ... frequently relied upon the deus ex machina to resolve his plays, as in Alcestis and Medea."

There is no "deus ex machina", or use of the mechane, in Alcestis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.86.36 (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Corrected this now with better examples (the use of the mechane in Medea does not "resolve" the plot).

The article as a whole is desperately in need of better referencing, however. Even where there is referencing, all too often it is to encyclopaedias or "ancient history sourcebooks". These are not adequate sources, and prove nothing: they're only as good as their own sources. Cite more proximate sources! -- in this case, that would mean ancient sources most of the time.

There's a fair amount of editorial commentary as well -- esp. interpretive comments on the character of his plays, which are bound to be both subjective and ephemeral -- which could do with being re-written from scratch. 130.195.86.36 (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Euripides in popular culture

A popular knock-knock joke has a punch line of "Euripides trousers, Eumenides trousers" (You rip these trousers, you mend these trousers.)

I don't know if this is worthy of the article or not. 208.255.229.66 (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It almost certainly is not. But in the interest of sharing, I have seen these two variations:

1

Euripides tears his pants and takes them to a tailor to be fixed, only to have them tear at the same spot three times. Finally the tailor tires of seeing this sad old man in his shop. He finally exclaims, "Hey, Euripides, Eumenides!"

2

Euripides decided to join the modern era and buy some pants, so he went to a clothing store. Being an ancient Greek (ca. 480BC-406BC), he didn't know much about pants-wearing, so he had a hard time figuring out how to put them on. Also due to his ancient Greekness, his toenails tended to be fairly long, sharp, and craggly.

He tried on one pair of pants, and sure enough, his toenails caught on them and tore the legs to shreds. He paid it no mind and simply hung the pants back up on the rack.

He tried on another pair of pants, and the same thing happened. Once again he hung the pants back up.

As he started to put on a third pair, the shopkeeper ran over to him, yelling profanities.

"What's wrong?" asked Euripides.

The shopkeeper gesticulated at the torn-up pants. "Euripides, you pay for dese!"

67.164.72.148 (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Tragedy?

It is misleading to refer to plays like "Helen" as tragedies, at least without any explanation. "Helen" is more comedy than it is tragedy, with scenes that while worded tragically are ultimately closer to parody or farce. It makes a great deal of fun of its protagonists, who often come off as total idiots - which was relevant political comedy at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.39.30 (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Strong women characters"?

As opposed to Aeschylus (Clytemnesra) and Sophocles (Antigone, Deianera)? This is a meaningless statement. Ifnkovhg (talk) 04:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Plays

This section gives the impression that all of Euripides' survivng plays are the "alphabetic" ones. Actually about half were preserved by the ancients in the same tradition that preserved seven plays each of Sophocles and Aeschylus and the other half were preserved because they occurred in the alphabetic manuscript. Kovacs' introduction to Euripides in the Loeb Classical Series lists which plays fall into which category, but I don't have it available as I am typing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.73.31.50 (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Date convention

Looks like the article has bounced back and forth between BCE/CE and BC/AD conventions recently, so probably worth a discussion here. From my perspective, it seems most appropriate to talk about a classical subject with BCE/CE, since it doesn't presume that Jesus was "our lord". DionysosProteus (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There had been some altercation on this head recently with a BC/AD warrior who had "fixed the consistency issue" here, and I just inserted the commented-out note <!--this article has used the BC/AD convention since its inception-->to report the apparent tradition here. My own preference, in subjects that are not Christian, is BCE/CE, but the right thing is, not to insist or force anything. I'd have thought the note was harmless: so few of my edits are actually reverted.--Wetman (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Glad to have injected a little variety into your Wiki-experience, then. :) I'll leave it for a week or so, to give other interested editors an opportunity to comment, then see if there's a consensus. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Euripides use of Kannada

It is said that the greek dramatist namely Euripides and others have used kannada phrases and words in their plays and skits.Is the use of such phrases shows the contacts with india or does it indicate the language route.For the sources one can google with say "kannada and euripides". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.57.55.32 (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Euripides and life

This is an article on on a major literary figure and yet the highest number of edits by any one user to date is just 35. That's extraordinary and yet it is nothing unusual in the extraordinary WP universe, where life struggles like a weed to get a hold in the Stalinist architecture of committee-work. Any article produced by a committee tends to be a bit haphazard, even lifeless, I think, and hopefully somebody will take ownership of this one. I might put some roots down myself since I can see lots of cracks here. McZeus (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

His iambics have grace, simplicity and inevitability, almost like lyrics in fact, so when critics say he neglected the chorus, it wasn't all on the debit side of the ledger - he turned conversation into a divine kind of language. Tragedians then wrote 3 plays per year, which averages out about 10 lines of verse per day. Try writing 10 lines of verse per day, keep it up for 30 years or so, look at the quality of your output and then compare it with his. You might as well have drunk the ink instead of written with it. And the highest number of edits to date is just 35. Has the universe lost the plot? She squanders her wealth because she can make flowers at a snap of her fingers. But that's no excuse for just 35. McZeus (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

What are you smoking? Whatever it is, be bold, and edit. If you feel the article needs work, then get going! If you need any help or advice, give me a buzz. You think Euripides is bad? Try history of theatre. Or Theatre of ancient Greece for that matter! DionysosProteus (talk)

I'm getting into the mood. It's called method acting. As soon as I am Euripidesed enough, I'll do something worthy of the master. Till then, please don't interrupt. McZeus (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC) |}

New Edit

I'm going to paste here the section that seems to need the most work and I'll do the redrafting here, so that anyone can comment on the changes if they wish to. I'm not sure at the moment how long I am going to be working on this and that's another reason not to mess with the front page until I'm ready to replace it with the version here. I hope nobody will be inconvenienced. McZeus (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem in this section is pretty obvious - the jumble of meanings, even after some editing out, and the lack of citations. The best thing to do is delete it completely, except for the final paragraph, which is sourced. I'll do that as soon as I have redrafted a new section, probably offline. McZeus (talk) 05:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I've moved your draft to a sub-page of the article, here and archived the talk on an archive page.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 06:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

That's OK. I've never edited a subpage before and it will be an interesting experience. McZeus (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Telephus - can I have some of his stuff please?

I wanted to add some more material about the play 'Telephus' and maybe someone can help me with some images of Telephus, as suited to Euripides' play. Especially, I have seen some pictures of kraters showing Telephus, one as the beggar in disguize about to kill the child of Orestes, and another as Mnesilochus disguized as a woman acting like Telephus about to 'kill' a skin of wine that is disguized as a child, in Aristophanes' play Thesmophoriazusae (sounds almost as complicated as Dikaiopolis/Telephus/beggar/Aristophanes/Herodotus in The Acharnians). It all sounds a bit confusing, I know, but such things do happen in real life too. The kraters are:

• Apulian bell krater by the Schiller painter ca 370 BC, Martin von Wagner Museum
• Lucanian red-figure calyx-krater, Pelicoro painter ca 400 BC, The Cleveland Museum of Art.

If anyone can download those images, or images like them, that would be much appreciated. I found the pictures in A Companion to Greek Tragedy. ed. Justina Gregory (see references list in article), pages 111 and 113.

Thanks! McRap (talk) 11:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You might ask User talk:Athinaios, who's been doing an enormous amount of work on vase painting. Best wishes, Cynwolfe (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou 'Cynwolfe'. I'll direct 'him' here. 'McRap'. McRap (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ratings!

Currently as follows:

Trustworthy 1.8 (12 votes)

Objective 2.5 (12 votes)

Complete 1.3 (10 votes)

Well Written 2.4 (13 votes)

The current article that has been scored in this way is here, which doesn't look anywhere near as bad as the ratings suggest, as far as I can tell. Hopefully the people who rate articles will also get on and write them, or at least attempt to improve them. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I often find the ratings puzzling. I suggested that the box should be set up as customer feedback, like "Would you recommend this article?" I find the "Complete" rubric questionable: if you come here to learn about a topic because you know little or nothing about it, how do you know it's complete? But if you ask "Did you find what you were looking for?" and the answer's no, the you could give the rater a space to ask questions. Editors could use these questions to improve the article, and become more aware of how to serve the reader. Readers may not want to edit, but could still improve content by pointing out deficiencies. Anyway, I don't find ratings don't really tell me much about what needs to be improved. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Only people who copy edit should have the keys to the rating drawer. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Update on ratings

Trustworthy 1 (13 votes)

Objective 5 (13 votes)

Complete 5 (11 votes)

Well Written 4 (14 votes)

Compare with the above ratings! The result is clearly absurd. There is just one extra vote yet the impact is significant. The extra vote has lifted everything but Trustworthy. In case people need reminding, Trustworthy means: Do you feel this page has sufficient citations and that those citations come from trustworthy sources?. There are currently 99 citations, all from good sources. Beats me! Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I just rated the article myself, scoring 5 for all indicators. Newest ratings:

Trustworthy 3 (14 votes)

Objective 5 (14 votes)

Complete 5 (12 votes)

Well Written 4.5 (15 votes)

Yes that's much better. I'll have to rate articles more often. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Phaethon

There are other translations and English reconstructions of *Phaethon* circulating in manuscript besides the Vlanes one, but I do not have citations for them. I've added a citation to www.foame.org for the Vlanes reconstruction. Ptrourke (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

B level rating

This rating is wrong. This is the epitome of a encyclopedic article on a Greek tragedian. The articles on Aeschylus and Sophocles are quite inferior! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.223.37 (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)