Talk:Homeric Hymns

Tag at the top

This article has 3 references, all slanted the same. The Homeric Hymns are not of Homer, they say. There is no Homer. This is a shallow treatment. What about the hymn to Apollo, in which the author identifies himself? If the hymns are all the same style, why are some attributed to much later times? Style is an indicator of date. I would expect to see a few different views and more of the evidence and the problems. No one view should be presented as the way scholars are treating the topic now. I note also one of the authoritative scholars is not even within a century of now. Not that that makes any difference, but we need more of the other points of view, not unsupported statements and slanted presumptions..Branigan 00:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't create views; we cite them. If you have a cite from a reputable scholar that disagrees, add it. If you have no cite, it's possible that one view does in fact present the consensus of how scholars are treating the topic now.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Well. I did not state or imply the creation of a new view so your one-liner is misdirected. What you invite me to do is self-contradictory. If I were to correct it, the tag would not be needed. If I do not correct it the tag is needed. I understand your point of view. You want it fixed, put up or shut up, am I right? I did not agree to fix it right now. As editor I put the tag on to mark that it needs fixing, as is the custom in WP. I think it should stay on until the problem is fixed. You do not say that the tag is wrong, you only demand answers now. I'm to do the work, am I? I note that a WP employee looked at it (an administrator) and made sure it was formatted correctly, but left it on. He reverted some minor correction to the tag. Apparently I did not understand the format. So that is where we stand. I oppose removal of the tag though no one has suggested it. You seem to speak as an outsider to the topic. I assure you there will be no difficulty at all finding other points of view. The main problem with these Homer articles is that a person or persons apparently of minimal knowledge comandeered them to try and force a narrow point of view on the public. That isn't right, and many of the articles have the tags saying so applied by different editors. I have only asked that it be done. As matter of fact I do not do it momentariy because I am working on other Homer articles and do not wish to have too much on my plate. I do intend to work on it but I'm not sure when. Meanwhile the public needs to know that it is not quite right. I believe this is a standard procedure here at WP. I hope I have explained all this fully as you have a right to expect, being a credible user. I note also that the administrators looking at my work are WP employees, who seem more authoritative. Well, unless you have something new, I will read your comments, if any, but I may not reply.Botteville (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

No, administrators are not WP employees. You still have not given a single cite.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Quick reply, on the fly. Bye and bye. Oh my. Yes they are, no they aren't, yes they are, no they aren't. You sound like a relative. I didn't say they were, read it again. I don't have time for this level of bickering pseudocritique. Perhaps I should make a better summary. The problem is nothing the addition of a few cites or the changing of a cite can fix! The article is too small. It needs to be rewritten. For one thing, the intro should define or summarize the definition. It should not be used as a vehicle for editor opinion the way it is. All of those opinionations need to be supported. It isn't a case of throwing in an extra reference. First you present the topic. What are the Homeric Hymns and how long and why have they been called what they are? This definition should be completely non-committal without feeding the reader your opinion or any opinion. Then, and only then, can you delve into the validity of the definition and present whatever views there are to present. I do not care what language your name is in, good organization is the same in any language. So, I cannot justly bicker with you about what the article says right now. It properly needs to say a lot more. It needs, in other words, a rewrite. That is why the tag is there. I would do it but I'm working on more basic things. WP came up so fast and is so extensive that almost anywhere the links lead requires a lot of work. I'm getting there but it takes time. I went from Homer to the Alexandrines and thence to the Diadochi. I will get back to here unless someone else does it first, just not yet. I got to go now. See you probably in a month or two, provided you say anything that seems to warrant a reply.Botteville (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You've still provided zero evidence that it's feeding the reader opinion instead of established fact. You've offered not a single cite that the statement at the top of the article that the author of the poems is not Homer is not universally held among scolars. You have, however, engaged in repeated personal insult.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Homeric Hymns. 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/20120423060609/http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/orht3/resources.htm to http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/orht3/resources.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 06:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides didn't attribute the hymns to Homer

The claim that the Homeric Hymns have been "uncritically attributed to Homer himself in antiquity" cites Thucydides who only attributed to Homer one of the hymns to Apollo, not all or even several of them. There's no evidence that that one particular hymn is not, in fact, by Homer himself, and there is no further clarification why the rest of the hymns are attributed to Homer if they had been, and by whom.

In fact, other ancient Greeks make mentions of Homeridae as possible authors of the hymns, so it doesn't seem that they were at all "uncritically attributed to Homer himself in antiquity" at least up until the Hellenistic period.

Liviu- (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Homeric Hymns/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 10:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: The Morrison Man (talk · contribs) 21:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll be taking a look at the article and should be back with comments in the next few days. The Morrison Man (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking it on: looking forward to your comments. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)