This   level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as High-importance). Greece High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Classical Greece and Rome High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Poetry High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Philosophers / Social and political / Ancient Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophers Social and political philosophy Ancient philosophy Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

How do you pronounce his name? Can someone provide an IPA transcription? 128.12.32.199 22:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The pronunciation is based on the pronunciation of the vowels eta and omikron. Thus, it is "Hey-si-awed." Sorry, I do not know IPA.

I've never heard anyone say "Hey-si-awed." I'll try to do an IPA transcription tomorrow (I've never done one in cyberspace before) but mine will be a transcription of "Hee-si-ud", so someone will probably revert it ... Andrew Dalby 21:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I pronounce it that way too; I don't think there's much regional variation in the pronunciation of Hesiod.

I do wonder if it's worth adding IPA pronunciations to classical articles, both because it increases the amount of stuff in parentheses in the beginning sentence, and because there are going to be some cases where pronunication differs between regional varieties of English. "Aeschylus" is one example. WP:PRON may be interesting. --Akhilleus ( talk) 21:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC) reply

aeolic greek & IPA for ησίοδος

Aeolic looses the consonant H, so ησίοδος would be pronounced /ɛsiɔðas/ (eh-see-oh-thas) /isiɔðas/ (ee-see-oh-thas) or even just /siɔðas/ (see-oh-thas) when spelled Ἡσίοδος. Though, I am not familiar with η being accented like that in Aeolic... Looks like someone got it confused with Attic, which is wrong. One thing is certain, The first letter is not HEH. Lostubes ( talk) 17:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm skeptical of some of the anon's edits [1]; but without an agreed-upon authority, it's hard to know whether to revert. Stan 14:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I think they should stand, except that I need to look up the location of Anatolian Kyme/Cumae.

However, this article needs to say something about how current conceptions of Hesiod have changed as we understand more about oral poetry. Like Homeric poetry, Hesiodic poetry comes out of a tradition of orally composed poetry. Most classcial scholars still see Hesiod as a real historical individual, but there are definitely some (like Gregory Nagy) who see Hesiod as a legendary figure, and this should be reflected in the article. For one thing, if we view Hesiod and Homer as legendary figures we can stop worrying about when they lived and who was older than whom. Akhilleus 18:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply

There are, understandably, several references to Hesiod's Works and Days in this article, however, all links redirect back to this page. I'm not entirely sure the best way to remedy this, however. Any advice left on my talk page would be appreciated, then I'll do it if no-one else wants to. Just thought I'd point it out! Holypeanut 18:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Cheers ! Yes, I noticed the persistent elliptical problem with the link to " Works and Days" in the Hesiod article pointing back to Hesiod ! The choices have always been clear: (1) write the article on Works and Days, (2) de-Wikify "Works and Days", (3) have "Works and Days" point to an external link to the text of "Works and Days", or (4) leave it oddly perplexing as it is ! I haven't had time to write the "Works and Days" article, or I would have ! I think it's preferable to have a real article on "Works and Days" but that's the best case. For the time being, it might be best to either point to the text or de-Wikify until the article can be written. Some might argue to the contrary. Leave it as a dead pointer as a reminder, not a loop back to the Hesiod article. This would involve simply changing the 'redirect' article. Theogony has a veritable article already. Just some thoughts for your query. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 09:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• "Date of Hesiod": the range of dates given for Hesiod's career in modern discussion.
• "Manuscript tradition": Anonymity 81.106.203.205 has added an unsourced and unelucidated list of mss that makes the article look pretentious, as it stands: we can tell what's being listed because we're ever so au courant, but the Wikipedia reader...
• The "Peisistratean edition": the alleged 6th Athenian century recension and supposed conflation of earlier versions.

-- Wetman ( talk) 02:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC) . reply

Here it states that The Shield of Heracles survives in its complete form. However it says on Shield of Heracles that it is but a fragment. Which is correct? 83.92.42.149 13:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply

In order to avoid gratious reverts let's make this issue simple. This article started with BC/AD and was unilaterly changed by User:Neutrality towards the supposedly "neutral" BCE/CE which is unknown by a substantial portion of English-speakers. This change was contrary to the rules (and the agreement) and was never accepted (or stable) being reverted several times towards the original one. I restored the original system BC/AD (which is the most common and well-known dating system). Flamarande ( talk) 17:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Neutrality's change in 2005 was without discussion and it did not establish this page as stable BCE - to that extent we are agreed. However this page has been been stable BCE since 1st of October 2008 and that before then it had be inconsistent for a while. From then until your change, apart from a single day, it has been been stable BCE for over a year. The basis of your change seems to be that there is some special status for the original era. There is nothing in the current policy that I can see to say this and surely it is undesirable to reopen the question for pages that have settled down to one era or the other. Dejvid ( talk) 15:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Of course, even if the last stable state is BCE, it is quite legitimate for you to propose a change. In the field of Classical Greek history both eras are used. I have been checking newly published books in bookshops. The ballance between the two in this field is about 50 50. I was in the Institute of Classical Studies of London University last week - the library has just reopened after a move and I noticed they had changed the eras on the bookshelves to BCE - that is the trend. Wikipedia with less than 5% of its pages is out of sync with that trend. It may be that this is just a fad that will pass and for that reason it would be premature to make a decision one way or the other for wikipedia. However, given that BCE is currently unrepresented there are no grounds for a change to the over-represented BC format. Dejvid ( talk) 15:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply

There *is* a special status for whatever era is used originally. Since the difference between BC/BCE and AD/CE is purely cosmetic, there's no reason to change from one system to another. Let's stay at the original system and spend our energy on other matters. --Akhilleus ( talk) 15:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Please help me out. Both of you clearly believe that the original era should take precedence but niether explain why. I have also tried to check for myself what the original era was for the page was. I don't seem to be able to get earlier than sept 2001 and that edit is "17:48, 17. септембар 2001. Zundark (Разговор | прилози) м (BCE -> BC) " which implies that this page had been BCE before then but when I try to go earlier it seems that the history is corrupt (tho it is possible that my browser is at fault here). Dejvid ( talk) 17:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Can't help you there and it doesn't seem the fault of the broswer (used Firefox and IE and both show the same). The comment itself (at the creation of the article) doesn't imply absolutly nothing. The author may have indicated that BC is preferred over BCE (or not - we can't be sure of anything except that BC/AD was used at the creation of this article).

Your complaint that "BCE is underrepresented" is - to be quite honest - laughable. AD/BC is not overrepresented; it truly is the most used dating system in the English language and used as such by the overwhelming majority of English-speakers.

Furhermore your argument that 'this article has used BCE on a stable basis since October 2008' serves no purpose. The article was created with BC/AD in 2001 and was changed/twisted towards BCE/CE only in 2005 (and this change was never accepted nor stable). This article has used BC/AD during a way longer period of time and the change towards BCE/CE was a sneaky action. Sneaky changes shouldn't be rewarded; they are to be reverted with extreme prejudice. Flamarande ( talk) 18:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply

If the history doesn't go back to the beginning, how do we know what the original article had - BCE or BC?

You seem to be conceding that there is no policy in favor of the original form, and you merely argue that it is desirable to do so. I would counter that there is likely to be far less conflict if people simply respect the stable form that is very desirable. Sneaky changes should indeed be reverted so long as it is done at the time. I considered your revert of the change made recently on the Battle of Leuctra to be fully justified for example. However to have a policy based on trawling thru the history is not a desirable way of deciding this issue.

As to the popularity of BCE, do you dispute that in the academic world for this field the two forms are about level pegging? Dejvid ( talk) 18:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply

If the history doesn't go back any further than 2001 then perhaps that is the beginning of the article itself.

I don't concede nothing, quite the contrary (read WP:ERA): "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors." - Do not change is a clear indication to keep the original system. I honestly can't say that I agree with some of your (dating system) changes.

To argue that "Sneaky changes should indeed be reverted so long as it is done at the time is ludricrous. In other words you're arguing that "if someone makes a sneaky changes and gets away (the change is unoticed) with it for a month (or whatever) his sneaky change should be accepted".

Do you wish to dispute that BC/AD is clearly the preferred system by the clear majority of English-speaking people, books, films, media, documentaries, etc (in other words: the English-speaking world)? Flamarande ( talk) 19:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply

The policy outlaws all changes. It then qualifies that with a "unless there is substantial reason for the change". A strict interpretation would put both of us in the wrong. I am interpreting "substantial reason" to mean "to restore to the current stable state". You are interpreting it to mean "to restore to the original state". Both of us are reading into it more than it actually states. Like many Wikipedia rules it sacrifices clarity for simplicity for the very good reason that a more comprehensive rule would simply open the way to more (mis)interpretations. Dejvid ( talk) 15:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply

The most natural interpretation of an edit note "BCE -> BC" is that that editor was changing it from BCE to BC. That you really on reflection seriously believe it to be likely that someone should start a page on Hesiod with a slogan to the world about eras is something I find hard to believe. But that is not really important. The history is corrupt so neither you nor I can more than speculate on what the original form was. Dejvid ( talk) 15:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply

The most natural interpretation is not to speculate upon the comment itself. You are arguing that history of this article is corrupt. Good, show some evidence instead of speculation. Show me how the history of this article is "corrupt". Flamarande ( talk) 20:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Given that we don't know what the original page was we have no choice but fall back on the last stable form. However, even if that wasn't so, relying on the last stable form reduces friction. Changing the era on a page that has been accepted as one era or the other to a new one is bound to be controversial. In short, to do it on a larges scale risks disruptive conflict. Against that you argue that sneaky editors should not be allowed to get away with it. There are other options to counter disruptive behavior such as suspensions and the like. This page did not, however, become BCE thru a sneaky edit. When over a year ago it was changed to BCE, all the editor was doing was making a page that used both eras consistent. Dejvid ( talk) 15:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply

The first change towards BCE/CE was done with trickery and deceit after 3 years of the creation of the article itself. See it for yourself [2]. Please explain me exactly how Neutrality followed the rules. Did he announce the change in the edit-summary? Did he give any reasonable argument whatsoever? Did he looked for any consensus whatsoever? NO, he did it quietly and sneakily. The change was reverted several times and your argument of keeping the last stable system is a red herring.

The change (towards BCE/CE) [3] 'which was done more or less a year ago' was done after a previous change (towards BC/AD) [4] which remained stable for over one year and a half. (are you going to be consistent, accept the facts, and desist?). therefore excuse me if I don't believe you when you say that: "When over a year ago it was changed to BCE, all the editor was doing was making a page that used both eras consistent". The facts (the history of the article) clearly say the contrary. The change (a year ago) was done despite of the previous stability of the restored original dating system (which just happens to be the older and most common dating system of the English-speaking world and widely used as such by the overwhelming majority). Flamarande ( talk) 20:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Your challenge re the preference of the English speaking was probaly less specific than you intended so I will take one of them. Were we take all the books ever published in English, I have no doubt that more will be found to use BC than BCE. That you answered my challenge with a challenge I shall take as conceding that newly published books (ie this year) on Classical Greek history are about level pegging. That surely is more relevant. What would you see as an appropriate representation for BCE? Dejvid ( talk) 15:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply

You may take it as you want, but BC/AD is the most common form in the English language, and according to the article's history its original form (of the article itself), and it was changed because of dubious reasons through deceit and trickery despite the clear indications of WP:ERA. Such behaviour should never be rewarded and the original dating system of this article is to be restored and kept. I honestly believe that none of your arguments (above) can withstand the facts. If you don't agree with this then by all means do complain through the proper channels. I'm prepared to go all the way. Flamarande ( talk) 20:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply

We don't seem to be able to agree on the basic facts, let alone our interpretation of them - lets hope a wider discussion can resolve things. Dejvid ( talk) 18:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Should the dates be expressed as BCE/CE or BC/AD Dejvid ( talk) 18:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply

That is to say, should this page be BCE. So supoort = BCE, Oppose= BC. Dejvid ( talk) 20:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Support

• Support The default position should be to maintain a page's most recent stable state and a period of over a year from 1st Oct 2008 is long enough to establish this page as stable BCE. The proportion of BCE/CE in newly published works in Classics is 50-50 while among Classics pages of Wikipedia BCE pages are less than 5%. To change this page to BC would make Wikipedia even more out of sync with the current ussage of Classics studies. Dejvid ( talk) 18:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose

• I don't really care that much which system is used--as I said above, the difference between systems is purely cosmetic. Still, every time I see a poll like this, I find the reasons advanced for using BCE/CE to be specious, and that makes me want to oppose. Also, this article spent more time at the BC/AD system, and the first entries in the page history use that system, so I think we should stick with that. --Akhilleus ( talk) 18:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Oppose changing this article towards BCE/CE. My advice is to carefully read our little debate above. The original system was BC/AD. It was stable and kept for over 3 years until User:Neutrality changed towards BCE/CE with trickery and deceit [5] (he didn't ask for any consensus whatsoever, he didn't gave any reason, he didn't even announce it in his edit-summary, he simply did because he could). That change was clearly against WP:ERA and against the agreement and reverted several times. User:Dejvid claim(ed) that the last change towards BCE/CE (over a year ago) was done solely in the interrest of stability but the history of this article shows exactly the contrary. Vandalism should never be rewarded and the original dating system (BC/AD) should be kept as it is not only the original dating system; it is also the most stable one, and it has been used by this article for a greater amount of time. Flamarande ( talk) 21:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• Oppose, based on my review of the chronology below. Note that I really don't see a major difference between BC/AD and BCE/CE (although if push comes to shove, my personal opinion may tend to favour BCE/CE). The only applicable guideline is WP:ERA. My opinion is based on the following points:

1. As far we can tell, the original style was "BC". Now, there is some suggestion that prior to 2001 the style of the article may have been changed, but without an actualy diff showing that, there's no way to know for sure.
2. The 2005 change to BCE was done when there was no substantial reason for the change and no prior consensus. It cannot even be said there was an inferred consensus (see WP:Consensus#Consensus as a result of the editing process), since it was reverted back 3-4 months later.
3. The 2006 changes don't count. Only one instance was changed, and it was quickly changed back.
4. The 2008 change to BCE was done when there was no substantial reason for the change ("BCE is okay" is not a substantial reason) and with no prior consensus. On the other hand, over a year went by until the revert. So did the one year of no objects imply there was consensus? See the flowchart on the right. I could see reasonable arguments both for against against the position that the one year of no reverts implies there was consensus.

Given a) the the original state of the article was "BC", b) the 2008 changes may or may not have had consensus and there was no substantial reason for the change, and c) it appears throughout the article's history there has been a back and forth between the two styles, indicating there has never been a consensus one way or the other, my opinion is that the original style of the article should be maintained, and BC/AD be used. Singularity42 ( talk) 17:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Neutral

I was coming to this discussion, hoping that this would be a simple matter of one side presenting the reasons for using CE/BCE, & the other presenting their reasons for AD/BC. Instead, this appears to be a quarrel over whether certain rules were broken -- another sterile exercise in wikilawyering, & entrapping everyone involved in their own purgatory of wikistress & making enemies over trivialities & technicalities.

Once upon a time, when the entire CE/BCE vs. AD/BC debate first emerged, I had hoped that instead of settling on one style or another, cooler heads could develop a procedure for moving articles from one style to another, preferably using existing processes (for example, WP:BRD). I'll admit that I prefer using the AD/BC style, but that's because it's how I think. Were someone to examine one of the articles I have been the primary (if not the only non-trivial) contributor to, then ask me if she/he could convert the system from AD/BC to CE/BCE, I'd probably say yes -- & be content to live with the change because someone took the time & effort to solicit my opinion. If someone were to do the same thing -- but include a persuasive explanation for the change -- I'd be even more likely to not only agree, but help them maintain the change against other editors. But if someone were to come along & change this style simply because of some policy reason (e.g., the editor who created the article, who never touched it again, & may not even be active on Wikipedia any more, used one style & I changed it to another while undeniably improving the article), I'd be very annoyed & think the person was simply using the rules to be disruptive.

In short, the whole point WP:ERA was intended to address was to reduce edit wars over using CE/BCE or AD/BC; if a consensus develops that one style is better for that article than another, it shouldn't matter which style is originally used. Just change it then. Otherwise, since either style is acceptable, leave it the fuck alone, & use your time on the rest of the article. -- llywrch ( talk) 22:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Discussion

For those of you who set store by the format used at the time of creation please check the history for yourself. Click on the actual earliest version shown and then click on the "preceding" link. This page goes back to 2001 and there was a conversion around that time that entailed the loss of some pages editing. Hence it is impossible to be sure of the first version and the edit description suggests that it was BCE at least briefly before the earliest edit. This to me illustrates why stable version is a better test than original version. Dejvid ( talk) 19:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply

It must be noted that Dejvid claims but has been unable to prove the conversion. He is unable to prove any history whatsoever before 2001. Flamarande ( talk) 21:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't claim to prove anything. I am asking people to check for themselves and then come to their own conclusion without taking anyone else's word for it - yours or mine. Dejvid ( talk) 11:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Excuse me for being honest, but I don't like how some users (like "Neutrality") are imposing their so-called "neutral dating" through trickery and deceit because of dubious reasons (ie: simple political correctness, entangled with with a varying amount of anti-Christian and anti-Western bias). I honestly despise ppl which whine "how the BC/AD automatically hurts the personal sensibilities of non-Christians", and use this piteful excuse to twist a whole language along PC-lines. The English language is not supposed to be "neutral", it is supposed to be English. Mark my words: a PC-language is de facto Newspeak.

On a personal note I wish to make clear that I'm a proud atheist; however atheism doesn't doesn't mean that I'm obliged to despise Christianity (or religion as a whole). BC/AD certainly has Christian origins but these days it simply is the common dating system of this world and used as such by the overwhelming majority of the English-speaking world, nothing more and nothing less. Flamarande ( talk) 21:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Need to clarify background

As an outside and impartial editor, I would like to assist this RfC, but I need to clarify a few things first. Obviously, WP:ERA applies. Generally, BC/AD and BCE/CE are equally acceptable practices on Wikipedia (all the discussion above about how one is more preferrable to the other is irrelevant to correct style for this article - raise it at WT:DATE instead). What we need to do is apply the following guideline: "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors." So before I add my comments, I would like to just confirm my understanding of the background of this issue. If I am wrong, please let me know.

• The earliest version of the article in the revision history appears to be this 2001 version, which uses "B.C." So that's what we have to go on about the original version.
• Between 2001 and 2005, there appears to have been no issues on the use of "B.C." (at least, nothing raised through edits or on the talk page).
• In May 2005, Neutrality changed the dating system in the article to "BCE". There was no edit summary or talk page discussion.
• Despite there being no discussion at the time, no objections were raised. Between 2005 and 2009 there appears to have been no issues on the use of "BCE".
• In November 2009, Flamarande reverted back to "B.C.", on the basis that Neutrality's change in 2005 did not have proper consensus.
• The November 2009 change sparked off a very minor edit war, and heated discussion, and now an RfC.

Have I covered it properly? Singularity42 ( talk) 17:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Some major details are missing (especially your 4th point - objections were raised to Neutrality's sneaky change). It was reverted after 3 months [6]. During its whole history, even during 2005 till 2009 (one only has to look at the whole period), this article has used mostly BC/AD to a simply overhwelming degree (and I challenge anyone to prove the contrary). Flamarande ( talk) 19:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the extra info. Would this revised chronology be correct?

• The earliest version of the article in the revision history appears to be this 2001 version, which uses "B.C." So that's what we have to go on about the original version.
• Between 2001 and 2005, there appears to have been no issues on the use of "B.C." (at least, nothing raised through edits or on the talk page).
• In May 2005, Neutrality changed the dating system in the article to "BCE". There was no edit summary or talk page discussion.
• In September 2005, an IP changes it back to "BC" here and here. Again, no edit summary and no discussion.
• In May 2006, a different IP changes just one instance to "BCE", creating a style inconsistency in the article. Again, no edit summary and no discussion.
• In December 2006, an IP undoes the May 2006 change (so everything is back to "BC").
• In August 2008, Bart133 changes one instance to "BCE", again creating a style inconsistency. The edit summary was "BCE is okay" and no discussion took place.
• In October 2008, an IP changed the remaining instances to "BCE". No discussion or edit summaries.
• In November 2009, Flamarande reverted back to "B.C.", on the basis that that was the original style and none of the prior changes had consensus.
• The November 2009 change sparked off a very minor edit war, and heated discussion, and now an RfC.

Have I missed any other BC/BCE changes from the revision history? Singularity42 ( talk) 02:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Since no one has suggested the revised chronology is incorrect, I have added my opinion above based on this chronology. Singularity42 ( talk) 17:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Just a few, possibly minor, points. The policy in 2005 was not the same as it is now. From checking the history of WP:ERA the "no change without good reason" bit was added later. This page became inconsistent on 23 April 08, not by a change of an existing date but by the addition of new stuff. Dejvid ( talk) 02:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Lastly I don't see think that we can conclude anything about the edit that changed this page back to BC after neutrality's change as the edit history is blank - It is not impossible that person was reverting as Flamarande claims but is at least as likely that change was made on a whim by someone unaware of the pages history ( but in the event Singularity seems to have taken that into account). Dejvid ( talk) 02:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Some time ago I responded to a request for a citation about dating for Hesiod and I supplied one from M.L.West's Hesiod: Theogony OUP 1966 page 40. In West's own words: "it is hardly possible to consider any date for him later than 650 BC. Nor, I think, can we consider any date earlier than 750." This was paraphrased in the article as "No date before 750 BC or later than 650 BC fits the evidence." Yet this has now been rephrased by User:Quadalpha to "generally thought by scholars to have been active around 700 BC", with this edit tag: rm from first paragraph strongly worded material still under debate, 00.42 17 Oct. The new edit still uses the West citation. Beats me! McZeus ( talk) 07:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC) No my mistake - I was too generous: the West citation has actually been removed and replaced with one from a less authoritative source i.e. The Oxford History of the Classical World. McZeus ( talk) 07:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Hesiod is not a subject I know thoroughly, but I know enough to agree that M.L. West is a better source for the date than the more general Oxford History of the Classical World, which in giving a date may have split the difference in West's range. Cynwolfe ( talk) 12:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the message, McZeus. Sorry to have caused confusion. I did not actually add any citations, just removed the quotation from West and attached citation. I actually feel that "around 700 BC" is a less strongly worded assertion than (paraphrasing) "can't be earlier than 750 or later than 650." I thought this assertion was slightly misleading for the opening paragraph, given how the complexities of the oral tradition affect the notion of a "date" for Hesiod. I do think that West should most definitely be included in a more comprehensive treatment of the topic, which I was thinking about writing up at some point on here for comments, but I haven't managed to get around to it just yet. Short version: West's sentence quoted out of context can be misleading; go for more vague in first paragraph. Thoughts? -- Quadalpha ( talk) 14:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Quad and thanks for courteous reply. I don't see that there is much difference between your phrasing and mine (ie 'around 700' fits the framework 750-650) - hence my puzzlement about the change in phrasing, the critical edit summary and above all the sacrifice of a good citation. I certainly think the West citation should be reinstated and there is no reason to sacrifice the one you have supplied. You can keep your wording, if you like. I wasn't intending to do much on this article and I'll be interested to see what you come up with. If you want to banish any citations from the present article, it should be the one to the OCD, also in the lede. Thanks. McZeus ( talk) 23:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Ah, I didn't add any citations or phrasing, I only removed the West quotation from the lede. Let us compromise. Tell me what you think of the new version. -- Quadalpha ( talk) 00:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes the phrasing is fine. I also reinstated the Griffin citation (Ox.Hist.Class.World) since it's covered in the phrasing. Sorry if I sounded a bit pushy but alarm bells do tend to go off when cited material is deleted. Look forward to your next edit. (:}) McZeus ( talk) 04:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC) I just checked out the editor who first cited Griffin - you're right: it wasn't you - it was me! I added both Griffin and West here I forgot about that. Anyhow, I think we should keep both. McZeus ( talk) 05:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm undertaking a much needed new edit of this article. Problems with the current version include lack of sourcing and content forking e.g. it has 2 sections titled Works and Days and Theogony, though we already have articles for these works, and the documentary support for these sections is limited to the the primary sources themselves and an OCD article by West. I'm not doing a major overhaul however and I expect to be finished within a week or so of this notice. My texts so far:

• J.P. Barron and P.E.Easterling, 'Hesiod' in The Cambridge History of Classical Literature: Greek Literature, P. Easterling and B. Knox (eds), Cambridge University Press (1985)
• M.L. West, Hesiod: Theogony, Oxford University Press (1966)
• Jasper Griffin, 'Greek Myth and Hesiod' in The Oxford History of the Classical World, J.Boardman, J.Griffin and O.Murray (eds), Oxford University Press (1986)
• Antony Andrewes, Greek Society, Pelican Books (1971)

I expect to dig up some online sources as well.

Thanks! Eyeless in Gaza ( talk) 00:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC) reply

I got some work done here but lost interest for the moment at least. Eyeless in Gaza ( talk) 10:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Here] is a copy of old book by Hugh Evalyan-White, titled Hesiod, Homeric Hymns and Homerica, which gives an overview of works ascribed to Hesiod. So far this article lacks any source for that section and I may use this for want of better. Eyeless in Gaza ( talk) 01:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Actually this] is a better copy since it keeps the original Greek and the page numbers of the old Loeb version. Anyway, until something better turns up, this will do. Eyeless in Gaza ( talk) 02:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC) reply

HEW is a dangerous source for many of these since barely any of the papyri had shown up by his time (and he was also kind of a hack in his own day). The best general overviews of the entire corpus, with fragmentary poems, are the introduction to Most's new Loeb and E. Cingano, "The Hesiodic Corpus", in F. Montanari et al. eds. Brill's Companion to Hesiod (Leiden, 2009) 91–130, if you can get you hands on these. I have both, and can help out if need be. — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 02:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Brills Companion to Hesiod costs Heaps and I am concluding that you must be a rich electronic signal. I might get the new Loeb but I already have West's Theog. and a print out of WD, which suit my own purposes. If I edit here with HEW as a source, you can mend it or replace it as you like. I'm just fiddling with possibilities. But thanks for advice. Eyeless in Gaza ( talk) 02:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm a destitute signal with a library card ... and a scanner that I use compulsively to prevent myself from buying books I can't afford. If there's anything Hesiodic you might need, shoot an electronic signal my way. Otherwise I'll do as you say and just keep an eye out. (The new Loebs are awesome, by the way, especially for the mass of testimonia in volume 1; Most also does a pretty good job with the fragments in vol. 2, but some more notes would have been helpful for the reader who isn't a walking dictionary of mythology.) — the cardiff chestnut | talk — 03:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Here is another source for future editing of the article - Ralph Rosen's Hesiod and Homer, with citations. I might borrow from it shamelessly, when and if I get around to doing more edits here. Nobody else may raid it without my permission or a small fee. Eyeless in Gaza ( talk) 03:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I've moved the Pseudo-Seneca to the top, and the photograph of Helicon down to the "life" section where Helicon is actually mentioned. The Pseudo-Seneca is maybe not the best picture to have at the top, but I found it extremely irritating to have a landscape photograph for a biographical article.— Austriacus ( talk) 05:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC) reply

You may have found it irritating but I am irritated by the number of busts of ancient authors that are clearly fictitious and which give a false notion of the period. Busts of that quality were not produced in Hesiod's time and it is impossible that the sculptor knew what he looked like. Whether or not somebody once identified it as 'Hesiod' is irrelevant. Just as importantly, there is a section dedicated to the bust at the end of the article and it makes no sense to place the picture at the head of the article. The picture of Mount Helicon is appropriate in an article on Hesiod and the fact that it is a photo hardly makes it inappropriate. So my advice is, thanks for the input, but no thanks, a photo brings Hesiod's biography to life in a way that a stupid bust can't. Eyeless in Gaza ( talk) 05:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I don't disagree with this in principle, though in some cases (not this one) a later artistic depiction can illustrate something about the reception of the author within the classical tradition. (Vergil comes to mind as a poet with a tradition in art.) I wonder whether there is a representation of Helicon that may be a photo, but without distracting human figures in modern dress (does the image file actually say who they are or what they're doing?), or perhaps a painting or work of art by a WP-notable artist that depicts Helicon. A better option might be a mythological genre painting which scholars have identified as directly based on Hesiod and which would represent his influence. Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

An alternative image is fine by me. However, there is already a painting of Hesiod in the biography section with a caption that is relevant to info in that section and I don't think two paintings in close proximity make for a good idea. So my preference is for a photo of Helicon. You could use some kind of vase image but those images like busts are already over-represented in articles about Greek authors. I guess most people who browse WP articles about ancient authors actually think they should look like museum pieces and yet the past is mediated via the present, useful literature is never dead and therefore contemporary images are more apposite. WP lacks contemporary images and overuses ancient ones. Eyeless in Gaza ( talk) 23:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

eh?

They are not pensioners. They are young, enthusiastic scholars on a research expedition. Eyeless in Gaza ( talk) 08:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Article needs a section on transmission. I've removed this unsourced paragraph for later inclusion:

Of the many works attributed to Hesiod, three survive complete and many more in fragmentary state. Our witnesses include papyri, one dating from as early as the 3rd century BC, and manuscripts written from the tenth century forward. Demetrius Chalcondyles issued the first printed edition ( editio princeps) of Works and Days, possibly at Milan, probably in 1493. In 1495 Aldus Manutius published the complete works at Venice.

I won't do the work myself (at least, not any time soon). Just tidying up. McOoee ( talk) 21:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC) reply

mɛ Lostubes ( talk) 12:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC) reply

I know pronounce you mispronounced

what I'm saying is, is that it isn't HEH-see-oh-das, it is eh-see-oh-das(thas). the consonant "H" isn't present. eta is a vowel. Lostubes ( talk) 01:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC) All you have to do is look at the Greek spelling. Ἡσίοδος the IPA spelling should be 'Ɛsioðos. Lostubes ( talk) 02:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC) In the Greek: H=EH, σ=SSS, ί=eee, ο= oh/ah, δ= th/d, ο=oh/ah, ς=sss Lostubes ( talk) 02:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Help:IPA_for_Greek Lostubes ( talk) 02:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC) reply

There's nothing incorrect about the presence of h in the pronunciation. That little mark you see before the eta in Ἡσίοδος is a rough breathing.   davidiad  { t } 02:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110130214825/http://animalrightshistory.org/animal-rights-timeline/animal-rights-h/hesiod/works-and-days-2.htm to http://animalrightshistory.org/animal-rights-timeline/animal-rights-h/hesiod/works-and-days-2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040605164307/http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/OMACL/Hesiod/ to http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/OMACL/Hesiod

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I don't know if it is possible for anyone to expand on the merits or otherwise of Hesiod's poetry. The article seems to imply that he was incompetent. Particularly, i wonder if differing (reconstructed) pronunciations, and dead-language lenses, might distort reception of his "unflattering hobnails". Untitled50reg ( talk) 15:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC) reply

The article puts Hesiod as meaning "he who emits the voice". However, there is no source for this, and everything I can find puts Hesiod as a word of uncertain etymology. I think it should at least have a qualifier. The ablaut shifts and vowel length shifts necessary to support the ἵημι *ϝοδήν hypothesis are unlikely in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreatman212 ( talk • contribs) 19:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply