This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
this article might want to include the fact that this play included the first ever scene-change in Greek drama... or any other theretofore play... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djumbrosia ( talk • contribs) 13:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
In good faith, I don’t think we should attribute to “John Moore” alone the idea that Ajax is a relatively early play, yet not a immature play, and written in the 440s BC (etc.). It’s a view that for over a century is widely shared by anyone who’s a scholar or authority on this topic. The ideas are well supported by reliable sources. To suggest that it is the opinion of “John Moore” seems to indicate that either he is the only one, or that the idea might be controversial. But Moore is one of many excellent sources who can be cited, and with his opinion he is following many scholars that have come before. It is of course Moore’s opinion that Sophocles was Greek, (for example) but it isn’t necessary to point out that out. I have added more references to support these ideas, also because reliable sources are not a bad idea. Clockchime ( talk) 17:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Also in the section "Ajax" or "Aias" I think (though it was edited in good faith) it seems misleading to suggest that the idea (about the sound of Ajax and the sound of Aias and the sound of lamentation) is one man's idea -- it's a problem that all translators run up against and I have added another reliable source to indicate that it isn't one man's idea only. It's not controversial or original each time it is pointed out. Clockchime ( talk) 18:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I have edited my remarks above – hopefully that will clear up any misunderstanding. Again, I would like to know: in what sense exactly do the sources cited intend the phrase "not at all an immature play" to be understood – as an aesthetic judgement, a place in a chronology of works, or otherwise? — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 06:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
'when it is said that Ajax is relatively early, or “early” in a particular context, people sometimes jump to the incorrect conclusion that it is an “early play” ... the word “immature” needs to be understood as “not mature”, and akin to “juvenilia”, which is how the sources intend the word', I take it that the phrase "not at all an immature play" means simply that Ajax is not one of Sophocles's earliest works, or
"not from his earliest period". Is that correct? — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 02:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Ajax may be the earliest of the seven plays by Sophocles that have survived, yet is not from his earliest period. [1] [2] [3] [4]
I've spent some time cleaning up the citations and sources for this article, prompted by the problems detailed above. I've moved the citations over to the MLA author-date system, which is useful where the same source is cited many times. Consequently, the notes are now crisp, clean, and easily legible. There were many mistakes in the citations and misattributions, which I think I've corrected. This also has the consequence of highlighting where a citation fails to give a page number--please feel free to check the books concerned if you have them available and add the page numbers. I removed the reference to an adaptation that didn't seem to be notable but have left Wertenbaker's play, since she's notable without a citation (though it needs one, obvs). This is still only a start article, since there is clearly a massive amount of information missing. I've started a Performance history section based on the citation in the article for the review of Peter Sellar's production. More productions would be desirable here, provided notability and sourcing can be provided. I adjusted the lede copy somewhat, to reflect what I was able to read of the sources provided online and what I had to hand. • DP • {huh?} 19:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Moved here from § Critical analysis and reception:
Ajax is a heroic figure, whose strength, courage and quick-thinking are almost superhuman. The stories of him coming to the rescue of his fellow man in dire moments are the stuff of legend. Yet, as in this play, he and others also suffer from those same qualities when Ajax becomes proud, stubborn and hot tempered.
Such interpretations need attribution to their sources, and preferably an inline citation as well. It's unclear whether the text is referring to the character in the play or the figure of Ajax as he appears in other tales. Language such as "of his fellow man", "the stuff of legend" and "also suffer from those same qualities" is vague.
Similar problems arise with the paragraphs that begin "One interpretation sees..." and "Another interpretation sees..." but at least there are citations there that could assist the reader. Still, the style is similar to an opinion essay, and the wording is vague – one question that arises immediately is, Whose interpretation is being discussed?
Any thoughts on how to clean up this material to provide needed context and avoid seeming to endorse a particular point of view? — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 20:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to the editor who made
these improvements to the article. I see that the article
now uses the possessive form Sophocles' rather than Sophocles's (no s after the apostrophe). Wikipedia's
Manual of Style and
Oxford Dictionaries recommend using the extra s when it is pronounced in speech: "Brahms's music, Dickens's novels, Morris's works"
. How would the pronunciation normally go in the case of Sophocles? —
Coconutporkpie (
talk) 22:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
"The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material"and
"Asking for a verifiable reference supporting a statement is often better than arguing against it". Until someone can prove with a citation that Sophocles' is the preferred usage, I see no reason not to replace it with Sophocles's, which seems more intuitive to me. — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 16:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
How about you try following the advice you've already offered and follow MoS. It's not pronounced with an extra syllable. The experience with degrees was an indication of common spoken usage with experts in the field. The usage is easily found with a small amount of effort. If it's an important issue to you -- and I fail to see how it can be, given the terrible state most of the article is in, there are surely more pressing issues -- you can easily avail yourself of the information required. • DP • {huh?} 17:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
"It's not pronounced with an extra syllable"– citation, please. Personal experience is not a valid source for material here. Please refer to Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 17:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC) [Update: a better summary of the relevant policy is found at Wikipedia:No original research § Related policies:
"Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors". 17:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)]
"You have the citations required"– and which ones would those be? — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 17:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
"Just like every book I glanced at that I had to hand this morning"– titles and page numbers please? — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 18:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, I have managed to find several instances of the possessive Sophocles' in some of the works cited for this article, [2] [3] [4] [5] no thanks to any other editor involved in this discussion. The Google books search linked above did contain, on page 5, one other instance of Sophocles' – once again not cited in the article or dealing at all with the play Ajax. I wonder whether the editor who repeatedly insisted that I look for information there even bothered to read the search results.
On a separate note, Wikipedia is not compulsory, and any user who believes their time is being wasted here, including in responding to other users' good-faith queries, is free to stop anytime. — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 17:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
This is a rather banal conversation. If you look you will find examples of both. Looking at the Wikipedia manual of style however MOS:POSS and noting the classical nature of Sophocles, I'd lean towards Sophocles'. -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 04:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Coconutporkpie, while I can understand that your embarassment at having behaved inappropriately on this talk page in the last couple of months might motivate you to tuck it away where anyone passing by is less likely to stumble across it, it is, nevertheless and as a couple of other editors have already pointed out to you, a further instance of your pattern of inappropriate behaviour. • DP • {huh?} 14:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Personal remarks? I haven't speculated about your personality--I'm quite sure your behaviour speaks for itself. The cluttered talk page was its result. Two other editors attempted to do precisely what you are now suggesting, and you reverted them. Kindly leave the talk page alone and restore its contents. • DP • {huh?} 17:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
"Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct [...] Bringing up conduct during discussions about content creates a distraction to the discussion and may inflame the situation". Also please note that it is standard talk page formatting to use indentation via colons (::) to indicate a reply to a comment – see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Technical and format standards for more explanation. — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 19:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
NOTE: This discussion has also been copied and continued at
User talk:DionysosProteus. --
Softlavender (
talk) 00:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Ajax] appears to belong to the same period as Sophocles's Antigone, which was produced in 442 or 441 BC, when Sophocles was 55 years old, and had been producing plays for a quarter of a century. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
I think having six citations for this seemingly trivial fact is definitely unwarranted – it only adds clutter to what is a rather brief lead section. Any suggestions for trimming this down to the one or two best-quality sources? — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 14:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
"I think it is not a good idea to remove sources without good reason, and without knowing what they verify"— since the editor who made the preceding comment was also the one who added five of those six citations, perhaps he or she could say exactly what the sources do verify, using quotes from those sources. The "good reason" for trimming the number of citations, in my opinion, is to keep the article readable, and not distract readers with multiple footnotes when one or two would suffice. Where exactly do Wikipedia's core content policies specify that such a number of citations is needed? — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 16:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Removing sources impinges on Wikipedia:Core content policies– not always, no. Wikipedia's core content policies are WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. Of these, only WP:V requires citations, and only then in certain specific circumstances: (QMATERIAL CHALLENGED OR LIKELY TO BE CHALLENGED, AND ALL QUOTATIONS, MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO A RELIABLE, PUBLISHED SOURCE.). Unless the facts in that sentence have been challenged (I don't think they are likely to be, personally), then it's not a violation of WP:V to remove the citations.
Ajax] appears to belong to the same period as Sophocles's Antigone, which was produced in 442 or 441 BC, when Sophocles was 55 years old, and had been producing plays for a quarter of a century. [1] [2]
Ajax may be the earliest of the seven plays by Sophocles that have survived, but it is not at all an immature workand whether it is problematic, and if it is, how it could be rephrased. There are two primary concerns. Firstly, is the use of the term "immature" in this case a biased statement of opinion that requires in-text attribution under the neutral point of view policy? The consensus is no, the use of "immature" here instead describes the location of Ajax within the collection of Sophocles' works, which is not a biased statement of opinion and therefore does not require in-text attribution.
Ajax may be the earliest of Sophocles' seven tragedies to have survived, though it is probable that he had been composing plays for a quarter of a century already when it was first staged. It appears to belong to the same period as his Antigone, which was probably performed in 442 or 441 BCE, when he was 55 years old.There is a consensus that this phrasing is satisfactory. Respectfully, Mz7 ( talk) 14:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Should the page Ajax (play) describe its subject as "not at all an immature work"? To me the phrase reads like a statement of opinion in Wikipedia's voice. — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 18:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
This was discussed at length between two editors above ( § regarding the attribution to a particular person alone) with no clear understanding being reached at how the sources intend the word immature to be used. Two issues seem to be involved here: first, if immature is meant as an judgement of artistic quality or lack of refinement, then it should be properly attributed to its source—or described as a widespread view if sources make that clear—per Wikipedia's neutrality policy; on the other hand, if immature is simply a quirky academic way of describing a thing's place in a chronology of works, then the statement should be rephrased to make that clear to the general reader. — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 18:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Messages have also been posted linking to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 18:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
"Wikipedia should stick with the language that is used by the authorities"– actually, as Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable explains, articles should be written in the most widely understandable way possible. Based on the preceding comment, scholars seem to be using the word immature differently than its commonly understood meaning. That doesn't help the article convey meaningful information to the reader – see Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Technical language. — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 01:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
"Ajax definitely doesn’t belong with the plays that are considered Sophocles’ immature plays"– can anyone substantiate this with an actual quote from one or more sources? I think that would help provide contextual clues for the intended meaning of immature. — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 02:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
"Regarding Coconutporkpie’s recent question asking if there are any sources"– my actual question was whether the sources in fact substantiate the claim being made – that Ajax "doesn't belong" with the so-called "immature" plays. So far that has not been shown clearly. As another editor pointed out above, immature is ambiguous in common usage. — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 15:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay, first item is that this is beginning to feel like a dispute that will end with one or more editors being sanctioned. The language being discussed is not purple or otherwise important; it's simply an attempt to convey an idea, & there may be better words to use to convey that idea.
Second, I happen to have a degree in Literature, & have made an effort to stay current with the academic literature, & I have never encountered the words "an immature work" used by themselves to convey some kind of judgment. While they might be accurately applied to some literary works -- say, the early comedies of Shakespeare are examples of his immature work -- I would expect those words to be immediately followed with "because" & an explanation why those works are "immature". (In this case, I'd say something along the lines that his later plays demonstrate more mastery of language & more depth of characterization, then provide examples of Shakespeare's mature literary skills.)
But in any case, I honestly don't see the point why it must be said this play is "not at all an immature work". Has someone alleged that it is an "immature work"? (If so, who said that & why? Were there a lot of juvenile content, like fart jokes?) If no one has alleged that, then those words are not intrinsic to the article, & can be removed. To be frank, I think the sentence "Ajax may be the earliest of the seven plays by Sophocles that have survived, yet is not from his earliest period" expresses this idea very well; in fact, I think it is far more fluent than the present "Ajax may be the earliest of the seven plays by Sophocles that have survived, but it is not at all an immature work".
Since one of the editors is so enamored with the current wording, I think it's only fair for she/he to explain how that wording is better. -- llywrch ( talk) 22:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Ajax may be the earliest of the seven plays by Sophocles that have survived, yet is not from his earliest period. [1] [2]
"Yes, multiple sources that are cited in the article are indeed saying that and use the word 'Immature'"– this claim has been repeated several times already on this talk page without any proof. Nor does it address the need for non-technical language. Wikipedia is not an academic journal, and material should be written for everyday readers, using plain language instead of abstruse jargon. If the sources use immature to mean "early" or "earliest", then Wikipedia should say that rather than immature, which means "not fully developed or grown" in common usage. As for moving citations to the end of the paragraph and removing duplicates, I have no objection to that. My objection is to the wording and to the distracting number of footnotes. — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 17:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
"Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible"(to avoid plagiarism), and
"Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say"(to maintain neutrality). — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 18:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Ajax may be the earliest of the seven plays by Sophocles to have survived, though he had been producing plays for a quarter of a century when it was first staged in 442 or 441 BCE. The play appears to belong to the same period as his Antigone, which was first staged in 442 or 441 BCE, when Sophocles was 55 years old.
Ajax may be [depending on how strong the scholarly consensus is, this could be replaced by "is probably"] the earliest of Sophocles' seven surviving plays, though he had been producing plays for a quarter of a century when it was first staged. It appears to belong to the same period as his Antigone, first staged in 442 or 441 BCE, when he was 55 years old.
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
this article might want to include the fact that this play included the first ever scene-change in Greek drama... or any other theretofore play... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djumbrosia ( talk • contribs) 13:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
In good faith, I don’t think we should attribute to “John Moore” alone the idea that Ajax is a relatively early play, yet not a immature play, and written in the 440s BC (etc.). It’s a view that for over a century is widely shared by anyone who’s a scholar or authority on this topic. The ideas are well supported by reliable sources. To suggest that it is the opinion of “John Moore” seems to indicate that either he is the only one, or that the idea might be controversial. But Moore is one of many excellent sources who can be cited, and with his opinion he is following many scholars that have come before. It is of course Moore’s opinion that Sophocles was Greek, (for example) but it isn’t necessary to point out that out. I have added more references to support these ideas, also because reliable sources are not a bad idea. Clockchime ( talk) 17:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Also in the section "Ajax" or "Aias" I think (though it was edited in good faith) it seems misleading to suggest that the idea (about the sound of Ajax and the sound of Aias and the sound of lamentation) is one man's idea -- it's a problem that all translators run up against and I have added another reliable source to indicate that it isn't one man's idea only. It's not controversial or original each time it is pointed out. Clockchime ( talk) 18:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I have edited my remarks above – hopefully that will clear up any misunderstanding. Again, I would like to know: in what sense exactly do the sources cited intend the phrase "not at all an immature play" to be understood – as an aesthetic judgement, a place in a chronology of works, or otherwise? — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 06:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
'when it is said that Ajax is relatively early, or “early” in a particular context, people sometimes jump to the incorrect conclusion that it is an “early play” ... the word “immature” needs to be understood as “not mature”, and akin to “juvenilia”, which is how the sources intend the word', I take it that the phrase "not at all an immature play" means simply that Ajax is not one of Sophocles's earliest works, or
"not from his earliest period". Is that correct? — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 02:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Ajax may be the earliest of the seven plays by Sophocles that have survived, yet is not from his earliest period. [1] [2] [3] [4]
I've spent some time cleaning up the citations and sources for this article, prompted by the problems detailed above. I've moved the citations over to the MLA author-date system, which is useful where the same source is cited many times. Consequently, the notes are now crisp, clean, and easily legible. There were many mistakes in the citations and misattributions, which I think I've corrected. This also has the consequence of highlighting where a citation fails to give a page number--please feel free to check the books concerned if you have them available and add the page numbers. I removed the reference to an adaptation that didn't seem to be notable but have left Wertenbaker's play, since she's notable without a citation (though it needs one, obvs). This is still only a start article, since there is clearly a massive amount of information missing. I've started a Performance history section based on the citation in the article for the review of Peter Sellar's production. More productions would be desirable here, provided notability and sourcing can be provided. I adjusted the lede copy somewhat, to reflect what I was able to read of the sources provided online and what I had to hand. • DP • {huh?} 19:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Moved here from § Critical analysis and reception:
Ajax is a heroic figure, whose strength, courage and quick-thinking are almost superhuman. The stories of him coming to the rescue of his fellow man in dire moments are the stuff of legend. Yet, as in this play, he and others also suffer from those same qualities when Ajax becomes proud, stubborn and hot tempered.
Such interpretations need attribution to their sources, and preferably an inline citation as well. It's unclear whether the text is referring to the character in the play or the figure of Ajax as he appears in other tales. Language such as "of his fellow man", "the stuff of legend" and "also suffer from those same qualities" is vague.
Similar problems arise with the paragraphs that begin "One interpretation sees..." and "Another interpretation sees..." but at least there are citations there that could assist the reader. Still, the style is similar to an opinion essay, and the wording is vague – one question that arises immediately is, Whose interpretation is being discussed?
Any thoughts on how to clean up this material to provide needed context and avoid seeming to endorse a particular point of view? — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 20:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to the editor who made
these improvements to the article. I see that the article
now uses the possessive form Sophocles' rather than Sophocles's (no s after the apostrophe). Wikipedia's
Manual of Style and
Oxford Dictionaries recommend using the extra s when it is pronounced in speech: "Brahms's music, Dickens's novels, Morris's works"
. How would the pronunciation normally go in the case of Sophocles? —
Coconutporkpie (
talk) 22:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
"The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material"and
"Asking for a verifiable reference supporting a statement is often better than arguing against it". Until someone can prove with a citation that Sophocles' is the preferred usage, I see no reason not to replace it with Sophocles's, which seems more intuitive to me. — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 16:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
How about you try following the advice you've already offered and follow MoS. It's not pronounced with an extra syllable. The experience with degrees was an indication of common spoken usage with experts in the field. The usage is easily found with a small amount of effort. If it's an important issue to you -- and I fail to see how it can be, given the terrible state most of the article is in, there are surely more pressing issues -- you can easily avail yourself of the information required. • DP • {huh?} 17:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
"It's not pronounced with an extra syllable"– citation, please. Personal experience is not a valid source for material here. Please refer to Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 17:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC) [Update: a better summary of the relevant policy is found at Wikipedia:No original research § Related policies:
"Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors". 17:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)]
"You have the citations required"– and which ones would those be? — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 17:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
"Just like every book I glanced at that I had to hand this morning"– titles and page numbers please? — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 18:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, I have managed to find several instances of the possessive Sophocles' in some of the works cited for this article, [2] [3] [4] [5] no thanks to any other editor involved in this discussion. The Google books search linked above did contain, on page 5, one other instance of Sophocles' – once again not cited in the article or dealing at all with the play Ajax. I wonder whether the editor who repeatedly insisted that I look for information there even bothered to read the search results.
On a separate note, Wikipedia is not compulsory, and any user who believes their time is being wasted here, including in responding to other users' good-faith queries, is free to stop anytime. — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 17:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
This is a rather banal conversation. If you look you will find examples of both. Looking at the Wikipedia manual of style however MOS:POSS and noting the classical nature of Sophocles, I'd lean towards Sophocles'. -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 04:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Coconutporkpie, while I can understand that your embarassment at having behaved inappropriately on this talk page in the last couple of months might motivate you to tuck it away where anyone passing by is less likely to stumble across it, it is, nevertheless and as a couple of other editors have already pointed out to you, a further instance of your pattern of inappropriate behaviour. • DP • {huh?} 14:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Personal remarks? I haven't speculated about your personality--I'm quite sure your behaviour speaks for itself. The cluttered talk page was its result. Two other editors attempted to do precisely what you are now suggesting, and you reverted them. Kindly leave the talk page alone and restore its contents. • DP • {huh?} 17:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
"Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct [...] Bringing up conduct during discussions about content creates a distraction to the discussion and may inflame the situation". Also please note that it is standard talk page formatting to use indentation via colons (::) to indicate a reply to a comment – see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Technical and format standards for more explanation. — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 19:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
NOTE: This discussion has also been copied and continued at
User talk:DionysosProteus. --
Softlavender (
talk) 00:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Ajax] appears to belong to the same period as Sophocles's Antigone, which was produced in 442 or 441 BC, when Sophocles was 55 years old, and had been producing plays for a quarter of a century. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
I think having six citations for this seemingly trivial fact is definitely unwarranted – it only adds clutter to what is a rather brief lead section. Any suggestions for trimming this down to the one or two best-quality sources? — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 14:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
"I think it is not a good idea to remove sources without good reason, and without knowing what they verify"— since the editor who made the preceding comment was also the one who added five of those six citations, perhaps he or she could say exactly what the sources do verify, using quotes from those sources. The "good reason" for trimming the number of citations, in my opinion, is to keep the article readable, and not distract readers with multiple footnotes when one or two would suffice. Where exactly do Wikipedia's core content policies specify that such a number of citations is needed? — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 16:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Removing sources impinges on Wikipedia:Core content policies– not always, no. Wikipedia's core content policies are WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. Of these, only WP:V requires citations, and only then in certain specific circumstances: (QMATERIAL CHALLENGED OR LIKELY TO BE CHALLENGED, AND ALL QUOTATIONS, MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO A RELIABLE, PUBLISHED SOURCE.). Unless the facts in that sentence have been challenged (I don't think they are likely to be, personally), then it's not a violation of WP:V to remove the citations.
Ajax] appears to belong to the same period as Sophocles's Antigone, which was produced in 442 or 441 BC, when Sophocles was 55 years old, and had been producing plays for a quarter of a century. [1] [2]
Ajax may be the earliest of the seven plays by Sophocles that have survived, but it is not at all an immature workand whether it is problematic, and if it is, how it could be rephrased. There are two primary concerns. Firstly, is the use of the term "immature" in this case a biased statement of opinion that requires in-text attribution under the neutral point of view policy? The consensus is no, the use of "immature" here instead describes the location of Ajax within the collection of Sophocles' works, which is not a biased statement of opinion and therefore does not require in-text attribution.
Ajax may be the earliest of Sophocles' seven tragedies to have survived, though it is probable that he had been composing plays for a quarter of a century already when it was first staged. It appears to belong to the same period as his Antigone, which was probably performed in 442 or 441 BCE, when he was 55 years old.There is a consensus that this phrasing is satisfactory. Respectfully, Mz7 ( talk) 14:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Should the page Ajax (play) describe its subject as "not at all an immature work"? To me the phrase reads like a statement of opinion in Wikipedia's voice. — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 18:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
This was discussed at length between two editors above ( § regarding the attribution to a particular person alone) with no clear understanding being reached at how the sources intend the word immature to be used. Two issues seem to be involved here: first, if immature is meant as an judgement of artistic quality or lack of refinement, then it should be properly attributed to its source—or described as a widespread view if sources make that clear—per Wikipedia's neutrality policy; on the other hand, if immature is simply a quirky academic way of describing a thing's place in a chronology of works, then the statement should be rephrased to make that clear to the general reader. — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 18:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Messages have also been posted linking to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 18:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
"Wikipedia should stick with the language that is used by the authorities"– actually, as Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable explains, articles should be written in the most widely understandable way possible. Based on the preceding comment, scholars seem to be using the word immature differently than its commonly understood meaning. That doesn't help the article convey meaningful information to the reader – see Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Technical language. — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 01:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
"Ajax definitely doesn’t belong with the plays that are considered Sophocles’ immature plays"– can anyone substantiate this with an actual quote from one or more sources? I think that would help provide contextual clues for the intended meaning of immature. — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 02:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
"Regarding Coconutporkpie’s recent question asking if there are any sources"– my actual question was whether the sources in fact substantiate the claim being made – that Ajax "doesn't belong" with the so-called "immature" plays. So far that has not been shown clearly. As another editor pointed out above, immature is ambiguous in common usage. — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 15:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay, first item is that this is beginning to feel like a dispute that will end with one or more editors being sanctioned. The language being discussed is not purple or otherwise important; it's simply an attempt to convey an idea, & there may be better words to use to convey that idea.
Second, I happen to have a degree in Literature, & have made an effort to stay current with the academic literature, & I have never encountered the words "an immature work" used by themselves to convey some kind of judgment. While they might be accurately applied to some literary works -- say, the early comedies of Shakespeare are examples of his immature work -- I would expect those words to be immediately followed with "because" & an explanation why those works are "immature". (In this case, I'd say something along the lines that his later plays demonstrate more mastery of language & more depth of characterization, then provide examples of Shakespeare's mature literary skills.)
But in any case, I honestly don't see the point why it must be said this play is "not at all an immature work". Has someone alleged that it is an "immature work"? (If so, who said that & why? Were there a lot of juvenile content, like fart jokes?) If no one has alleged that, then those words are not intrinsic to the article, & can be removed. To be frank, I think the sentence "Ajax may be the earliest of the seven plays by Sophocles that have survived, yet is not from his earliest period" expresses this idea very well; in fact, I think it is far more fluent than the present "Ajax may be the earliest of the seven plays by Sophocles that have survived, but it is not at all an immature work".
Since one of the editors is so enamored with the current wording, I think it's only fair for she/he to explain how that wording is better. -- llywrch ( talk) 22:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Ajax may be the earliest of the seven plays by Sophocles that have survived, yet is not from his earliest period. [1] [2]
"Yes, multiple sources that are cited in the article are indeed saying that and use the word 'Immature'"– this claim has been repeated several times already on this talk page without any proof. Nor does it address the need for non-technical language. Wikipedia is not an academic journal, and material should be written for everyday readers, using plain language instead of abstruse jargon. If the sources use immature to mean "early" or "earliest", then Wikipedia should say that rather than immature, which means "not fully developed or grown" in common usage. As for moving citations to the end of the paragraph and removing duplicates, I have no objection to that. My objection is to the wording and to the distracting number of footnotes. — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 17:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
"Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible"(to avoid plagiarism), and
"Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say"(to maintain neutrality). — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 18:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Ajax may be the earliest of the seven plays by Sophocles to have survived, though he had been producing plays for a quarter of a century when it was first staged in 442 or 441 BCE. The play appears to belong to the same period as his Antigone, which was first staged in 442 or 441 BCE, when Sophocles was 55 years old.
Ajax may be [depending on how strong the scholarly consensus is, this could be replaced by "is probably"] the earliest of Sophocles' seven surviving plays, though he had been producing plays for a quarter of a century when it was first staged. It appears to belong to the same period as his Antigone, first staged in 442 or 441 BCE, when he was 55 years old.
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |