Talk:Hubris

Recent changes to the lead

As seen here, here, and here, PlewReficuL keeps WP:Editorializing in the lead and adding anal sex material to the lead. Not only, per WP:Lead, is the lead supposed to summarize the article and not include stuff not covered lower, it should be WP:Due. And, per MOS:BOLD, there is no reason that anal sex should be bolded in the lead.

Ceoil, Lugnuts, ChiveFungi, Editor2020 and BD2412, I see you in the edit history. Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC) −

Contray to what you say, the article body mentions it, and it does appear to be major. Also I removed the stuff you accused of being editorialising, the extra words were just added to avoid misunderstanding as we do not have to use the exact same wording as the source-quite the contrary, we have to put it in our own words per WP:Plagiarism PlewReficuL (talk) 07:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Where lower in the article is anal sex mentioned? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

And using the same exact words is not necessarily a WP:Plagiarism issue. See Wikipedia:Plagiarism#What is not plagiarism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

O I don’t know, maybe the very first section? Also, nothing changes the fact that we have to use words not found in the source, in this case. Also, we have to put anal sex in bold at the top to make the lead emphasize the difference between how Ancient Greeks and post-18th -century writers used the term. PlewReficuL (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2017‎ (UTC)

No, we really do not. Wikipedia has many examples of words and phrases with modern meanings different from their ancient roots where the ancient meaning is discussed only in the body of the article, and not in the lede. A good example would be shut up. bd2412 T 13:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

PlewReficuL, I don't see any mention of anal sex below. It seems you are assuming that the text is referring to anal sex. On a side note: Remember to sign your user name using four tildes. I fixed one of your signatures and signed for you the second time. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Correction: I see a single mention, where the text states, "Timarchus, is accused of breaking the law of hubris by submitting himself to prostitution and anal intercourse." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

We have to, in this case. In fact the Ancient Greek meaning is already being discussed in the lead, the difference is not being made clear enough, and it ahould be.PlewReficuL (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

We have to what? Mention anal sex in the lead? Mention it and bold it? Bolding it is a no per MOS:BOLD. As for mentioning it, why? It has but a brief mention lower, which pertains to Timarchus. Brief mentions usually are not summarized in the lead.

Also, PlewReficuL, don't keep WP:Edit warring. You can seek WP:Dispute resolution options, like WP:Third opinion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

First image

The first image is described as "spiritual descent of Lucifer into Satan". What does that mean? Editor2020 (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Further reading

The addition of two general references to the article Hubris was made by an IP address with [Revision as of 20:12, 28 July 2005 presumably to support the text it introduced. None of those additions are in this text. One reference {{1911}} has already been removed the other "Fisher" is currently in "Further reading" I am going to remove it.

I suggest that someone who cares for this article look through the further reading and remove any bullet points that appear to be the sort of cruft that builds up in "External links" and "Further reading" sections in old articles (Fisher being typical example).

-- PBS (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Aristotle quote

Can somebody verify that that quate from Aristotle is actually real and from him. The citations seem to imply that it is taken from Rhetoric, but I looked up Aristotle's Rhetoric on two different sites and found no mention of hubris, nor anything contrasted with revenge the way the alleged quote contrasts hubris with revenge (although the work does bring up several times)