![]() | 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. |
Ok since this article lacks references and any real account of the myth (which I personally think is quite an interesting case) I'm rewriting it all. I will be done with a rough draft (but still better than this) within a week. Mottenen ( talk) 21:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a neat topic and even just with a quick scan, nice writing. Let me read it first for content and give suggestions on substance and organization. I noticed a few places where we could make it a little more Adonis('s momma)-like and will go after those nextt. But that's just by being another pair of eyes. Think you know what you are doing. TCO ( talk) 19:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
1. Do you like what you are getting? I can clean up the rest of the thing, similarly.
2. There will be some things (like three different Latin words) where I need your input. Are they just variations within Latin of same term (grammatical variations or more different)? Also how did the word move from Latin to English? Via French, or directly?
3. Love that you can read the classical texts. I am a modern man who never even studied Latin, let alone Greek.
4. We can slick the thing up and take a run at GA. I think what it really will need (and that will become apparent as we work on it) is a bit more content. I know you said you had exhausted the sources, but I wonder about secondary work (not just Ovid). Is it covered more in (I donno, am not a mytholgist or classicist) Bullfinches or whatever the other big books are? How about scholarly journals? Also, I wonder if there is more on usage in literature and themes and stuff. Any pop culture usage? how about names? Does Smyrna, Georgia come from our wayward father-loving lass?
5. While you're allowed to do the citations the way you are, I think it is more helpful and Alexander cutting the Gordion knot to separate the notes and citations (As a reader, I prefer a journal that does that, like has letters for explanatory footnotes and numbers for source citation endnotes.)
TCO ( talk) 00:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
1. Yes, it would be great if you would do a full ce
2. It is not further explained in the dictionary I got them from. I guess they are just variations, but if they are bothering you I suggest deleting 2 of them. - My aunt has studied Greek and Latin, I'm going to ask her.
4. I haven't thought of Bulfinch, I'll try it out. Problem is when I search for any words like greek mythology or myrrha or smyrna my library can't find anything more relevant - living in Denmark the number of English sources are unfortunately limited. I'm trying very hard to find any more references in literature. I think I read somewhere (maybe Park) that Smyrna might be related to the city, but no source suggest HOW - so I left it out.
5. This being my very first article I don't know how to do that - please tell me.
I left the map small when I was making the scrumptious paintings bigger because I thought it explained such a simple concept. But...is anything known or special about how the myth spread from Cyprus like through the islands or what have you?
Also, if we want another graphic, then one showing our pregnant lady's flight across the middle east, etc would be helfpul. Obviously you have to put a nominal location for that island in the red sea? Or the IO? And then landing in Sheba (I assume you define that as Yemen, not Africa). TCO ( talk) 01:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
It is etymological speculation that Greeks met the myth through Cyprus, but they seem very sure of it. The problem is that the myth was already old when it was recorded by e.g. Apollodorus or Hyginus. All we have are some words that can be related to each other as well as knowledge about the cult of Adonis.
I could fix that. I would do the Cyprus-route then since Ovid's version is the most commonly referred. The translator simply stated that Sabaea is Yemen today but I see your point, let me think about it. Mottenen ( talk) 17:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
They're gonna check that for GA or FA. Wonder if we have permission to be using that UVM stuff. Obviouslly the paintings themselves are not copyrighted, but not sure about the slides. (Just soemthing to check.) TCO ( talk) 05:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Have been prowling around a little. No action needed, just sharing, in case it helps us somehow.
I think this page would be a great one for the "did you know" award. They want to promote new articles or ones that have had significant recent growth from a stub. I looked in the edit history and in early January, there was almost nothing there. Also the topic would really fit well as it is a compelling story and all (not a boring article by any means). I've never gone through the process before myself, but will look into getting your work that award. TCO ( talk) 20:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
1. "What is clear though is that the Greeks must have added a lot to the original story before it became the version Ovid recorded." (added to the story of Adonis or the story of Myrhha?) TCO ( talk) 20:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
2. (ec) Seems like a contradiction where we say Latin eymology can be traced back only to 200 AD, but Ovid wrote at 0 AD. Did he write in Greek? Or only mention the name of the girl, but not the fragrance? Just trying to understand the 200AD. TCO ( talk) 21:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I asked at the talk page and they also said Ovid wrote in Latin. (What a radical! I thought all the educated Romans preferred Greek for seerious scholarship. I guess since he was writing racy stories and all... ;-))
P.s If you want another project, that article is a page that went to FA on Puertugeese Wiki and suggestion was made to convert all the content over (see talk). There is a way to request a translation (I have done it once but for a much shorter article). Would only bother, if you intend to mother that article to a en-wiki GA or FA, though.
I think we are probably cool leaving it with the asteroid. I was a little worried about my cutting the ladybug, but then I looked and there are at least three other wiki-species with myrrha in the name (moth, butterfly, tree). There's also some sort of atom collider: MYRRHA ( SCK*CEN). If anybody is really concerned with the whole searchability thing we can just ask for a disamb page. Low priority. And this page is obviously the majority usage and properly named. TCO ( talk) 23:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I asked for one of the projects to give this thing an upgrade. This is more like a C (maybe B) article. I would change myself, but I don't like to take articles I'm working on above Start. TCO ( talk) 00:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
got distraceted by reptiles. TCO ( talk) 06:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay it seems that myrrha, murrha, and murra are all synonyms in Latin. The differences can be explained through natural development in the language and that the word(s) are/were translated from Greek where "r" has an "rh"-kind of sound. Hope this answered your question.
Anything else about some strange words? Mottenen ( talk) 13:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay I can't figure these things out:
1. Someone else changed the Semetic to Phoenician. But I think it might be more precise. The Semites range all across Arabia, but it you read the article on Adonis, it seems like he just came from that sort of "Tyre" region where the Phonecians were. Phoenicians are a subset of Semites, no (and probably a little more precise in terms of identifying a culture and time rather than just an ethnic group). Can you check a little more into the substance? What do other sources say?
2. That was my herecy, sorry. *Shame* I was trying to separate the two blue-linked words (I did keep the city thing). I'll have another go at it. BTW, I did actually read the wiki article on Ugarit and Baal and the Baal cycle and Caananites and all. But maybe I made too much of an assumption. TCO ( talk) 13:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay I think I might go have a look in Shakespeare's Venus and Adonis - I'll post any relevant info I come across here. Do you have any more suggestions on other literature?? Mottenen ( talk) 13:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Good call. Some suggestions:
I hope these don't sound trivial, but I have found with my turtle work, that Google really was my friend. And that often when I went hunting after one source, I would find other sources that were useful for my article, just by the act of searching away. For instance, who knows what useful thing will come up if you put - Was Adonis Semetic or Phoenician? - into your search window?
Some more "tricks". A lot of times with Google scholar, the papers I come to require a subscription to read them (which I don't want to pay). but if I note the title and then do just a google web search, I can find a free version available elsewhere (e.g. on the author's website). The other thing, is maybe try digging into the "refs to the refs". I suspect you are using sources that only have a few pages on Myrrha (since they are covering a much larger subject). But if they cite some primary literature, we can go read that and it will go into more detail. TCO ( talk) 14:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Not to overwhelm, but a few more thoughts:
1. In the US, we have an Interlibrary Loan (ILL) system. Maybe you have same in Denmark. That means you can actually get books not from your own town, but other place's libraries.
2. Sometimes with google books, you can see all or enough of the source to get by. (view mode).
3. type Myrrha into the WP search window and hit enter. Bunch of pages mentioning things wrt Myrrha. 1600s poet, 1990s play, etc. early 1900s composer. Etc.
4. I think we could cludge together some sort of influences section for Myrrha with things named after her. Several binomial animal names. The asteroid. maybe the reactor (not sure, that may be coincidence).
5. Byron? http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2220/is_1_44/ai_94130273/pg_12/
6. http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?PID=396824 (book is not out yet, but maybe the author has some academic writings.
7. (kinda random) [2] 1963
8. I can't find original for this. Looks old. [3]
TCO ( talk) 07:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Does the issue of being a concubine (a kept woman of a man, who he is not married to) really concern Myrrha? Or is it the shame of the incest taboo? IOW, this just seems a little off. Or is it that her father is already married so all that she could be would be a mistress? Just asking and trying to understand the logic. (I suppose I should break down and read the myth as well.) :-) TCO ( talk) 15:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
"Her longings showed themselves partly as despair and partly as a resolve to try finding a way to fool her father into believing she was not his daughter. At last losing all hope she saw no other way out, but suicide." (I really need to read the myth, but) it seems that she later decided to fool her father into thinking it was not her. This was what she did with the nurse. So why the suicide, and then doing exactly what she wanted to earlier? TCO ( talk) 16:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
(Just asking) is this note necessary or is it an obvious equivalence like Zeus and Jupiter or Venus and Aphrodite? TCO ( talk) 17:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Recommendation: take a look at Painted turtle or List of U.S. state reptiles and follow the pattern in terms of segregating explanatory notes from source citations. If you open edit mode, you'll be able to see how the "nb" notes work. The reason for doing this is that it's better for the reader. When he sees a mark, he can tell if it is explanatory (he might be more inclined to read that, as it has "content") or if it is a source citation (and if he wants the source citation, he can, for instance, scan later in the para if the source citation is at the end, but there is an explantory note earlier). Also, by doing this, you can actually add source citations for the explanatory notes (for example the pronunciations can be sourced, but otherwise you are prevented from "nesting" references inside references).
I'll be out of your article by end of day and turn it back to you, so no conflict then. We can work on the reference format themselves, after, but let's start with this simple task. TCO ( talk) 17:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
It's always a judgment call on personal and place names whether we use a more modern form or ancient (and then the translation). I think this story has so much "color" that we don't need the affection of Arabae. But conversely, it would be silly to mention "France" rather than "Gaul" if discussing Julius Caesar's conquests. So, I don't have a hard and fast rule. TCO ( talk) 17:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Is it correct that there are essentially just Ovid and then Appolodorus? I realize that Appolodorus actually containst several different versions. But in terms of classical sources is it just Ovid and then "all the versions within Appolodorus"? Or are there further indepedant classical sources/versions? TCO ( talk) 18:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I added this to the See also. I still think when we dig into the content more, find Freudian and feminist and other literary discussion of the myth, we will end up having a section of text on "literary criticism of the myth", and then that will be "in article". But putting it here for now. TCO ( talk) 18:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
"Though Myrrha abandoned her human feelings when she was transformed, she still mourns her tragic fate and her tears..." this seems paradoxical. We say she abondonded feelings (emotions) but then that she cries. Would it be more correct to say she abondonded her fears or her sensations or her vulnerabilities, but she still mourns and cries? Think on it... TCO ( talk) 18:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The Danish one serves my purposes better. ;-) I donno. Think about it and decide what you want to do, over time. It's a tiny point, but the more we can make thinks seem blatantly logical to the reader, the easier for him to get drawn through our article. I will go finish the rest of the article. (Great topic.) TCO ( talk) 19:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that Dore painting has a formal title or not. I know that it is an illustration to a book. Not trying to change the name of the work, but even if that is name of the work, is confusing to say "condemned for incest" when our paragraph emphasizes that her disguise was the worse crime than the sex. (this is how I finesse it.) TCO ( talk) 19:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
How about adding List of Metamorphoses characters to See also since we are referring to not so few of them in relation to Metamorphoses? If you have any other suggestions add them Mottenen ( talk) 19:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
1. Nice topic. This is one Wikipedians (I guess people in general) will like because it is so scandalous. Also, kind of helps out the Project as is more "Great Books" as opposed to pop culture. Good find.
2. Writing and org was pretty decent to start with. I found a few things to change in logic or prose, but really just polishing.
3. It's probably a B article now. To get to GA, it needs:
A. More content. Go hunt down all the primary literature on criticism and etymology and all. There's gotta be more out there. No one expects you to do a Ph.D., but there is so much on the web, see what else you can get to really show scholarship and that you can bring back to flesh out the topic.
B. Ref formatting. NYM will show you how this is done.
Good luck! - TCO ( talk) 21:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. I found this article through Wehwalt's talk page, and it's very interesting. Would the principal author(s) mind if I go through and perform a little extra copyediting and maybe give a few thoughts on the article in general? Of course, I won't change any important facts or anything like that.- RHM22 ( talk) 13:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Anything else? Mottenen ( talk) 21:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I think to flesh that whole section out we should at least list who the different classical non-Ovid sources are (and discuss their timing). Also, Apollodorus lists several versions. But then it seems we also have independent versions as well. Just need to expand the discussion and such. It's not padding. We have a short version in the lead. But someone after reading our section on alternate versions should know not just what the different aspects of the myth could be, but the different chroniclers (should not have to ask on talk for instance). I saw some other version as well in all my searching. Cina or something like that. Ring a bell? TCO ( talk) 22:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I think we got what we were getting out of Wehwalt for a little while. He bumped the rating to C class. I think we need more content to keep moving up. Article is already better written than 99% of C articles. But we need "more" than a retelling of the myth. Ref formatting and number will help as well, but content is the main need. for the refs, one for the Ovid plot summary is fine (or perhaps one per paragraph). The other section since we talk abut a lot of versions should be bristling with notes. And then all the litcrit and origin paras and such should be full of them. this is a tiny example, but let;s have a ref for the pronunciation in the first two explanatory notes. We can work on format as well. but content development is the key, which means Googling! TCO ( talk) 23:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
We should reference English translations (or MAYBE original Latin and Greek) of Ovid, Appolodorus, etc. It's totally OK that you used those versions to get going, but for a readership which is English speaking, sending them to a refernce that is in Danish (on a topic that has lots of English versions and was in LAtin originally) is not most help to the reader. Google books can help us there. Just need to find decent versions, verify enough that the plot summary did not change and then use that citation. NYM is great at that sort of thing! TCO ( talk) 23:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't follow all this, but here is some stuff that came up on an unrelated search. Book about Milton, but also discusses Myrrha (was she in Milton)? [4] TCO ( talk) 20:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Have not been able to find a good sculpture of Myrrha. My google-fu must be off. She seems popular enough with the painters. We could probably find some Adonis or Cinyras sculpture if we wanted, though.
Also interesting that Cinyras was the son of Pygmalion and a sculpture-maiden. Cursed family.
Just came across this Samuel Johnson translation while looking for a sculpture (always happen when I fire up the Google window, find stuff that may not be what I need but still helps another part of the article). Not sure how critical, but are a few comments at the beginning of note. Definitely seems that Ovid almost warns his readers that this will be a bit rough of a story to read. Also that Myrrha seems more appropriate to the lush and decadent East (warmer lands and maybe a history of incest) than the European soil. [5]
I guess I was kind of thinking her story may influence more than just other literature, but also paintings (we sort of have those, but don't discusss, but also sculptures and music [was one composer per Wiki]).
TCO ( talk) 20:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I guess it's a bit of a literary interpretation, but I see it pretty easy looking at Ovid's text. And Johnson makes the point.
Put Myrrha in the search window of wikipedia and hit "search" instead of "go". It's one of the many WP pages which mention a Myrrha connection. Some guy from the 1900s. Didn't save the url, but it's in there. TCO ( talk) 22:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Coming up empty on place names called Myrrha (think it is flaw in my searching method though). TCO ( talk) 20:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
let me fix that somehow. there is a tiny category over there. But likely will grow, and does have a coupla images. TCO ( talk) 21:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Found this on Commons (did a search for birth of Adonis). Having issues wlinking: [6] TCO ( talk) 21:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I think our current image is probably better as the girl is the center of the image on ours, but not here. But when we get more text, well, here's another image to use for embroidery. TCO ( talk) 21:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm an old man using Google. I expect better from you! :-) TCO ( talk) 22:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
search in English? I don't usually even do advanced searches. Just play with different terms in and out of quotes in the regular Google search window
Though I have credited "Iconoclastic Departures" to Conger (because she was the main author - it was natural) it is essentially a collection of essays on Mary Shelley's novels. The essay "Knew shame, and knew desire" is written by Audra Dibert Himes - this is why she should be credited in the article. Mottenen ( talk) 22:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Makes sense. When we get a proper fancy reference in there, it will list the author of the essay and say it was in a book and all that jazz. See some of the references on Painted turtle. TCO ( talk) 22:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay it's not much space Shakespeare gives Myrrha. she is mentioned in stanza 34: (Venus speaking) "O, had thy mother borne so hard a mind, She had not brought forth thee, but died unkind." I think it's rather ironic or what? I don't even know it it's worth a mention - even though it's Shakespeare. Mottenen ( talk) 23:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Bet we end up using it in the end. When we have assembled a lot more stuff. It will be a pretty minimal note, though. But in a context of a lot of different references. The Milton crit that I saw on Google books did mention Shakespeare mentioning Myrrha. TCO ( talk) 23:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine either way. I think we are sort of using the Ovid vision as the "core version" and I prefer being somewhat particular vice vague. Then we refer to the other versions it's as variations from the core. Think this makes sense because there is a huge amount of literature and such based on the Ovid version (even in his day Metamorpheses was a bestseller blockbuster of the sort we are used to now, and then Shakespeare and then the Romantics all referred to Ovid...even in the Middle Ages, he was a very popular source). But I'm fine. TCO ( talk) 23:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
no text TCO ( talk) 01:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
One of us will have to research it. Fire up google scholar and get the paper where it was initially named (we will need it anyhow for the reference). TCO ( talk) 01:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Somebody named it somehow. It's gotta be referenced somewhere. Try using the scientific name and searching backwards? Sometimes Google books or even Google web will get it done (or you can find a source that does classificaiton and gives the reference). I mean crap for Painted turtle the fellow wanted the original citations and I tracked them down and they were 1800s. One was even 1700s in German in Gothic script. :-( It's no hurry, but we will need to get the date and who and ref of the naming. You were right on, when you said, let's get the naming reference... TCO ( talk) 02:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Suncreator found a bunch more species that use her name. Mostly butterflies. I'm thinking we have a few sentences of prose and then a table with all the species (is more kind on the reader). We need to get some of the refs and find out why she was so popular, confirm reference is really being made to her etc. (And we need the naming ref for each species, just for citation.) I wonder if it is the act of transformation that makes her popular with butterfly people. TCO ( talk) 19:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a killer search, SunC. What I'm thinking is we keep this pretty tight, and at the "back of the bus" in terms of the article. But we basically put a little text table (similar to what SunC has with search itself). Above that would be a few sentences of commentary (similar to what SunC just said) and cutting my "species by species" discussion, now that we have 12 of them. Would want to get all the original naming refs (yes all 12). Basically what Sasata had us do for C. picta. The refs would be citations, and then we would do a quick scan and kinda see if there was any commentary. I'm anticipating that we can make some comment about myrrha being chosen for butterflies since she was metamorphosized and then the butterflies do too. But there might be more to it than that. just have to look at the refs. We probably want a modern classification ref as well (do you think it's legit to use the search result itself for that, Sunc)? Would also want a little "gallery" of images (like in picta how we show the subspecies) across the bottom. I think there are only 3 or 4 in Commons anyhow, and I'm not going to try to get pictures donated. It's definitely kind of a flourish and not to distract from the LitCrit and Later Writings (and even Other versions and Origins) which need some building up. But it will be positive for the article and its readers.
P.s. Can you do a plant search? I suspect the myrrh tree is the only one, but you never know. I wasn't expecting to find 12 species and Ravel cantatas and all that! ;-) TCO ( talk) 01:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
What about this dude and his Zmyrna work?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvius_Cinna (see bottom and there are references we can search)
From what I gather, his work was not lost? But have not seen a translation. Maybe you have to read it in the Latin. Is he mentioned by your other sources?
TCO ( talk) 09:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Just putting this as a placeholder, since he did a Myrrha sculpture. Think this guy is pretty NON-notable. And page lookse self generated. See history, then look at contribs of main author. Mel Chin TCO ( talk) 09:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
James Gresham (poet) TCO ( talk) 09:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Caplet
http://www.answers.com/topic/myrrha-gavotte-gavotte-for-band (despite comments, the tune gets played and is on CDs, come across it in other searches. Sousa is a big name.)
http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/2211006/a/Ravel%3A+Cantates+De+Rome+-+Alyssa,+Alcyone,+Myrrha+%2F+Plasson.htm (Ravel? noteworthy?)
http://www.americancomposers.org/kuster_interview.htm (modern)
Rock (not sure if notable): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3Uz0PkiQUA and Baal_(band)
Looks like a Myspace band, but the Wehwalt name intrigued me: http://dna-production.org/releases/dna91/
TCO ( talk) 10:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Insatiate_Countess
TCO ( talk) 10:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyommatus
TCO ( talk) 10:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
How about "In art" and make the "Literature and poetry" (perhaps we even have to split that when we get more stuff) as a subsection? Then we have a natural place for eventual sculptures, paintings etc. Just a thought. Mottenen ( talk) 13:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Myrrha tries to hang herself because of her sexual drive towards her father, Jocasta hangs herself because of her sexual drive towards her son (Oedipus). Maybe it should be mentioned how both women react in the exact same way when facing incestoual love. More at [14] Mottenen ( talk) 15:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
OK. I got something in there. We can expand the discussion and/or add others as we choose. We need to get an "in article" ref for each artist or composer. (If there are too many with current listy sentences, than we can "bundle" as we did in Painted turtle (and as policy advises). TCO ( talk) 18:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Hope I am not taking all your fun. And that at least you see what is going on (although really doing it is the way to learn). Or the opportunities for you to learn and contribute. There's a bunch more work to be done (Later writings and LitCrit sections). Suspect more can be done with origin also if we get more scholarly and look at the primary literature.
I'll do some cite template pushing. Those sections on the arts and science will generate 15-20 solid references. Make the thing more scholarly. Just some drudgery to get them in there. TCO ( talk) 20:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
P.s. Download the cite toolbar 2.0 (look it up) and make a "Favorites" copy of the Magnus link generator. Will help you... TCO ( talk) 20:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we can use these unless there is more proof that the names really refer to our myrhh-tree girl. But just putting here in parking lot:
TCO ( talk) 20:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
OK. There are TWO obscure bands called Baal. The one that we have on wiki is Danish and is NOT responsible for Myrrha. The one that is, is some sort of Euro-exiled group in Japan. That is a goth metal industrial rock band. Or some such claptrap. The Danes have a nicer sound btw. Anyhow, even with the Japanese, I could find no notability, other than some very wierd interviews (people asking these totally complicated rock critic questions and then these wandering bizarre responses) and I can't find any evidence in the discussions (or lyrics) that they were really inspired by Myrrha. I'm cutting it for now. Am open to putting back, even for a very obscure band, if we can ever establish that they even know the myth. TCO ( talk) 02:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
P.s. the article on Danish band seems like wiki content, not a proper article. That said, I did get to the band's website and they have some nice tunes. This is extremely ironic as I usually make fun of wiki for covering obscure pop culture, but I wish they covered Baal bands better! :-) TCO ( talk) 02:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
comes up with 57 hits for Myrrha. Good refs for the Chin and Kunstler factoids.
And some other stuff to scan. TCO ( talk) 09:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
We should probably note it as well. Got a bunch of awards. Wiki has an article on it. The NYT had a review where they mentioned liking the Myrrha story more than some other parts of the play. TCO ( talk) 09:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Tony award winning broadway play. It shows our girl getting around. Just a sentence at least. We have the NYT ref after all. wiki has an article also. TCO ( talk) 19:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Good call. A 2002 Google news search might get more reviews as well. I think they changed the story a bit (per NYT article), so we might need a couple sentences to explain the usage of her in the play. TCO ( talk) 02:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Should I try rewrite the difference section and split it in Hyginus, Liberalis and Apollodorus? It just seems kind of messy right now, and the main idea of taking details in chrono-order fell apart when I found out how much they differ from each other. (You get me?) - Btw, we made it to the front page!!!! Mottenen ( talk) 14:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
HEY. I just lost my DYK virginity also. Didn't know they had those userboxen. TCO ( talk) 02:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Why has the way they wrote Myrrha and Smyrna in Greek letters been deleted? If you search through many of these mythology-Greece articles they usually have this piece of (useless) information. I think we should add it, just to be sure Mottenen ( talk) 15:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I dislike the long parentheticals on lead sentences. That is prime billing and should not be clunky. Also the peer review already told us to take it out. And people like Tony1, etc. advise not going with that "old wiki" style of crufty first sentences (sometimes containing Chinese script and pronuncation and the like) as the lead should be engaging and clear. Its in the article under Etymology, which is the very next section (so it's in the article). It won't kill me, whatever we do, but just sharing that perspective. I think you could even just move the current nbs as a distraction (put them in the article main space). They're still "in" the article. But lead sentence doesn't have blue speed bumps then. TCO ( talk) 02:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Found a reliable book on google books for our asteroid - it was named after our Myrrha: [22] Mottenen ( talk) 22:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you run it through the cite template and add refs in article, please? There is a template you can cut or paste or else download the toolbar (I like) or use the Magnus ref-maker site that NYM likes. TCO ( talk) 02:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Like this? Mottenen ( talk) 15:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Go in edit mode and add the first ref after the first 381 sentence and the second ref after the second 381 sentence. Then save. We'll get a consistently formatted reference with full details displayed in Citations. TCO ( talk) 23:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
That's it for now Mottenen ( talk) 21:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
If anyone should ever feel like it, here is a list of the sections recently edited that just needs some copy-editing to be finished. (I will update it regularly)
Mottenen ( talk) 15:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Happy to see new content going in. Keep it up! TCO ( talk) 15:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Am I using them right? (Btw. is it not B soon?) Mottenen ( talk) 21:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay some less reliable sources say that she's transformed into a myrtle-tree. If you come across a reliable source saying that, please let me know. Then I can add something somewhere maybe.
PS: Bulfinch turned out negative, doesn't mention Myrrha. Mottenen ( talk) 23:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Move from User talk.
Here's the image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Myrrha%27s_flight.jpg
If you are editing the article I will leave it to you to put it in, so we avoid double-editing (or whatever you call it).
Is it okay? Mottenen ( talk) 18:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Image is good and I like how quick you turned it around. A few suggestions (not "need tos", just really for consideration):
Okay I found out that the play "Poor Beck" ( summary, criticism) is inspired by Myrrha, but should I add it under art or literature? Alfieri is under literature. What do you guys think? Mottenen ( talk) 19:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
First of all, how about making citations 3 columns? With almost 60 references it starts to a little look messy (but I don't know, take a preview - I did). And thanks for your help again Mottenen ( talk) 19:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Take a look at {{
Infobox Greek deity}}
used on other article for example
Apollo. Regards,
SunCreator (
talk)
19:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Myrrha | |
---|---|
![]()
Marcantonio Franceschini, The birth of Adonis, 1690 | |
Abode | Cyprus |
Symbol | Myrrh tree |
Genealogy | |
Parents | Cinyras and Cenchreis |
Children | Adonis |
Mottenen ( talk) 20:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Myrrha | |
---|---|
![]()
Marcantonio Franceschini, The birth of Adonis, 1690 | |
Abode | Cyprus |
Symbol | Myrrh tree |
Genealogy | |
Parents | Cinyras and Cenchreis |
Children | Adonis |
Can we close out the peer review? Somehow bothers me seeing the banner at the top of talk. Nothing happening with that fellow from a while ago. his review was complete.
Found this http://www.jstor.org/pss/3296771. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 02:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Clicking the full citation on that JSTOR, you can then cut and paste the title into a google search window. [24] I did not find any "free versions" online. However:
1. There are a huge slew of other interesting papres that reference this source and that can also be used in our article "Ovid's bad girls" made me smile!
2. The author of that JSTOR paper transitioned to Latin scholarship as a result of studing the language for veterinary career. (see the science Myrrha connect!)
3. A terse email request for a pdf of the paper from Nagle would likely get a copy sent to you, Mottenen. This is a very normal thing in scholarshop and if you don't go to the well too often people usually help you out. Also, I would not push this, but that sort of brushing shoulders can lead to other help with an article.
TCO ( talk) 04:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Just a few thoughts/reccs, do with as you will
Nice significant adds of content. Kind of leading to following
A. On the Myth section, you've kind of got stuff at both the front and at the beginning that contrasts versus Ovid.
1. I would move that stuff you have on top of Ovid that is comparisons and then put it down integrated into the later section. cut the summary of the summaries (nuke that). So it would go 2 equals Myth, no writing, 3 equals Ovid, then 3 equals other myths
2. Within Ovid, maybe add some comment about Metamorphoses being wildly popular (RS avail in wiki article for that) at the time and that Ovid;s version is has become the familiar version of t
he myth to present day people. Then all the story telling.
3. I like how you've got more meat in Other versions. But take it even a step further. Give me some dates. Let me know if any of the versions were known to have influenced each other or Ovid (don't explain a negative, but if there is anyhing mentione it. And discuss all the differences in story (you have that).
B. Not perfect, but would stick the Guardian comment in Interprectation, at beginning or end. It's commentary on the myth, not literature.
C. I like the in-article discussion of myrrh. You will get some who kvetch, but the two are so linked and the term so strange to the modern ear. I might move all the myrrh stuff except the Latin name (so the Biblical notes and acnient usage) and stick it at the end of etymology and origin. Follows well after the myrrh-Myrrha word linkage. And explains the substance a little earlier in article (so doing more good). Only bad thing is you lose the connection to the image of myrrh. could just switch back to lady bug though. donno if there is a way to fit two images in that tiny Origins section. you do have pics of the tree anyhow in the form of her transformation.
D. There are some things that are gone missing now. If that is intentional editorially, fine.
E. Prob needs a new logic edit. and new copyedit.
F. More active voice in Interpretations. Maybe identify "schools of thought" or at lesat a couple specific people making the Interpretations.
TCO ( talk) 08:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
A1. Cut the retelling of the story sentence, the "shared story" (you have that in lead and besides you get into it in Ovid next anyhow). I think everything works easier (and is justified) to just treat Ovid as the core story, and discuss the others as alternate (albiet earlier) versions. It's completely justified in terms of current literture and even in the ancient world's popularity. Any facts or context on the Appolodorus etc., just cram down and integrate in that other versions section.
A3: Not sure if it works bette to have a "top para" that discusses the othe versions, lists their time, physical location, liaterary location (where they parts of larger works, for instance Ovid integrates Myrrha into a set of other stories), or if you want to have that info with each version where you talk about the differences in the myth itself. Use your judgement on that, but either way give us the info. It's fine if you we don't know the relation of the myth chroniclers to each other (if we can source and say that, let's though. But even if we can't make a definitive statement, let's describe the relevant factors (time, location, nationality, etc. of the chroniclers). You already have the "what's different in the version itself" well described. just add the other stuff.
D. I had another opera in there. Had Myrres en Arbre. I'm not saying I miss them. Just...whatever!
P.s. thank you for catching the "musical Mel"! ;-)
TCO ( talk) 22:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC) F.
Sidenote: I don't like the ref number 52 - it's like linking to a book nobody can access anyway, and we can't even tell which page(s) we're referring to. Mottenen ( talk) 20:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I recommend adding a few quotes. They really dress the page up, they are "fun" for the reader ('cause you are going to pick punchy ones), and are a very powerful method of "proof" as well as giving people a feel for something. Like on state reptile, all the non-Americans have a WTF reaction when we Yanks use the term, but reading the Vermont text-box, makes it pretty evident what it's all about.
Think about where a coupla quotes will help you (consider all the sections). One place I see it nice is the myth itself (I like the Ovid remark describing the story to come as disturbing, you can dig it out of Boswell translation). Even he, at the time, realized what the Guardian said 2000 years later [the reason it's such a great story is because the girl's action was so fucked up]. Ovid sort of has a "hold onto your seats, now!") Another possibility is in Interpretation (a quote or two, may make it all "hit" better and cut some of the vague nominalizing. Of course, Literature could use one. Even the art, music, science, if there is something that reads well and is insightful.
I think you probably want to use blockquotes, rather than boxed ones, but you can play with that. (Just watch the layout formatting, images on the left of a blockquote mess up the indents, may need to move an image or such...but that's doable. Get the best ones to amuse the reader and advance the article, and we'll do the jigsaw puzzle image work to make it all work.) Here is a good example of some wonderful blockquotes in an article: Allegro (musical).
TCO ( talk) 22:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
How about this Ovid quote (from the Mary Innes translation): "Paphos in turn had a son Cinyras, who might have been considered one of fortune's favourites, if only he had not had a family. The story I am going to tell is a horrible one: I beg that daughters and fathers should hold themselves aloof, while I sing, or if they find my songs enchanting, let them refuse to believe this part of my tale, and suppose that it never happened: or else, if they believe that it did happen, they must believe also in the punishment that followed. If then nature allowed such a crime to occur, I congratulate the people of Ismarus and our part of the world, and count this country happy to be so far from regions of which produced such wickedness. The land of Panchaia may be rich in balsam, bear cinnamon and zedoary, and many kinds of flowers, and exude incense from its trees, but it is not to be envied while it grows myrrh with the rest. A new tree was not worth so great a price."
You can just take a part of it only if you want, but I think it works good as a dramatic intro. (remember it is Orpheus singing, in Ovid's book numer 10 (use X)) Mottenen ( talk) 22:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
1. When you dug up those refs for species was there anything interesting on "why"? Could be nice to add. I'm thinking it's in homage to Ovid's Metamorphoses as the butterfly does a metamorphosis. For the ladybug, I heard they are incestuous (kidding). Actually do beetles have a metamorphosis also?
2. I know your concern with that image. I think the usage is as a synonym. Like that was the old name and then it changed. (I think that's what your search showed us). Or maybe the Wiki page. Donno. I'd love to have some butterfly image as she really is on a lot of moths and butterflies and such, and we kinda cover the myrrh with the two transformation pics and resin. Change of pace for something else. But we might need to do some Flickr search or the like. Would be stronger if we picked one that was "clean", not the whole synonym thing, but one where the animal was named and the species designation (at least) has not changed.
Disagree with the cn's in the Ovid section as it is a plot summary. One reference at the end obviously covers the material, which is clearly called out as a description of the work of literature. That said, Mottennen, I would just put a ref at the end of each para and be done with it. It really won't make it look that ugly.
(I'm on the fence as to the one on Divine Comedia as perhaps you're making a personal statement on the interpretation of that piece of literature. Probably better to have a secondary source making this inference or be clearer that Dante spells out that Myrrha's crime is more deceit than incest.) TCO ( talk) 22:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I would like to add some sources that might be necessary to this article Galinsky 1975 Tissol 1997, Littleton 2007, McKinley 2001. The literature is vast, but that's what it means to bring to GA mythological characters of which there are 3000 years of writings. -- Brunswick Dude ( talk) 23:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I would also like to point to the fact that many sources are books themselves, such as "Songs of Solomon", Shakespeare, or Dante himself. All of these should be removed and replaced with secondary sources that write about the myth.-- Brunswick Dude ( talk) 23:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Better late than never. It's common practice on wiki to back up old sources (thousands or even just hundreds of years old) with a more current source that says teh same thing. The original writings of Ovid and such are fabulous additions to the article, wouldn't remove them for anything. Maybe the interpretations made could just be backed up by another published work (seems like you've already started doing this...nice work!).
As for making this article "a solid GA pass so that it is ready for a FA right away," ehhhh, I can't say I agree. GA and FA have distinct and vastly different criteria. Don't try to write the perfect article then go from GA to FA within weeks; it's a lot of fine tuning and formatting (and content adding, can't forget that) that takes a while to complete. This article is in good shape for GA I should imagine.-- NYMFan69-86 ( talk) 02:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Saw your edit note. Glad to see this. It's going down the right track. Give it a rework to try to make it a bit more like "this is the context for Myrrha" and less a digression (probably cut some of the commentary on "reading Ovid"). Try thinking about what you want to say, then Googling to find the sources to support it, rather than starting with your onhand materials. (Of course if the googling finds more or different info, adjust what your point is). It's going in the right direction, now, but give it a bit more work. TCO ( talk) 19:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I just stopped in to take a look at the article, and it's really grown by leaps and bounds! One small note: in the "other versions" section, it says "0 A.D.", but there was no year 0. Did you mean 1 A.D. or was there supposed to be another number in front of the "0"?- RHM22 ( talk) 20:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, is it good enough now? I've expanded the interpretation-part quite a bit, addressed every possible citation-problem etc. - can it go good? -- Mottenen ( talk) 21:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I moved the Old Testament stuff to the front of the Bible paragraph. I just think we should discuss the older, before the newer. Also, it seems to connect more to the discussion of first millenium BC linguistics as the OT is a Hebrew tale from that period (and I think the NT was written in Greek, no)? Still looks fine with the gift of the magi having an emphatic place of honor at the end of the section. Just think this is a better way to fit it into a section that is really more about linguistics.
I also added a couple of refs (from the Wiki song of Solomon article) on the dating of that literature. I did not format them.
I cut back a little bit that seemed like you were making literary interpretations of the Bible in SoS. I think the point comes accross anyhow, just by presenting the context and we shouldn't be making (much) interpretation in wiki articles. If the Musselman source makes the inference on Myrrha and eroticism and myrrh, then please go and add it in, but call it out in text that this is Musselman's (or "a scholar"'s) viewpoint.
TCO ( talk) 02:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
No sweat. I accept whatever you want. :) Song of Solomon is well known and agreed upon to be erotic, as a whole. I just was questioning the mrrh specifically being called out as erotic. Was it? Or just SoS in general? TCO ( talk) 15:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Wehwalt ( talk) 23:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Not bad, but needs a little work. I tend to go above and beyond the GA criteria and assume the nominator wants to do the same.
I'll give it another read when you've gone through these.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 03:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Addressed and gone through all of it now I think. Mottenen ( talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Ok since this article lacks references and any real account of the myth (which I personally think is quite an interesting case) I'm rewriting it all. I will be done with a rough draft (but still better than this) within a week. Mottenen ( talk) 21:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a neat topic and even just with a quick scan, nice writing. Let me read it first for content and give suggestions on substance and organization. I noticed a few places where we could make it a little more Adonis('s momma)-like and will go after those nextt. But that's just by being another pair of eyes. Think you know what you are doing. TCO ( talk) 19:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
1. Do you like what you are getting? I can clean up the rest of the thing, similarly.
2. There will be some things (like three different Latin words) where I need your input. Are they just variations within Latin of same term (grammatical variations or more different)? Also how did the word move from Latin to English? Via French, or directly?
3. Love that you can read the classical texts. I am a modern man who never even studied Latin, let alone Greek.
4. We can slick the thing up and take a run at GA. I think what it really will need (and that will become apparent as we work on it) is a bit more content. I know you said you had exhausted the sources, but I wonder about secondary work (not just Ovid). Is it covered more in (I donno, am not a mytholgist or classicist) Bullfinches or whatever the other big books are? How about scholarly journals? Also, I wonder if there is more on usage in literature and themes and stuff. Any pop culture usage? how about names? Does Smyrna, Georgia come from our wayward father-loving lass?
5. While you're allowed to do the citations the way you are, I think it is more helpful and Alexander cutting the Gordion knot to separate the notes and citations (As a reader, I prefer a journal that does that, like has letters for explanatory footnotes and numbers for source citation endnotes.)
TCO ( talk) 00:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
1. Yes, it would be great if you would do a full ce
2. It is not further explained in the dictionary I got them from. I guess they are just variations, but if they are bothering you I suggest deleting 2 of them. - My aunt has studied Greek and Latin, I'm going to ask her.
4. I haven't thought of Bulfinch, I'll try it out. Problem is when I search for any words like greek mythology or myrrha or smyrna my library can't find anything more relevant - living in Denmark the number of English sources are unfortunately limited. I'm trying very hard to find any more references in literature. I think I read somewhere (maybe Park) that Smyrna might be related to the city, but no source suggest HOW - so I left it out.
5. This being my very first article I don't know how to do that - please tell me.
I left the map small when I was making the scrumptious paintings bigger because I thought it explained such a simple concept. But...is anything known or special about how the myth spread from Cyprus like through the islands or what have you?
Also, if we want another graphic, then one showing our pregnant lady's flight across the middle east, etc would be helfpul. Obviously you have to put a nominal location for that island in the red sea? Or the IO? And then landing in Sheba (I assume you define that as Yemen, not Africa). TCO ( talk) 01:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
It is etymological speculation that Greeks met the myth through Cyprus, but they seem very sure of it. The problem is that the myth was already old when it was recorded by e.g. Apollodorus or Hyginus. All we have are some words that can be related to each other as well as knowledge about the cult of Adonis.
I could fix that. I would do the Cyprus-route then since Ovid's version is the most commonly referred. The translator simply stated that Sabaea is Yemen today but I see your point, let me think about it. Mottenen ( talk) 17:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
They're gonna check that for GA or FA. Wonder if we have permission to be using that UVM stuff. Obviouslly the paintings themselves are not copyrighted, but not sure about the slides. (Just soemthing to check.) TCO ( talk) 05:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Have been prowling around a little. No action needed, just sharing, in case it helps us somehow.
I think this page would be a great one for the "did you know" award. They want to promote new articles or ones that have had significant recent growth from a stub. I looked in the edit history and in early January, there was almost nothing there. Also the topic would really fit well as it is a compelling story and all (not a boring article by any means). I've never gone through the process before myself, but will look into getting your work that award. TCO ( talk) 20:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
1. "What is clear though is that the Greeks must have added a lot to the original story before it became the version Ovid recorded." (added to the story of Adonis or the story of Myrhha?) TCO ( talk) 20:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
2. (ec) Seems like a contradiction where we say Latin eymology can be traced back only to 200 AD, but Ovid wrote at 0 AD. Did he write in Greek? Or only mention the name of the girl, but not the fragrance? Just trying to understand the 200AD. TCO ( talk) 21:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I asked at the talk page and they also said Ovid wrote in Latin. (What a radical! I thought all the educated Romans preferred Greek for seerious scholarship. I guess since he was writing racy stories and all... ;-))
P.s If you want another project, that article is a page that went to FA on Puertugeese Wiki and suggestion was made to convert all the content over (see talk). There is a way to request a translation (I have done it once but for a much shorter article). Would only bother, if you intend to mother that article to a en-wiki GA or FA, though.
I think we are probably cool leaving it with the asteroid. I was a little worried about my cutting the ladybug, but then I looked and there are at least three other wiki-species with myrrha in the name (moth, butterfly, tree). There's also some sort of atom collider: MYRRHA ( SCK*CEN). If anybody is really concerned with the whole searchability thing we can just ask for a disamb page. Low priority. And this page is obviously the majority usage and properly named. TCO ( talk) 23:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I asked for one of the projects to give this thing an upgrade. This is more like a C (maybe B) article. I would change myself, but I don't like to take articles I'm working on above Start. TCO ( talk) 00:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
got distraceted by reptiles. TCO ( talk) 06:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay it seems that myrrha, murrha, and murra are all synonyms in Latin. The differences can be explained through natural development in the language and that the word(s) are/were translated from Greek where "r" has an "rh"-kind of sound. Hope this answered your question.
Anything else about some strange words? Mottenen ( talk) 13:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay I can't figure these things out:
1. Someone else changed the Semetic to Phoenician. But I think it might be more precise. The Semites range all across Arabia, but it you read the article on Adonis, it seems like he just came from that sort of "Tyre" region where the Phonecians were. Phoenicians are a subset of Semites, no (and probably a little more precise in terms of identifying a culture and time rather than just an ethnic group). Can you check a little more into the substance? What do other sources say?
2. That was my herecy, sorry. *Shame* I was trying to separate the two blue-linked words (I did keep the city thing). I'll have another go at it. BTW, I did actually read the wiki article on Ugarit and Baal and the Baal cycle and Caananites and all. But maybe I made too much of an assumption. TCO ( talk) 13:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay I think I might go have a look in Shakespeare's Venus and Adonis - I'll post any relevant info I come across here. Do you have any more suggestions on other literature?? Mottenen ( talk) 13:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Good call. Some suggestions:
I hope these don't sound trivial, but I have found with my turtle work, that Google really was my friend. And that often when I went hunting after one source, I would find other sources that were useful for my article, just by the act of searching away. For instance, who knows what useful thing will come up if you put - Was Adonis Semetic or Phoenician? - into your search window?
Some more "tricks". A lot of times with Google scholar, the papers I come to require a subscription to read them (which I don't want to pay). but if I note the title and then do just a google web search, I can find a free version available elsewhere (e.g. on the author's website). The other thing, is maybe try digging into the "refs to the refs". I suspect you are using sources that only have a few pages on Myrrha (since they are covering a much larger subject). But if they cite some primary literature, we can go read that and it will go into more detail. TCO ( talk) 14:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Not to overwhelm, but a few more thoughts:
1. In the US, we have an Interlibrary Loan (ILL) system. Maybe you have same in Denmark. That means you can actually get books not from your own town, but other place's libraries.
2. Sometimes with google books, you can see all or enough of the source to get by. (view mode).
3. type Myrrha into the WP search window and hit enter. Bunch of pages mentioning things wrt Myrrha. 1600s poet, 1990s play, etc. early 1900s composer. Etc.
4. I think we could cludge together some sort of influences section for Myrrha with things named after her. Several binomial animal names. The asteroid. maybe the reactor (not sure, that may be coincidence).
5. Byron? http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2220/is_1_44/ai_94130273/pg_12/
6. http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?PID=396824 (book is not out yet, but maybe the author has some academic writings.
7. (kinda random) [2] 1963
8. I can't find original for this. Looks old. [3]
TCO ( talk) 07:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Does the issue of being a concubine (a kept woman of a man, who he is not married to) really concern Myrrha? Or is it the shame of the incest taboo? IOW, this just seems a little off. Or is it that her father is already married so all that she could be would be a mistress? Just asking and trying to understand the logic. (I suppose I should break down and read the myth as well.) :-) TCO ( talk) 15:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
"Her longings showed themselves partly as despair and partly as a resolve to try finding a way to fool her father into believing she was not his daughter. At last losing all hope she saw no other way out, but suicide." (I really need to read the myth, but) it seems that she later decided to fool her father into thinking it was not her. This was what she did with the nurse. So why the suicide, and then doing exactly what she wanted to earlier? TCO ( talk) 16:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
(Just asking) is this note necessary or is it an obvious equivalence like Zeus and Jupiter or Venus and Aphrodite? TCO ( talk) 17:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Recommendation: take a look at Painted turtle or List of U.S. state reptiles and follow the pattern in terms of segregating explanatory notes from source citations. If you open edit mode, you'll be able to see how the "nb" notes work. The reason for doing this is that it's better for the reader. When he sees a mark, he can tell if it is explanatory (he might be more inclined to read that, as it has "content") or if it is a source citation (and if he wants the source citation, he can, for instance, scan later in the para if the source citation is at the end, but there is an explantory note earlier). Also, by doing this, you can actually add source citations for the explanatory notes (for example the pronunciations can be sourced, but otherwise you are prevented from "nesting" references inside references).
I'll be out of your article by end of day and turn it back to you, so no conflict then. We can work on the reference format themselves, after, but let's start with this simple task. TCO ( talk) 17:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
It's always a judgment call on personal and place names whether we use a more modern form or ancient (and then the translation). I think this story has so much "color" that we don't need the affection of Arabae. But conversely, it would be silly to mention "France" rather than "Gaul" if discussing Julius Caesar's conquests. So, I don't have a hard and fast rule. TCO ( talk) 17:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Is it correct that there are essentially just Ovid and then Appolodorus? I realize that Appolodorus actually containst several different versions. But in terms of classical sources is it just Ovid and then "all the versions within Appolodorus"? Or are there further indepedant classical sources/versions? TCO ( talk) 18:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I added this to the See also. I still think when we dig into the content more, find Freudian and feminist and other literary discussion of the myth, we will end up having a section of text on "literary criticism of the myth", and then that will be "in article". But putting it here for now. TCO ( talk) 18:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
"Though Myrrha abandoned her human feelings when she was transformed, she still mourns her tragic fate and her tears..." this seems paradoxical. We say she abondonded feelings (emotions) but then that she cries. Would it be more correct to say she abondonded her fears or her sensations or her vulnerabilities, but she still mourns and cries? Think on it... TCO ( talk) 18:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The Danish one serves my purposes better. ;-) I donno. Think about it and decide what you want to do, over time. It's a tiny point, but the more we can make thinks seem blatantly logical to the reader, the easier for him to get drawn through our article. I will go finish the rest of the article. (Great topic.) TCO ( talk) 19:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that Dore painting has a formal title or not. I know that it is an illustration to a book. Not trying to change the name of the work, but even if that is name of the work, is confusing to say "condemned for incest" when our paragraph emphasizes that her disguise was the worse crime than the sex. (this is how I finesse it.) TCO ( talk) 19:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
How about adding List of Metamorphoses characters to See also since we are referring to not so few of them in relation to Metamorphoses? If you have any other suggestions add them Mottenen ( talk) 19:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
1. Nice topic. This is one Wikipedians (I guess people in general) will like because it is so scandalous. Also, kind of helps out the Project as is more "Great Books" as opposed to pop culture. Good find.
2. Writing and org was pretty decent to start with. I found a few things to change in logic or prose, but really just polishing.
3. It's probably a B article now. To get to GA, it needs:
A. More content. Go hunt down all the primary literature on criticism and etymology and all. There's gotta be more out there. No one expects you to do a Ph.D., but there is so much on the web, see what else you can get to really show scholarship and that you can bring back to flesh out the topic.
B. Ref formatting. NYM will show you how this is done.
Good luck! - TCO ( talk) 21:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. I found this article through Wehwalt's talk page, and it's very interesting. Would the principal author(s) mind if I go through and perform a little extra copyediting and maybe give a few thoughts on the article in general? Of course, I won't change any important facts or anything like that.- RHM22 ( talk) 13:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Anything else? Mottenen ( talk) 21:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I think to flesh that whole section out we should at least list who the different classical non-Ovid sources are (and discuss their timing). Also, Apollodorus lists several versions. But then it seems we also have independent versions as well. Just need to expand the discussion and such. It's not padding. We have a short version in the lead. But someone after reading our section on alternate versions should know not just what the different aspects of the myth could be, but the different chroniclers (should not have to ask on talk for instance). I saw some other version as well in all my searching. Cina or something like that. Ring a bell? TCO ( talk) 22:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I think we got what we were getting out of Wehwalt for a little while. He bumped the rating to C class. I think we need more content to keep moving up. Article is already better written than 99% of C articles. But we need "more" than a retelling of the myth. Ref formatting and number will help as well, but content is the main need. for the refs, one for the Ovid plot summary is fine (or perhaps one per paragraph). The other section since we talk abut a lot of versions should be bristling with notes. And then all the litcrit and origin paras and such should be full of them. this is a tiny example, but let;s have a ref for the pronunciation in the first two explanatory notes. We can work on format as well. but content development is the key, which means Googling! TCO ( talk) 23:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
We should reference English translations (or MAYBE original Latin and Greek) of Ovid, Appolodorus, etc. It's totally OK that you used those versions to get going, but for a readership which is English speaking, sending them to a refernce that is in Danish (on a topic that has lots of English versions and was in LAtin originally) is not most help to the reader. Google books can help us there. Just need to find decent versions, verify enough that the plot summary did not change and then use that citation. NYM is great at that sort of thing! TCO ( talk) 23:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't follow all this, but here is some stuff that came up on an unrelated search. Book about Milton, but also discusses Myrrha (was she in Milton)? [4] TCO ( talk) 20:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Have not been able to find a good sculpture of Myrrha. My google-fu must be off. She seems popular enough with the painters. We could probably find some Adonis or Cinyras sculpture if we wanted, though.
Also interesting that Cinyras was the son of Pygmalion and a sculpture-maiden. Cursed family.
Just came across this Samuel Johnson translation while looking for a sculpture (always happen when I fire up the Google window, find stuff that may not be what I need but still helps another part of the article). Not sure how critical, but are a few comments at the beginning of note. Definitely seems that Ovid almost warns his readers that this will be a bit rough of a story to read. Also that Myrrha seems more appropriate to the lush and decadent East (warmer lands and maybe a history of incest) than the European soil. [5]
I guess I was kind of thinking her story may influence more than just other literature, but also paintings (we sort of have those, but don't discusss, but also sculptures and music [was one composer per Wiki]).
TCO ( talk) 20:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I guess it's a bit of a literary interpretation, but I see it pretty easy looking at Ovid's text. And Johnson makes the point.
Put Myrrha in the search window of wikipedia and hit "search" instead of "go". It's one of the many WP pages which mention a Myrrha connection. Some guy from the 1900s. Didn't save the url, but it's in there. TCO ( talk) 22:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Coming up empty on place names called Myrrha (think it is flaw in my searching method though). TCO ( talk) 20:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
let me fix that somehow. there is a tiny category over there. But likely will grow, and does have a coupla images. TCO ( talk) 21:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Found this on Commons (did a search for birth of Adonis). Having issues wlinking: [6] TCO ( talk) 21:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I think our current image is probably better as the girl is the center of the image on ours, but not here. But when we get more text, well, here's another image to use for embroidery. TCO ( talk) 21:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm an old man using Google. I expect better from you! :-) TCO ( talk) 22:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
search in English? I don't usually even do advanced searches. Just play with different terms in and out of quotes in the regular Google search window
Though I have credited "Iconoclastic Departures" to Conger (because she was the main author - it was natural) it is essentially a collection of essays on Mary Shelley's novels. The essay "Knew shame, and knew desire" is written by Audra Dibert Himes - this is why she should be credited in the article. Mottenen ( talk) 22:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Makes sense. When we get a proper fancy reference in there, it will list the author of the essay and say it was in a book and all that jazz. See some of the references on Painted turtle. TCO ( talk) 22:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay it's not much space Shakespeare gives Myrrha. she is mentioned in stanza 34: (Venus speaking) "O, had thy mother borne so hard a mind, She had not brought forth thee, but died unkind." I think it's rather ironic or what? I don't even know it it's worth a mention - even though it's Shakespeare. Mottenen ( talk) 23:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Bet we end up using it in the end. When we have assembled a lot more stuff. It will be a pretty minimal note, though. But in a context of a lot of different references. The Milton crit that I saw on Google books did mention Shakespeare mentioning Myrrha. TCO ( talk) 23:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine either way. I think we are sort of using the Ovid vision as the "core version" and I prefer being somewhat particular vice vague. Then we refer to the other versions it's as variations from the core. Think this makes sense because there is a huge amount of literature and such based on the Ovid version (even in his day Metamorpheses was a bestseller blockbuster of the sort we are used to now, and then Shakespeare and then the Romantics all referred to Ovid...even in the Middle Ages, he was a very popular source). But I'm fine. TCO ( talk) 23:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
no text TCO ( talk) 01:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
One of us will have to research it. Fire up google scholar and get the paper where it was initially named (we will need it anyhow for the reference). TCO ( talk) 01:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Somebody named it somehow. It's gotta be referenced somewhere. Try using the scientific name and searching backwards? Sometimes Google books or even Google web will get it done (or you can find a source that does classificaiton and gives the reference). I mean crap for Painted turtle the fellow wanted the original citations and I tracked them down and they were 1800s. One was even 1700s in German in Gothic script. :-( It's no hurry, but we will need to get the date and who and ref of the naming. You were right on, when you said, let's get the naming reference... TCO ( talk) 02:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Suncreator found a bunch more species that use her name. Mostly butterflies. I'm thinking we have a few sentences of prose and then a table with all the species (is more kind on the reader). We need to get some of the refs and find out why she was so popular, confirm reference is really being made to her etc. (And we need the naming ref for each species, just for citation.) I wonder if it is the act of transformation that makes her popular with butterfly people. TCO ( talk) 19:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a killer search, SunC. What I'm thinking is we keep this pretty tight, and at the "back of the bus" in terms of the article. But we basically put a little text table (similar to what SunC has with search itself). Above that would be a few sentences of commentary (similar to what SunC just said) and cutting my "species by species" discussion, now that we have 12 of them. Would want to get all the original naming refs (yes all 12). Basically what Sasata had us do for C. picta. The refs would be citations, and then we would do a quick scan and kinda see if there was any commentary. I'm anticipating that we can make some comment about myrrha being chosen for butterflies since she was metamorphosized and then the butterflies do too. But there might be more to it than that. just have to look at the refs. We probably want a modern classification ref as well (do you think it's legit to use the search result itself for that, Sunc)? Would also want a little "gallery" of images (like in picta how we show the subspecies) across the bottom. I think there are only 3 or 4 in Commons anyhow, and I'm not going to try to get pictures donated. It's definitely kind of a flourish and not to distract from the LitCrit and Later Writings (and even Other versions and Origins) which need some building up. But it will be positive for the article and its readers.
P.s. Can you do a plant search? I suspect the myrrh tree is the only one, but you never know. I wasn't expecting to find 12 species and Ravel cantatas and all that! ;-) TCO ( talk) 01:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
What about this dude and his Zmyrna work?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvius_Cinna (see bottom and there are references we can search)
From what I gather, his work was not lost? But have not seen a translation. Maybe you have to read it in the Latin. Is he mentioned by your other sources?
TCO ( talk) 09:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Just putting this as a placeholder, since he did a Myrrha sculpture. Think this guy is pretty NON-notable. And page lookse self generated. See history, then look at contribs of main author. Mel Chin TCO ( talk) 09:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
James Gresham (poet) TCO ( talk) 09:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Caplet
http://www.answers.com/topic/myrrha-gavotte-gavotte-for-band (despite comments, the tune gets played and is on CDs, come across it in other searches. Sousa is a big name.)
http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/2211006/a/Ravel%3A+Cantates+De+Rome+-+Alyssa,+Alcyone,+Myrrha+%2F+Plasson.htm (Ravel? noteworthy?)
http://www.americancomposers.org/kuster_interview.htm (modern)
Rock (not sure if notable): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3Uz0PkiQUA and Baal_(band)
Looks like a Myspace band, but the Wehwalt name intrigued me: http://dna-production.org/releases/dna91/
TCO ( talk) 10:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Insatiate_Countess
TCO ( talk) 10:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyommatus
TCO ( talk) 10:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
How about "In art" and make the "Literature and poetry" (perhaps we even have to split that when we get more stuff) as a subsection? Then we have a natural place for eventual sculptures, paintings etc. Just a thought. Mottenen ( talk) 13:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Myrrha tries to hang herself because of her sexual drive towards her father, Jocasta hangs herself because of her sexual drive towards her son (Oedipus). Maybe it should be mentioned how both women react in the exact same way when facing incestoual love. More at [14] Mottenen ( talk) 15:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
OK. I got something in there. We can expand the discussion and/or add others as we choose. We need to get an "in article" ref for each artist or composer. (If there are too many with current listy sentences, than we can "bundle" as we did in Painted turtle (and as policy advises). TCO ( talk) 18:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Hope I am not taking all your fun. And that at least you see what is going on (although really doing it is the way to learn). Or the opportunities for you to learn and contribute. There's a bunch more work to be done (Later writings and LitCrit sections). Suspect more can be done with origin also if we get more scholarly and look at the primary literature.
I'll do some cite template pushing. Those sections on the arts and science will generate 15-20 solid references. Make the thing more scholarly. Just some drudgery to get them in there. TCO ( talk) 20:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
P.s. Download the cite toolbar 2.0 (look it up) and make a "Favorites" copy of the Magnus link generator. Will help you... TCO ( talk) 20:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we can use these unless there is more proof that the names really refer to our myrhh-tree girl. But just putting here in parking lot:
TCO ( talk) 20:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
OK. There are TWO obscure bands called Baal. The one that we have on wiki is Danish and is NOT responsible for Myrrha. The one that is, is some sort of Euro-exiled group in Japan. That is a goth metal industrial rock band. Or some such claptrap. The Danes have a nicer sound btw. Anyhow, even with the Japanese, I could find no notability, other than some very wierd interviews (people asking these totally complicated rock critic questions and then these wandering bizarre responses) and I can't find any evidence in the discussions (or lyrics) that they were really inspired by Myrrha. I'm cutting it for now. Am open to putting back, even for a very obscure band, if we can ever establish that they even know the myth. TCO ( talk) 02:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
P.s. the article on Danish band seems like wiki content, not a proper article. That said, I did get to the band's website and they have some nice tunes. This is extremely ironic as I usually make fun of wiki for covering obscure pop culture, but I wish they covered Baal bands better! :-) TCO ( talk) 02:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
comes up with 57 hits for Myrrha. Good refs for the Chin and Kunstler factoids.
And some other stuff to scan. TCO ( talk) 09:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
We should probably note it as well. Got a bunch of awards. Wiki has an article on it. The NYT had a review where they mentioned liking the Myrrha story more than some other parts of the play. TCO ( talk) 09:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Tony award winning broadway play. It shows our girl getting around. Just a sentence at least. We have the NYT ref after all. wiki has an article also. TCO ( talk) 19:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Good call. A 2002 Google news search might get more reviews as well. I think they changed the story a bit (per NYT article), so we might need a couple sentences to explain the usage of her in the play. TCO ( talk) 02:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Should I try rewrite the difference section and split it in Hyginus, Liberalis and Apollodorus? It just seems kind of messy right now, and the main idea of taking details in chrono-order fell apart when I found out how much they differ from each other. (You get me?) - Btw, we made it to the front page!!!! Mottenen ( talk) 14:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
HEY. I just lost my DYK virginity also. Didn't know they had those userboxen. TCO ( talk) 02:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Why has the way they wrote Myrrha and Smyrna in Greek letters been deleted? If you search through many of these mythology-Greece articles they usually have this piece of (useless) information. I think we should add it, just to be sure Mottenen ( talk) 15:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I dislike the long parentheticals on lead sentences. That is prime billing and should not be clunky. Also the peer review already told us to take it out. And people like Tony1, etc. advise not going with that "old wiki" style of crufty first sentences (sometimes containing Chinese script and pronuncation and the like) as the lead should be engaging and clear. Its in the article under Etymology, which is the very next section (so it's in the article). It won't kill me, whatever we do, but just sharing that perspective. I think you could even just move the current nbs as a distraction (put them in the article main space). They're still "in" the article. But lead sentence doesn't have blue speed bumps then. TCO ( talk) 02:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Found a reliable book on google books for our asteroid - it was named after our Myrrha: [22] Mottenen ( talk) 22:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you run it through the cite template and add refs in article, please? There is a template you can cut or paste or else download the toolbar (I like) or use the Magnus ref-maker site that NYM likes. TCO ( talk) 02:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Like this? Mottenen ( talk) 15:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Go in edit mode and add the first ref after the first 381 sentence and the second ref after the second 381 sentence. Then save. We'll get a consistently formatted reference with full details displayed in Citations. TCO ( talk) 23:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
That's it for now Mottenen ( talk) 21:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
If anyone should ever feel like it, here is a list of the sections recently edited that just needs some copy-editing to be finished. (I will update it regularly)
Mottenen ( talk) 15:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Happy to see new content going in. Keep it up! TCO ( talk) 15:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Am I using them right? (Btw. is it not B soon?) Mottenen ( talk) 21:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay some less reliable sources say that she's transformed into a myrtle-tree. If you come across a reliable source saying that, please let me know. Then I can add something somewhere maybe.
PS: Bulfinch turned out negative, doesn't mention Myrrha. Mottenen ( talk) 23:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Move from User talk.
Here's the image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Myrrha%27s_flight.jpg
If you are editing the article I will leave it to you to put it in, so we avoid double-editing (or whatever you call it).
Is it okay? Mottenen ( talk) 18:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Image is good and I like how quick you turned it around. A few suggestions (not "need tos", just really for consideration):
Okay I found out that the play "Poor Beck" ( summary, criticism) is inspired by Myrrha, but should I add it under art or literature? Alfieri is under literature. What do you guys think? Mottenen ( talk) 19:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
First of all, how about making citations 3 columns? With almost 60 references it starts to a little look messy (but I don't know, take a preview - I did). And thanks for your help again Mottenen ( talk) 19:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Take a look at {{
Infobox Greek deity}}
used on other article for example
Apollo. Regards,
SunCreator (
talk)
19:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Myrrha | |
---|---|
![]()
Marcantonio Franceschini, The birth of Adonis, 1690 | |
Abode | Cyprus |
Symbol | Myrrh tree |
Genealogy | |
Parents | Cinyras and Cenchreis |
Children | Adonis |
Mottenen ( talk) 20:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Myrrha | |
---|---|
![]()
Marcantonio Franceschini, The birth of Adonis, 1690 | |
Abode | Cyprus |
Symbol | Myrrh tree |
Genealogy | |
Parents | Cinyras and Cenchreis |
Children | Adonis |
Can we close out the peer review? Somehow bothers me seeing the banner at the top of talk. Nothing happening with that fellow from a while ago. his review was complete.
Found this http://www.jstor.org/pss/3296771. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 02:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Clicking the full citation on that JSTOR, you can then cut and paste the title into a google search window. [24] I did not find any "free versions" online. However:
1. There are a huge slew of other interesting papres that reference this source and that can also be used in our article "Ovid's bad girls" made me smile!
2. The author of that JSTOR paper transitioned to Latin scholarship as a result of studing the language for veterinary career. (see the science Myrrha connect!)
3. A terse email request for a pdf of the paper from Nagle would likely get a copy sent to you, Mottenen. This is a very normal thing in scholarshop and if you don't go to the well too often people usually help you out. Also, I would not push this, but that sort of brushing shoulders can lead to other help with an article.
TCO ( talk) 04:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Just a few thoughts/reccs, do with as you will
Nice significant adds of content. Kind of leading to following
A. On the Myth section, you've kind of got stuff at both the front and at the beginning that contrasts versus Ovid.
1. I would move that stuff you have on top of Ovid that is comparisons and then put it down integrated into the later section. cut the summary of the summaries (nuke that). So it would go 2 equals Myth, no writing, 3 equals Ovid, then 3 equals other myths
2. Within Ovid, maybe add some comment about Metamorphoses being wildly popular (RS avail in wiki article for that) at the time and that Ovid;s version is has become the familiar version of t
he myth to present day people. Then all the story telling.
3. I like how you've got more meat in Other versions. But take it even a step further. Give me some dates. Let me know if any of the versions were known to have influenced each other or Ovid (don't explain a negative, but if there is anyhing mentione it. And discuss all the differences in story (you have that).
B. Not perfect, but would stick the Guardian comment in Interprectation, at beginning or end. It's commentary on the myth, not literature.
C. I like the in-article discussion of myrrh. You will get some who kvetch, but the two are so linked and the term so strange to the modern ear. I might move all the myrrh stuff except the Latin name (so the Biblical notes and acnient usage) and stick it at the end of etymology and origin. Follows well after the myrrh-Myrrha word linkage. And explains the substance a little earlier in article (so doing more good). Only bad thing is you lose the connection to the image of myrrh. could just switch back to lady bug though. donno if there is a way to fit two images in that tiny Origins section. you do have pics of the tree anyhow in the form of her transformation.
D. There are some things that are gone missing now. If that is intentional editorially, fine.
E. Prob needs a new logic edit. and new copyedit.
F. More active voice in Interpretations. Maybe identify "schools of thought" or at lesat a couple specific people making the Interpretations.
TCO ( talk) 08:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
A1. Cut the retelling of the story sentence, the "shared story" (you have that in lead and besides you get into it in Ovid next anyhow). I think everything works easier (and is justified) to just treat Ovid as the core story, and discuss the others as alternate (albiet earlier) versions. It's completely justified in terms of current literture and even in the ancient world's popularity. Any facts or context on the Appolodorus etc., just cram down and integrate in that other versions section.
A3: Not sure if it works bette to have a "top para" that discusses the othe versions, lists their time, physical location, liaterary location (where they parts of larger works, for instance Ovid integrates Myrrha into a set of other stories), or if you want to have that info with each version where you talk about the differences in the myth itself. Use your judgement on that, but either way give us the info. It's fine if you we don't know the relation of the myth chroniclers to each other (if we can source and say that, let's though. But even if we can't make a definitive statement, let's describe the relevant factors (time, location, nationality, etc. of the chroniclers). You already have the "what's different in the version itself" well described. just add the other stuff.
D. I had another opera in there. Had Myrres en Arbre. I'm not saying I miss them. Just...whatever!
P.s. thank you for catching the "musical Mel"! ;-)
TCO ( talk) 22:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC) F.
Sidenote: I don't like the ref number 52 - it's like linking to a book nobody can access anyway, and we can't even tell which page(s) we're referring to. Mottenen ( talk) 20:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I recommend adding a few quotes. They really dress the page up, they are "fun" for the reader ('cause you are going to pick punchy ones), and are a very powerful method of "proof" as well as giving people a feel for something. Like on state reptile, all the non-Americans have a WTF reaction when we Yanks use the term, but reading the Vermont text-box, makes it pretty evident what it's all about.
Think about where a coupla quotes will help you (consider all the sections). One place I see it nice is the myth itself (I like the Ovid remark describing the story to come as disturbing, you can dig it out of Boswell translation). Even he, at the time, realized what the Guardian said 2000 years later [the reason it's such a great story is because the girl's action was so fucked up]. Ovid sort of has a "hold onto your seats, now!") Another possibility is in Interpretation (a quote or two, may make it all "hit" better and cut some of the vague nominalizing. Of course, Literature could use one. Even the art, music, science, if there is something that reads well and is insightful.
I think you probably want to use blockquotes, rather than boxed ones, but you can play with that. (Just watch the layout formatting, images on the left of a blockquote mess up the indents, may need to move an image or such...but that's doable. Get the best ones to amuse the reader and advance the article, and we'll do the jigsaw puzzle image work to make it all work.) Here is a good example of some wonderful blockquotes in an article: Allegro (musical).
TCO ( talk) 22:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
How about this Ovid quote (from the Mary Innes translation): "Paphos in turn had a son Cinyras, who might have been considered one of fortune's favourites, if only he had not had a family. The story I am going to tell is a horrible one: I beg that daughters and fathers should hold themselves aloof, while I sing, or if they find my songs enchanting, let them refuse to believe this part of my tale, and suppose that it never happened: or else, if they believe that it did happen, they must believe also in the punishment that followed. If then nature allowed such a crime to occur, I congratulate the people of Ismarus and our part of the world, and count this country happy to be so far from regions of which produced such wickedness. The land of Panchaia may be rich in balsam, bear cinnamon and zedoary, and many kinds of flowers, and exude incense from its trees, but it is not to be envied while it grows myrrh with the rest. A new tree was not worth so great a price."
You can just take a part of it only if you want, but I think it works good as a dramatic intro. (remember it is Orpheus singing, in Ovid's book numer 10 (use X)) Mottenen ( talk) 22:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
1. When you dug up those refs for species was there anything interesting on "why"? Could be nice to add. I'm thinking it's in homage to Ovid's Metamorphoses as the butterfly does a metamorphosis. For the ladybug, I heard they are incestuous (kidding). Actually do beetles have a metamorphosis also?
2. I know your concern with that image. I think the usage is as a synonym. Like that was the old name and then it changed. (I think that's what your search showed us). Or maybe the Wiki page. Donno. I'd love to have some butterfly image as she really is on a lot of moths and butterflies and such, and we kinda cover the myrrh with the two transformation pics and resin. Change of pace for something else. But we might need to do some Flickr search or the like. Would be stronger if we picked one that was "clean", not the whole synonym thing, but one where the animal was named and the species designation (at least) has not changed.
Disagree with the cn's in the Ovid section as it is a plot summary. One reference at the end obviously covers the material, which is clearly called out as a description of the work of literature. That said, Mottennen, I would just put a ref at the end of each para and be done with it. It really won't make it look that ugly.
(I'm on the fence as to the one on Divine Comedia as perhaps you're making a personal statement on the interpretation of that piece of literature. Probably better to have a secondary source making this inference or be clearer that Dante spells out that Myrrha's crime is more deceit than incest.) TCO ( talk) 22:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I would like to add some sources that might be necessary to this article Galinsky 1975 Tissol 1997, Littleton 2007, McKinley 2001. The literature is vast, but that's what it means to bring to GA mythological characters of which there are 3000 years of writings. -- Brunswick Dude ( talk) 23:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I would also like to point to the fact that many sources are books themselves, such as "Songs of Solomon", Shakespeare, or Dante himself. All of these should be removed and replaced with secondary sources that write about the myth.-- Brunswick Dude ( talk) 23:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Better late than never. It's common practice on wiki to back up old sources (thousands or even just hundreds of years old) with a more current source that says teh same thing. The original writings of Ovid and such are fabulous additions to the article, wouldn't remove them for anything. Maybe the interpretations made could just be backed up by another published work (seems like you've already started doing this...nice work!).
As for making this article "a solid GA pass so that it is ready for a FA right away," ehhhh, I can't say I agree. GA and FA have distinct and vastly different criteria. Don't try to write the perfect article then go from GA to FA within weeks; it's a lot of fine tuning and formatting (and content adding, can't forget that) that takes a while to complete. This article is in good shape for GA I should imagine.-- NYMFan69-86 ( talk) 02:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Saw your edit note. Glad to see this. It's going down the right track. Give it a rework to try to make it a bit more like "this is the context for Myrrha" and less a digression (probably cut some of the commentary on "reading Ovid"). Try thinking about what you want to say, then Googling to find the sources to support it, rather than starting with your onhand materials. (Of course if the googling finds more or different info, adjust what your point is). It's going in the right direction, now, but give it a bit more work. TCO ( talk) 19:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I just stopped in to take a look at the article, and it's really grown by leaps and bounds! One small note: in the "other versions" section, it says "0 A.D.", but there was no year 0. Did you mean 1 A.D. or was there supposed to be another number in front of the "0"?- RHM22 ( talk) 20:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, is it good enough now? I've expanded the interpretation-part quite a bit, addressed every possible citation-problem etc. - can it go good? -- Mottenen ( talk) 21:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I moved the Old Testament stuff to the front of the Bible paragraph. I just think we should discuss the older, before the newer. Also, it seems to connect more to the discussion of first millenium BC linguistics as the OT is a Hebrew tale from that period (and I think the NT was written in Greek, no)? Still looks fine with the gift of the magi having an emphatic place of honor at the end of the section. Just think this is a better way to fit it into a section that is really more about linguistics.
I also added a couple of refs (from the Wiki song of Solomon article) on the dating of that literature. I did not format them.
I cut back a little bit that seemed like you were making literary interpretations of the Bible in SoS. I think the point comes accross anyhow, just by presenting the context and we shouldn't be making (much) interpretation in wiki articles. If the Musselman source makes the inference on Myrrha and eroticism and myrrh, then please go and add it in, but call it out in text that this is Musselman's (or "a scholar"'s) viewpoint.
TCO ( talk) 02:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
No sweat. I accept whatever you want. :) Song of Solomon is well known and agreed upon to be erotic, as a whole. I just was questioning the mrrh specifically being called out as erotic. Was it? Or just SoS in general? TCO ( talk) 15:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Wehwalt ( talk) 23:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Not bad, but needs a little work. I tend to go above and beyond the GA criteria and assume the nominator wants to do the same.
I'll give it another read when you've gone through these.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 03:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Addressed and gone through all of it now I think. Mottenen ( talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)