Talk:Euripides

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article is on a subject of mid-importance within classical antiquity.

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

Contents 1 Latest back-and-forth 2 Chooserr 3 Remember the actual content of the article? 4 Verse translations 5 Changed "last" to "youngest" 6 Commentary Section

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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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))

[edit] 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)