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)

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)