User talk:Caeciliusinhorto/brothers poem provenance

Nice draft, & I hope you complete this to your satisfaction & move it into article space soon.

BTW, are you aware that the controversy around Prof. Obbink's papyrus has been continuing? Brill made a formal retraction of his article "Ten Poems of Sappho: Provenance, Authenticity, and Text of the New Sappho Papyri" -- which I understand is a very rare action. Related to this is the Hobby Lobby suit against Obbink over the papyrus he obtained for them (part of which appear to be the Sappho fragments), which they have won by default -- Obbink failed to respond to the suit, & now owes the company $7 million.

One can only sigh & shake one's head at Prof. Obbink for this actions that resulted in his fall from grace. -- llywrch (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Llywrch! I did eventually make some fairly substantial edits to Brothers Poem based on this back in August. I'm still kinda expecting another dramatic revelation at this point though – many unanswered questions still!

The Obbink case in general is totally bizarre – the evidence against him is pretty damning, but it boggles the mind that such a well-respected scholar would do such a thing! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

You may also find this Atlantic article useful. It helps to put Obbink in better focus, although not to his credit. -- llywrch (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)