Talk:Ajax (play)

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)

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)