Talk:Ajax (play)/Archive 1

Untitled

this article might want to include the fact that this play included the first ever scene-change in Greek drama... or any other theretofore play... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djumbrosia (talk • contribs) 13:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

regarding the attribution to a particular person alone

In good faith, I don’t think we should attribute to “John Moore” alone the idea that Ajax is a relatively early play, yet not a immature play, and written in the 440s BC (etc.). It’s a view that for over a century is widely shared by anyone who’s a scholar or authority on this topic. The ideas are well supported by reliable sources. To suggest that it is the opinion of “John Moore” seems to indicate that either he is the only one, or that the idea might be controversial. But Moore is one of many excellent sources who can be cited, and with his opinion he is following many scholars that have come before. It is of course Moore’s opinion that Sophocles was Greek, (for example) but it isn’t necessary to point out that out. I have added more references to support these ideas, also because reliable sources are not a bad idea. Clockchime (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Also in the section "Ajax" or "Aias" I think (though it was edited in good faith) it seems misleading to suggest that the idea (about the sound of Ajax and the sound of Aias and the sound of lamentation) is one man's idea -- it's a problem that all translators run up against and I have added another reliable source to indicate that it isn't one man's idea only. It's not controversial or original each time it is pointed out. Clockchime (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Those are fair points; however, the problem is that statements like "[Ajax] is not at all an immature work", or "a particular issue that translators need to consider", are statements of opinion which should be attributed to the most relevant sources, not placed in Wikipedia's voice. That was my intention with my edits of 21:44, 2 July 2016 and 22:08, 2 July 2016. One should "Avoid stating opinions as facts", according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Explanation of the neutral point of view. And Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Handling neutrality disputes states, "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution". Even if the statements are not seriously contested, they are still by nature subjective and not factual. If the views expressed are truly widely held views, then the best thing would be to cite a source which says so explicitly; otherwise perhaps such statements could be attributed to the most prominent authorities in the field. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: the part about an "issue that translators need to consider" was changed to a more factual wording with this edit, to remove editorializing language. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The reason scholars stress that the play Ajax is not from his earliest period, is because when it is said that Ajax is relatively early, or “early” in a particular context, people sometimes jump to the incorrect conclusion that it is an “early play”. Sophocles himself has reportedly commented on the quality of his “immature” plays — none of which have survived. If any of his immature works are ever discovered it will cause great excitement and will be on the front page. So, it can’t meaningfully be considered an “opinion” let alone a “biased statement of opinion” to say that Ajax is not one of those. It’s only an opinion in the same sense that it is the opinion of scholars that Sophocles was Greek. These things are considered factual. There may be a misunderstanding on this talk page that the word “immature” sounds like the word “childish”, which could be seen as a playground taunt. But the word “immature” needs to be understood as “not mature”, and akin to “juvenilia”, which is how the sources intend the word. Some of these issues are the same regarding the well known, and much discussed problem encountered when using the standard Latinized spelling for the title, which is a factual problem and not a “biased opinion”. The reliable sources for all of these ideas are there, and easy to locate in the citations. To add additional wording in the text to indicate sources that are already cited once already, is not only unnecessary and not called for in this case, but it also raises by implication an unwarranted suspicion that there is controversy, or disagreement among the sources. I think that WP’s guidelines regarding neutrality would be misapplied here, even though of course, misapplied in good faith. Clockchime (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

If immature is being used by the sources to mean "early in time", rather than the commonly understood meaning of "childish" or "not fully developed" (according to Merriam-Webster), then I think an alternative wording such as "one of Sophocles' early plays", perhaps with a link to Juvenilia, would be preferable to avoid confusion. Since Wikipedia is written for a general audience, the most broadly understandable language is best – see Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 01:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

If Wester’s suggests that a commonly understood meaning of “immature” is “not fully developed”, I think that’s close to the way the word is used in the article, and in that case no change would seem to be called for. Plus it maintains the vocabulary used by the sources. Regarding the proposed link: I think it would not be correct to link to the WP article Juvenilia for a couple of reasons: that article is a stub, and it’s tagged for lack of sources. But also, to use that word, juvenilia, even in a link, is to go beyond the vocabulary used by the sources, and it seems too bold for Wikipedia to characterize a group of plays in a particular way, when in fact the plays are not extant — no WP editor has read them. It also suggests something “youthful” about the author, and that also goes beyond what any source or authority has said, and is not supported. Clockchime (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

So then immature is meant as a judgement of the work's quality, that is to say, "not fully developed"? If so, it becomes a statement of opinion, even if a widely-accepted one. That is why some form of in-text attribution is needed, to avoid stating opinions in Wikipedia's voice. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The plays referred to do not exist. It’s not possible to have an opinion regarding their quality, or to form a judgment on their quality. No one alive has read them or seen them performed. If one of these plays is ever discovered it will cause a lot of excitement, and people will then be able to read them, and study them, and form opinions. So I can’t agree that “immature is meant as a judgement of the work's quality.” That would be impossible. I think that a definition of a category of plays — plays that were written a few thousand years ago — is not going to be found in a one-volume modern dictionary, no matter how much we wish it could be. At Wikipedia we don’t have to worry so much about all the theorizing, we get to leave that to the sources. Clockchime (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, the phrase I'm referring to in this article is "not at all an immature work", referring to Ajax, the subject of the article. If that phrase is meant as a judgement on the quality of this particular work, then it is an opinion which should be attributed to some legitimate source, not simply stated as fact. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The idea you’re referring to is accepted as fact by every source, it is agreed upon by long tradition, it is not at all controversial, it’s not a “biased statement of opinion” (to use a phrase from earlier). And it’s well sourced with citations in the article. I think it would be a mistake and misleading to pick from one of the many sources that support the idea and suggest that that one person deserves particular credit. Clockchime (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I am skeptical that a a statement like "not at all an immature work" would be accepted as an objective fact by scholars as you say, given that it means "not fully developed" as used in the article. Whether or not such a statement is biased, it is still a statement of opinion. What would be an example from the sources of this in the source's own words? —Coconutporkpie (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

This discussion on this talk page seems to be moving from issue to issue. I do not agree that a proper definition is "not fully developed”. You claim you got that definition from your dictionary. I think you are trying to “shoehorn” a larger idea to fit into the tiny little definition that you found in your dictionary, and when the definition you found is not a perfect fit, you are going to stand by your dictionary and suggest that there is something wrong with the way scholars (sources) use the word. A good definition of the word could probably take up a large discussion. The word has been established by long tradition to refer to a category of plays, of which there is little known because they are not extant, so scholars have not studied them. It is logically impossible to form an opinion of the quality of something that doesn’t exist. The sources are there. Regarding your request that I do some research, and then report back to you, I will pass on that chore. The repetitions that are occurring in this discussion, and the way this discussion has moved around to different points and ideas, suggests that this is becoming a free-ranging conversation, and not honoring the idea of a talk page. There is nothing wrong with arguing the vocabulary of a particular area of scholarship when it is informed, but you and I are mere editors, and we perhaps should leave such conversations to the sources. Clockchime (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I am at a loss to follow your reasoning there. First you say that immature is being used by the sources 'akin to "juvenilia"', that is, an early body of work which in this case no longer exists. Then you suggest that the word is better understood as "not fully developed" in the context of the article "not fully developed" is "close to the way the word is used in the article, and in that case no change would seem to be called for". Now you say that "not fully developed" is "not a proper definition" because immature refers to a category of plays that do not exist. Some other points:

• You have provided several citations but decline to reveal what the source texts actually say. How is one supposed to trust that those citations are valid?
• On the topic of judging plays that do not exist, that is not at all the issue. The issue is how the sources actually intend the word immature to be understood with regard to this play, as part of the phrase "not at all an immature play". Does it mean "not one of Sophocles' earliest plays" or else "an artistically mature work"?
• To be absolutely clear, I am not arguing how a particular word should be used by academics, but rather looking for a way to present the sources' ideas in the most widely applicable way, which is the purpose of this encyclopedia. Such a project depends on using widely-understandable language which is the point of referring to the dictionary (not "my" dictionary) as I have – which anyone can verify by following the link I provided. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC) (comment updated 02:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC))

Oh oh. I believe I’m being majorly misquoted. To claimed that a person says things, that they did not, and then to take up arguments based on things that were not said, is, I believe, a kind of fallacy. For example, and I say this with all due respect, the suggestion that I (or anyone) said that “juvenilia” was a “body of work which no longer exists” is not correct. No way — I didn’t say it and I don’t agree with it. This is also going on in the sentence containing the phrase “the word is better understood” — that phrase is not mine, the ideas that follow aren't either. I assume in good faith these are honest mistakes or confusions, but I'm afraid it a sign that this discussion is falling apart. Clockchime (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I have edited my remarks above – hopefully that will clear up any misunderstanding. Again, I would like to know: in what sense exactly do the sources cited intend the phrase "not at all an immature play" to be understood – as an aesthetic judgement, a place in a chronology of works, or otherwise? —Coconutporkpie (talk) 06:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

To misrepresent another editor is considered unacceptable behavior. See WP:TALKNO. To then alter your own comments after another editor has commented on them is also unacceptable and violates Wikipedia guidelines. See: WP:REDACT By changing your own comment your have deprived the replies of their original context. Your last question has been replied to more than once. Clockchime (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I assure you that no misrepresentation was intended. For clarity's sake I have now marked off the parts of my comment that were inserted after the fact. Based on your earlier remark that 'when it is said that Ajax is relatively early, or “early” in a particular context, people sometimes jump to the incorrect conclusion that it is an “early play” ... the word “immature” needs to be understood as “not mature”, and akin to “juvenilia”, which is how the sources intend the word', I take it that the phrase "not at all an immature play" means simply that Ajax is not one of Sophocles's earliest works, or "not from his earliest period". Is that correct? —Coconutporkpie (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Pending further input, I changed the wording of the second sentence to:

Ajax may be the earliest of the seven plays by Sophocles that have survived, yet is not from his earliest period.

I think, however, that four citations for what is supposed to be an uncontroversial fact is excessive and interferes with readability. One or two would probably be better. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 09:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I have already objected to this discussion as improper -- in particular the way edits are made after an editor has replied (as described above) which alters meaning and alters context. Also I objected to the misrepresenting of what another editor has said -- that is considered inappropriate behavior. In addition to that, to build an argument based on misrepresented ideas, which is known as a "straw man fallacy", ruins any hope for a reasonable discussion. It is not proper to make a change in the article, a change that has been objected to, and in the edit summary to cite this particular inappropriate discussion between two editors as support. I object to the change, it is unsourced, it alters meaning. Clockchime (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Since the actual meaning of the phrase "not at all an immature work" has so far not been clearly established, and since the above change was reverted, I have started a request for comment below (§ Meaning of "immature work") to clarify the issue. The relevant category is listed as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Clean-up, August 2016

I've spent some time cleaning up the citations and sources for this article, prompted by the problems detailed above. I've moved the citations over to the MLA author-date system, which is useful where the same source is cited many times. Consequently, the notes are now crisp, clean, and easily legible. There were many mistakes in the citations and misattributions, which I think I've corrected. This also has the consequence of highlighting where a citation fails to give a page number--please feel free to check the books concerned if you have them available and add the page numbers. I removed the reference to an adaptation that didn't seem to be notable but have left Wertenbaker's play, since she's notable without a citation (though it needs one, obvs). This is still only a start article, since there is clearly a massive amount of information missing. I've started a Performance history section based on the citation in the article for the review of Peter Sellar's production. More productions would be desirable here, provided notability and sourcing can be provided. I adjusted the lede copy somewhat, to reflect what I was able to read of the sources provided online and what I had to hand.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 19:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Critical analysis section

Moved here from § Critical analysis and reception:

Ajax is a heroic figure, whose strength, courage and quick-thinking are almost superhuman. The stories of him coming to the rescue of his fellow man in dire moments are the stuff of legend. Yet, as in this play, he and others also suffer from those same qualities when Ajax becomes proud, stubborn and hot tempered.

Such interpretations need attribution to their sources, and preferably an inline citation as well. It's unclear whether the text is referring to the character in the play or the figure of Ajax as he appears in other tales. Language such as "of his fellow man", "the stuff of legend" and "also suffer from those same qualities" is vague.

Similar problems arise with the paragraphs that begin "One interpretation sees..." and "Another interpretation sees..." but at least there are citations there that could assist the reader. Still, the style is similar to an opinion essay, and the wording is vague – one question that arises immediately is, Whose interpretation is being discussed?

Any thoughts on how to clean up this material to provide needed context and avoid seeming to endorse a particular point of view? —Coconutporkpie (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the content in that section in any detail -- it seemed in too poor a state to be subject to any improvement without substantial effort. But if you're going to add citations, please use the format established. It was put in place to avoid the mess the citations were in.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 17:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank, DionysosProteus, we tried it again. Clockchime (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Great. Though only one note per sentence, at the end, is required, no matter how many sources are cited, as is: "Peters (2015, 1), Paul (2016, 6), and John (2010, 1)." Each citation needs a page number too. However, the lastest edit doesn't seem to contribute anything of value to an article on the play, tbh. Jebb too shouldn't really be used, without marking it as very old criticism. Perhaps those bits belong in the article on Ajax (mythology)?  • DP •  ^{huh?} 18:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Sophocles' or Sophocles's?

Thanks to the editor who made these improvements to the article. I see that the article now uses the possessive form Sophocles' rather than Sophocles's (no s after the apostrophe). Wikipedia's Manual of Style and Oxford Dictionaries recommend using the extra s when it is pronounced in speech: "Brahms's music, Dickens's novels, Morris's works". How would the pronunciation normally go in the case of Sophocles? —Coconutporkpie (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Without normally. Standard in most literature.  • Doctor Mabuse •  ^{{consultation}} 03:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

What would be an example of the "without" usage from a reputable source? —Coconutporkpie (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

A google books search [1] will soon give that to you, if you feel it is in any way significant. Please try not to make requests that you may fulful yourself so easily.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 10:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but I meant an actual citation with a page number. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

As I indicated, that's something you should be doing for yourself. The first result and numerous books available.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 16:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The burden of proof usually lies with the person who claims that something is true. I would point here to Wikipedia's talk page guidelines – "The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material" and "Asking for a verifiable reference supporting a statement is often better than arguing against it". Until someone can prove with a citation that Sophocles' is the preferred usage, I see no reason not to replace it with Sophocles's, which seems more intuitive to me. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Your intuition is irrelevant. Three degrees in drama in the UK and US and never pronounced "es-eses". Try not to be stupid about it and look at the citation provided. • DP •  ^{huh?} 16:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

My, aren't we testy? But if I had a zillion degrees in any subject, that would also be irrelevant. I do see one instance of the repeated use of Sophocles', in A Companion to Sophocles (Wiley, 2015), on page 381. But I find it curious that that is not one of the sources used for this article, nor do any of those works show up in the search linked above. How about a citation from one of those works? —Coconutporkpie (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

How about you try following the advice you've already offered and follow MoS. It's not pronounced with an extra syllable. The experience with degrees was an indication of common spoken usage with experts in the field. The usage is easily found with a small amount of effort. If it's an important issue to you -- and I fail to see how it can be, given the terrible state most of the article is in, there are surely more pressing issues -- you can easily avail yourself of the information required.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 17:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

"It's not pronounced with an extra syllable" – citation, please. Personal experience is not a valid source for material here. Please refer to Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC) [Update: a better summary of the relevant policy is found at Wikipedia:No original research § Related policies: "Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors". 17:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)]

See above. Please stop wasting our time with these idiocies. It was precisely the absurdity of your failure to reach a consensus about an utterly minor point concerning the wording in the lede that led me to spend a considerable amount of time cleaning up at the weekend. You have the citations required. There isn't likely to be a citation on the proper pronunication considering -les' or -les's, is there? Use your head.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 17:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

"You have the citations required" – and which ones would those be? —Coconutporkpie (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

See above.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 18:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Where exactly "above"? Be specific. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

See request above to stop wasting our time. And the source already discussed, first in the search, that uses -les'. Just like every book I glanced at that I had to hand this morning.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 18:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

"Just like every book I glanced at that I had to hand this morning" – titles and page numbers please? —Coconutporkpie (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I can only assume that this idiotic behaviour is the same nonsense that created the non-issues detailed in the sections above. Get a grip. Do the work yourself.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 18:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

And where should I start "doing the work"? Any particular authors, dates of publication, etc.? —Coconutporkpie (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? How many times do you need it explained to you? The link given in the very first response above provides it. Once again, please stop wasting our time.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 03:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I have managed to find several instances of the possessive Sophocles' in some of the works cited for this article,[2][3][4][5] no thanks to any other editor involved in this discussion. The Google books search linked above did contain, on page 5, one other instance of Sophocles' – once again not cited in the article or dealing at all with the play Ajax. I wonder whether the editor who repeatedly insisted that I look for information there even bothered to read the search results.

On a separate note, Wikipedia is not compulsory, and any user who believes their time is being wasted here, including in responding to other users' good-faith queries, is free to stop anytime. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Coconutporkpie, please do not leave messages on my talk page complaining about civility. Your question was answered in the very first response -- the converstaion continued because you seemed to have difficulty accepting that your intuitive sense was in fact incorrect. I asked you several times to stop belabouring a non-issue. The purpose of this page is to improve the article and a desire to do so necessitates addressing issues raised in what we hope is good faith here -- pointing out that I am "free to stop anytime" evades the issue at hand.

If MoS states the convention to be followed is that used in everyday speech, then -cles' is the correct version for a Wikipedia article. A source was provided in the very first result of the google search i invited you to conduct for yourself in the first response. Your unwillingness to accept that evidence was clearly part of the same pattern of behaviour demonstrated on this page in the sections of considerable length above, all of which were such that they could have been settled easily and without much fuss, but which were dragged out quite unnecessarily -- instead of consulting the sources and editing the article accordingly in those instances, you belaboured discussion here. That the sources already employed in the article may or may not have used -cles' was utterly without relevance -- in the overwhelming majority of instances in the critical literature, the possessive takes the form of "X by Sophocles, his play, the x of Sophocles" etc. I glanced at a few volumes -- Blackwell's Companion to Greek Tragedy, Grahamn Ley's book, Rush Relm's book -- to confirm my understanding that the format already in place in the article was correct. A source was not needed for the usage, since such things are not required to have sources -- mainly, of course, for the simple and straightforward reason that a source discussing such an obscure and utterly incidental point as that you have belaboured so preposterously is extremely unlikely to exist -- under what circumstances would an expert feel it necessary to detail such a thing?!? The only place in which confirmation is likely to be found is inside a university, in a theatre studies or classics department. I offererd my own experience, having received three degrees in the subject and having been taught by some of the foremost experts in the field, anedoctally in lieu of such an imaginary published source, since it emcompases experience in which the plays of Sophocles was discussed in oral conversation in both the United States and Britain, indicating that the convention of pronounciation -- "Soff-o-kleez'" Oedipus Tyrannos, "You-rip-i-deesz" Bacchae, etc.; rather than "Soff-o-kleez-is" Oedipus -- is likely to be wide-spread and standard. In my very first response I pointed you to the means to resolve your confusion and invited you to do the work for yourself' that you have, finally, done "no thanks" to any other editor (as if we were obliged to do it for you -- we're not). You were confused and unable to abandon your "intuitive sense". That has nothing to do with improving the article.

I had already spent a considerable amount of time this weekend producing a clean and clear set of citations and sources for the article, consulting each and confirming the relevant details within them, in the wake of your previously unnecessarily belaboured discussions with other editors on this talk page above, in order to resolve them and terminate their ridiculous dilation. This repeated pattern of behaviour gives little indication that you have any real interest in improving the article. I wasn't prepared to sit down to type out the bibliographic details of the works I'd glanced at merely in order to satisfy your ignorance. You needed to do that for yourself. Please try to focus your efforts more appropriately and, once again, please stop wasting our time.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 18:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a rather banal conversation. If you look you will find examples of both. Looking at the Wikipedia manual of style however MOS:POSS and noting the classical nature of Sophocles, I'd lean towards Sophocles'.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Coconutporkpie, you're welcome to research and verify the most common usage yourself, or inquire at the WP:HELPDESK or your local librarian if you don't know how. Common sense would dictate that when a construction as infelicitous as Sophocles's is concerned, we use the form without the possessive s, and that is the most common usage with this name. It is not incumbent upon users here to prove or convince you of that; it is moreover incumbent upon you to prove otherwise and gain consensus if you want to change it. Softlavender (talk) 09:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The content issue was effectively settled – several more sources supporting the existing usage were identified, as I stated above at 17:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC). —Coconutporkpie (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Archiving of talk page

Coconutporkpie, while I can understand that your embarassment at having behaved inappropriately on this talk page in the last couple of months might motivate you to tuck it away where anyone passing by is less likely to stumble across it, it is, nevertheless and as a couple of other editors have already pointed out to you, a further instance of your pattern of inappropriate behaviour.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 14:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, it was largely the off-topic, personal remarks (similar to the preceding) that had cluttered this talk page so much as to distract from its purpose – namely, finding ways to improve the article. The discussions regarding article content found at Talk:Ajax (play)/Archive 1 all seem to have run their course – nevertheless, if any user wishes to move one or more of them to this page in order to comment further, they are free to do so per Wikipedia's talk page guidelines. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Personal remarks? I haven't speculated about your personality--I'm quite sure your behaviour speaks for itself. The cluttered talk page was its result. Two other editors attempted to do precisely what you are now suggesting, and you reverted them. Kindly leave the talk page alone and restore its contents.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 17:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The key phrase here is "in order to comment further" – in other words, the discussion has ended unless someone has something else directly pertinent to that discussion to say. If questions of calling the play "not an immature work", possessive apostrophes, and citation clutter should need to be debated again (and I don't see why they should), then I think the existing consensus would be better communicated by way of a summary using the {{FAQ}} template, per Help:Archiving a talk page, than by long, rambling discussion threads rife with various petty conduct disputes.

"Personal remarks" means comments directed at other users' behavior. Per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, "Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct [...] Bringing up conduct during discussions about content creates a distraction to the discussion and may inflame the situation". Also please note that it is standard talk page formatting to use indentation via colons (::) to indicate a reply to a comment – see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Technical and format standards for more explanation. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from attempting to dictate how I respond to your remarks by citing guidelines. The talk page serves as a record of previous discussions concerning how the article may be improved, as well as offering an opportunity for further discussion. You have cited that record elsewhere in what you imagined was incivility and received many answers that you clearly didn't like. I appreciate that must be frustrating for you. If other editors feel that the dilated discussions you demanded have cluttered this talk page, as well as wasted our time, then they are perfectly able to say so or to archive it. What is self-evident from the immediate history of this talk page, however, is that others feel it belongs here. Two other editors reverted your decision to tuck that record away, and you reverted them. Once again, kindly restore it.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 20:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: This discussion has also been copied and continued at User talk:DionysosProteus. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Citation overkill

[Ajax] appears to belong to the same period as Sophocles's Antigone, which was produced in 442 or 441 BC, when Sophocles was 55 years old, and had been producing plays for a quarter of a century.

I think having six citations for this seemingly trivial fact is definitely unwarranted – it only adds clutter to what is a rather brief lead section. Any suggestions for trimming this down to the one or two best-quality sources? — Coconutporkpie (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it is not a good idea to remove sources without good reason, and without knowing what they verify. Removing sources impinges on Wikipedia:Core content policies. If a source is repeated: both in the middle of a paragraph and also at the end, which is the case, it would make sense to remove one of the repititions, and leave the other one at the end of the paragraph. I can’t agree with your opinion that that sentence contains a “trivial fact”. I also don’t think that the sources are only supporting that one single sentence. I suggest perhaps consolidating them and moving the citations to the end of the paragraph. This discussion seems to be a branching out of the discussion that’s going on just above that’s also discussing sources. Clockchime (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

"I think it is not a good idea to remove sources without good reason, and without knowing what they verify" — since the editor who made the preceding comment was also the one who added five of those six citations, perhaps he or she could say exactly what the sources do verify, using quotes from those sources. The "good reason" for trimming the number of citations, in my opinion, is to keep the article readable, and not distract readers with multiple footnotes when one or two would suffice. Where exactly do Wikipedia's core content policies specify that such a number of citations is needed? —Coconutporkpie (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Removing sources impinges on Wikipedia:Core content policies – not always, no. Wikipedia's core content policies are WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. Of these, only WP:V requires citations, and only then in certain specific circumstances: (QMATERIAL CHALLENGED OR LIKELY TO BE CHALLENGED, AND ALL QUOTATIONS, MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO A RELIABLE, PUBLISHED SOURCE.). Unless the facts in that sentence have been challenged (I don't think they are likely to be, personally), then it's not a violation of WP:V to remove the citations.

At any rate, there are at most four facts in that sentence which might concievably require citing: 1. Ajax belongs to the same period as Antigone 2. Antigone was produced in 442 or 441 3. Sophocles was 55 at that point 4. Sophocles had been producing plays for a quarter-century at that point. I can think of no concievable scenario in which more than four citations would be needed to prove this information. If you think six sources are required to verify what looks like a fairly simple set of facts, perhaps you could clarify which sources are required for each piece of information, and why six are needed for four facts.

P.S. It's only an essay, but WP:OVERREF is relevant here... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I have removed citations that were repeated elsewhere in the article, and I moved the citations to the end of the paragraph. To respond to Caeciliusinhorto, the four “facts” that you refer to are not facts in the same category as “the sky is blue”. They all four are based on the date that Ajax was written, and that date has been arrived at by study, debate and discussion over the years, and the interpretations of the historic record compared with possible allusions found in the plays. Etc. And there are certainly sources that dispute all of those so-called facts. The date Ajax was written is not carved stone. It depends on what the sources have decided on. There is a fifth idea stated in the same paragraph: that Ajax is the earliest extant play of Sophocles. This also is not agreed to by all scholars. Like so many things that are ancient, these understandings are almost theoretical, and are decided often by a kind of critical consensus. The most recent sources may seem to be the most reliable, but ten or twenty years from now things may change when something new is discovered. For classical studies I think citations are especially important. Clockchime (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand that they are not facts in the same category of the sky being blue, and Sophocles is not really my area, so I am not particularly au fait on the scholarship surrounding the dating of his plays; I am happy to bow to your better knowledge of the state of the field. That said, putting five citations in a row like that is really unhelpful, IMO. There are two possible ways of understanding the citations placed as they are, as far as I can see: either all five support the paragraph as a whole (in which case it would be better to associate each citation with the sentences/clauses that it supports) or all five support the final sentence (in which case many of them are redundant). Currently, in order to find the source of any of the facts in the lead, the reader has to look at as many as five seperate sources, with no idea as to which of them is the relevant one for the fact that they are looking at.

As a more general point, the lead ought (at least according to WP:LEAD) to summarize the article, not introduce new facts which require citations. If there really is much academic debate about the chronology of Sophocles' plays and the dating of Ajax, it might be worth writing up a section on the varying opinions and the reasons why it is generally considered to be an early work. (The classics articles I have written generally get into this more with authorship than dating: see Against Neaera and Midnight poem for two articles which have a section on the question of who wrote the work in question.) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto, you make not only very good points, but also your ideas could help regarding the direction this article could be developed. The articles Against Neaera and Midnight poem are excellent examples for the way they handle content and citations. “Authorship” is not nearly as interesting with Ajax as it is in those pages. The liveliest aspect regarding Ajax might be that it has been so disparaged by critics, but they seem to have discovered something, and now go very far in the opposite direction. The five citations I don’t mind so much, weighing clutter vs the value of quality citations to a person researching Ajax, but perhaps the use and the placing of the citations and the ideas they contain could be developed along with the article. You hope that the editor who creates an excellent article on a blank slate, perhaps while sitting in a garden, far from the madding crowd, will be understanding of the other more common kind of articles — the ones that didn’t begin that way and are quilted together more democratically. Clockchime (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Note: Whenever I need to use more than four or five citations in a row, I bundle them so that only one or two "numbers" show. See WP:BUNDLING for examples. For instance, on the example at the top of this thread, if it were agreed that all of the citations were to be retained, I would do thusly:

[Ajax] appears to belong to the same period as Sophocles's Antigone, which was produced in 442 or 441 BC, when Sophocles was 55 years old, and had been producing plays for a quarter of a century.

-- Softlavender (talk) 02:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Meaning of "immature work"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Responding to formal closure request at WP:ANRFC. As an uninvolved editor, I will summarize only the underlying content dispute. This discussion concerns the phrase Ajax may be the earliest of the seven plays by Sophocles that have survived, but it is not at all an immature work and whether it is problematic, and if it is, how it could be rephrased. There are two primary concerns. Firstly, is the use of the term "immature" in this case a biased statement of opinion that requires in-text attribution under the neutral point of view policy? The consensus is no, the use of "immature" here instead describes the location of Ajax within the collection of Sophocles' works, which is not a biased statement of opinion and therefore does not require in-text attribution.

The second concern is whether the term "immature" is too vague to be understood by the average reader. The general agreement here is yes, although it may be technically correct and in alignment with the sources presented, the term is so ambiguous that it should either be rephrased or elaborated upon. The text in the article now currently reads: Ajax may be the earliest of Sophocles' seven tragedies to have survived, though it is probable that he had been composing plays for a quarter of a century already when it was first staged. It appears to belong to the same period as his Antigone, which was probably performed in 442 or 441 BCE, when he was 55 years old. There is a consensus that this phrasing is satisfactory. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

---

Should the page Ajax (play) describe its subject as "not at all an immature work"? To me the phrase reads like a statement of opinion in Wikipedia's voice. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

This was discussed at length between two editors above (§ regarding the attribution to a particular person alone) with no clear understanding being reached at how the sources intend the word immature to be used. Two issues seem to be involved here: first, if immature is meant as an judgement of artistic quality or lack of refinement, then it should be properly attributed to its source—or described as a widespread view if sources make that clear—per Wikipedia's neutrality policy; on the other hand, if immature is simply a quirky academic way of describing a thing's place in a chronology of works, then the statement should be rephrased to make that clear to the general reader. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Messages have also been posted linking to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Responding here following G&R request. No, because "immature" is quite evidently ambiguous in common usage. Even as a "term of art" it's not self-explanatory; not quite jargon, but bordering on it. It should be translated into plain English, for clarity and the reader's benefit. (posted after e/c if we don't clearly know what a source means when using a particular word, due to ambiguity in that word's possible meanings, we probably shouldn't attempt to use either word or source). Haploidavey (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• I think the meaning is clear enough, but I also don't think it needs to be included unless it's a sourced response to sourced assessments of the work as immature. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• • What does "sourced response to sourced assessments" mean? And which meaning of the statement in question is "clear enough"? —Coconutporkpie (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• As has already been said elsewhere, the sources and authorities use the term “immature” to refer to a group of Sophocles’ plays that are unfortunately not extant. So, they are not available for anyone currently to read. That’s what is meant. This term “immature” is commonly used, and it is properly supported by the excellent sources in the article. I think it is an important category, and the mistake has occasionally been made to put Ajax in the wrong category. Wikipedia should stick with the language that is used by the authorities. If Wikipedia editors search around for a synonym, like say “childish” as the editor who raised this question at one point considered, or any synonym, it changes the meaning, it is not at all what is intended, and it might seem to suggest that some Wikipedia editor has actually read the plays and is able to form an opinion on them. The idea that the authorities suggest (as it is expressed in the article) is simply that Ajax definitely doesn’t belong with the plays that are considered Sophocles’ immature plays. I think that Coconutporkpie interprets the policy regarding Wikipedia’s voice, and other guidelines incorrectly — too strictly might be the right way of putting it. See WP:Buro. Clockchime (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• • "Wikipedia should stick with the language that is used by the authorities" – actually, as Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable explains, articles should be written in the most widely understandable way possible. Based on the preceding comment, scholars seem to be using the word immature differently than its commonly understood meaning. That doesn't help the article convey meaningful information to the reader – see Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Technical language. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• • "Ajax definitely doesn’t belong with the plays that are considered Sophocles’ immature plays" – can anyone substantiate this with an actual quote from one or more sources? I think that would help provide contextual clues for the intended meaning of immature. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• • • This discussion has a lot of history, and not all of it is being disclosed. A few weeks ago, a discussion occurred with this editor, Coconutporkpie, (elsewhere on the Ajax (play) talk page), and when a guideline (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) that he referred (July 2, 2016), did not support particular claims he was making regarding Ajax (play), he edited (on July 13, 2016) the guideline — without any discussion or consensus — so that it then supported what he was trying to do on the Ajax (play) article. Other editors have attempted to prevent those changes to the guideline, and a long, grinding, on-going discussion is occurring on the talk page of the guideline. Something similar occurred when this same editor began to claim that an in-text attribution was needed in the Ajax (play) article: While making that claim, he then edited (on July 13, 2016) a template (Template:According to whom) in a way that would support his claim on the Ajax (play) talk page. This was again done without any discussion or consensus, and it again resulted in another long discussion on the talk page (Template talk:According to whom). So the discussion that is occurring on this page right now has a lot of undisclosed history, and what you might call a few “branches” or “prongs” to it, starting with the “discussion” that began earlier on this same page. An example if a problem that could occur is this: If an editor in a discussion were to change a guideline or a template, he could then return to the discussion and surprise the other editors by using that change as a tool in his argument. That’s hypothetical, but it’s an example of a reason the guidelines need to be respected and not altered for the sake of some small point on some talk page. In the earlier discussion on the Ajax (play) talk page, the editor began retroactively changing the text of the discussion — after responses had already been made, which changed meaning and context. He then began misquoting his fellow editor, then coming up with arguments based on these misquotations. I stopped participating in this discussion in part because I felt these actions had caused that discussion to become faulty. But then he went ahead and altered the article — claiming as his reason (in his edit summary) that his edits had been “discussed”. But they were not fairly discuss, and anyway there was no consensus. Regarding Coconutporkpie’s recent question asking if there are any sources, this question has been already asked and answered more than once. But again, the answer is Yes, the sources are cited in the article, and there are plenty of them. Regarding the idea that Cocunutporkpie is “basing” his understanding on “preceding comments”, I think that he should not be concerned so much with what other editors think — but rather on the sources. And his truncated reference to a guideline is an example of misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions, as mentioned in WP:Lawyering. There’s too much WP:Lawyering and Wikipedia:Gaming the system going on. Clockchime (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• • • • This is the place for focusing on article content, not editors' conduct. For conduct disputes, that editor's user talk page, or possibly Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, would be the appropriate place to raise objections. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• • • • "Regarding Coconutporkpie’s recent question asking if there are any sources" – my actual question was whether the sources in fact substantiate the claim being made – that Ajax "doesn't belong" with the so-called "immature" plays. So far that has not been shown clearly. As another editor pointed out above, immature is ambiguous in common usage. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, first item is that this is beginning to feel like a dispute that will end with one or more editors being sanctioned. The language being discussed is not purple or otherwise important; it's simply an attempt to convey an idea, & there may be better words to use to convey that idea.

Second, I happen to have a degree in Literature, & have made an effort to stay current with the academic literature, & I have never encountered the words "an immature work" used by themselves to convey some kind of judgment. While they might be accurately applied to some literary works -- say, the early comedies of Shakespeare are examples of his immature work -- I would expect those words to be immediately followed with "because" & an explanation why those works are "immature". (In this case, I'd say something along the lines that his later plays demonstrate more mastery of language & more depth of characterization, then provide examples of Shakespeare's mature literary skills.)

But in any case, I honestly don't see the point why it must be said this play is "not at all an immature work". Has someone alleged that it is an "immature work"? (If so, who said that & why? Were there a lot of juvenile content, like fart jokes?) If no one has alleged that, then those words are not intrinsic to the article, & can be removed. To be frank, I think the sentence "Ajax may be the earliest of the seven plays by Sophocles that have survived, yet is not from his earliest period" expresses this idea very well; in fact, I think it is far more fluent than the present "Ajax may be the earliest of the seven plays by Sophocles that have survived, but it is not at all an immature work".

Since one of the editors is so enamored with the current wording, I think it's only fair for she/he to explain how that wording is better. -- llywrch (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone is suggesting that the prose is purple. I, however, am suggesting that the wording is vague. The general idea that seems to keep coming up is that the phrase not at all an immature play is meant to convey simply that Ajax is not from Sophocles's earliest period. I propose changing the disputed wording to make this clear, citing only the two most recent sources to avoid clutter, as follows. I cannot, however, verify that any of the given citations support any of the material. I am open to any further suggestions. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Ajax may be the earliest of the seven plays by Sophocles that have survived, yet is not from his earliest period.

I agree with Llywrch (above) that there must certainly be more explanation if sources use the word “immature” and if they point out that Ajax should not be considered such. I think that there must be sources to support llywrich’s idea, and I think it would be a good direction for this article to go: to search out a fuller explanation and more detail about what the article and the sources are saying. Are the sources in fact saying that about Ajax and immaturity? Yes, multiple sources that are cited in the article are indeed saying that and use the word "Immature". This is not hard to verify, simply by looking up the sources and reading them. Llywrch, you suggest that I should come up with a reason why the current wording is better. I would say the answer is: that’s what the sources cited in the article say. And I think that to use a different word would be fine, but only if it could be sourced. If we found a source that uses the word “childish” or “earlier” or “green” or anything else, we still would be stuck with many (most actually) sources using the word “immature”, so that should still be somehow included. But I do think that your suggestion, that seems to be that there must be more of an explanation out there in the literature, might be best — rather than just making changes without reference to a published book or essay. However when Coconutporkpie says he cannot “verify that any of the given citations support any of the material” — I don’t now why he would claim that. It is a hugely general statement that seems on the face of it to be not true. The sources are excellent and include major authorities and experts in the field. I would say that no source should be removed or denigrated as “clutter” — unless there is a reason. Some of the sources are repeated, and they could be combined at the end of the paragraph. Clockchime (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

"Yes, multiple sources that are cited in the article are indeed saying that and use the word 'Immature'" – this claim has been repeated several times already on this talk page without any proof. Nor does it address the need for non-technical language. Wikipedia is not an academic journal, and material should be written for everyday readers, using plain language instead of abstruse jargon. If the sources use immature to mean "early" or "earliest", then Wikipedia should say that rather than immature, which means "not fully developed or grown" in common usage. As for moving citations to the end of the paragraph and removing duplicates, I have no objection to that. My objection is to the wording and to the distracting number of footnotes. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

No Wikipedia policy suggests slavishly following the terminology used by the sources when alternative wording makes the article easier to understand. On the contrary, Wikipedia:Verifiability § Verifiability and other principles states, "Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible" (to avoid plagiarism), and "Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say" (to maintain neutrality). —Coconutporkpie (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• The use of the word immature cannot, given the particular circumstances, refer to a value judgement by those critics cited, since we don't have the plays to make one. Use of the word to help to locate this play's place within the corpus of Sophocles' work as a whole is ambiguious enough to justify the concern expressed. The information given about that location, however, is important and should be preserved. Five citations are just fine, but shouldn't appear in separate notes. Author-date system would sort that out (see Hamlet). I propse the following edit: • DP •  ^{huh?} 16:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Ajax may be the earliest of the seven plays by Sophocles to have survived, though he had been producing plays for a quarter of a century when it was first staged in 442 or 441 BCE. The play appears to belong to the same period as his Antigone, which was first staged in 442 or 441 BCE, when Sophocles was 55 years old.

I think that wording sounds fine, it expresses it well, and the important ideas are there. Thank you, DP, for suggesting it. Clockchime (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that the wording could be polished marginally; currently the repetition of "first staged in 442 or 441 BCE" sounds clunky to my ear. Additionally, currently the article says that Antigone was staged then; DionysosProteus' suggestion says that Ajax was staged then. Which is the case? Assuming that the article as it stands is correct that Antigone was staged in 442/441, and that Ajax is probably earlier, perhaps:

Ajax may be [depending on how strong the scholarly consensus is, this could be replaced by "is probably"] the earliest of Sophocles' seven surviving plays, though he had been producing plays for a quarter of a century when it was first staged. It appears to belong to the same period as his Antigone, first staged in 442 or 441 BCE, when he was 55 years old.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the dating of Ajax and Sophocles' age, John Moore (in his introduction to Ajax) says that Sophocles’ Antigone is generally thought to have been written in 442 or 441 B.C., and Ajax appears to be from the same period, based on a comparison of stylistic elements in the two plays. Herbert Golder (in “The Complete Sophocles: Volume II: Electra and Other Plays”) says the performance of Aias is tentatively dated 445 - 440 B.C., based in part on the reported violent reaction its first performance caused in the audience (as reported by Libanius), and speculation on what the zeitgeist of Athens might have been to cause that reaction. Libanius, writing in the 4th Century B.C. (in his Declamatio 14.20), compares the reaction of the audience after seeing the first performance of Ajax to the reaction given in 511 B.C. to Phrynichus’s disturbing and topical tragedy Capture of Miletus. Sophocles was born about 495 B.C., so he was probably 50 to 55 years old when he wrote Ajax. I think DionysosProteus’ suggestion combined with Caeciliusinhorto’s is in the right direction. Clockchime (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto's revision looks fine to me and I'd suggest that there is enough doubt and speculation involved in the dating to justify "may be". I'm going to move it into the article now, since it solves the problem identified, and take up any further tweaks in the article itself.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 13:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.