Talk:Alcibiades

Alcibiades' homosexuality.

Like many men of his time and age, Alcibiades was gay, or better: a homosexual. I can close one eye on Plato's dialogues, but this guy is really something. See for example: [1]Guildenrich (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That's probably not the right way to put it, because the Greeks didn't have the same concepts of sexual orientation that we do. For all that A. was involved in sexual relationships with other men, he also was married and had children, and, at least according to our article, "consorted with courtesans." This wasn't unusual behavior for an upper-class Greek male of the time. Homosexuality in ancient Greece has some relevant information. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

In Ancient Greece, a mere pecadillo bla bla bla... this deserves a whole section in the article. Did the jail-house rules apply at the time? Guildenrich (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Is that why Socrates set him up for the fall of the Mutilation of the Herms? I read it that Alcibiades resisted Socrates’ homosexual proselytization.Semeion~enwiki (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Alcibiades' lisp

The article states Alcibiades had a lisp, and quotes an English translation of Aristophanes' Wasps (unsourced) in wich the S is replaced by Th. This is not the case in the greek original, in which R are replaced by L. I don't know if this can be considered a lisp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.103.181.178 (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of main image

The previous main image for this article, which has now been removed

The Uncle of History has just deleted the main image for this article (shown at right), which has been the main image for the past eleven years, ever since this revision ([2]) on October 17, 2006. His explanation for removing the image was "all that is is a Roman copy of an earlier Greek portrait bust of a random good looking Greek youth, which some museum curator in modern times has put on a modern pillar and inscribed "Alcibiades" on it, on the basis of no evidence at all." I would like to know what his sources are for this information. If what he said is indeed correct and the bust is, in fact, totally unconnected to Alcibiades, I will agree with the removal. If, however, there are any sources arguing that the bust may actually represent Alcibiades, I would propose that the image should be kept and that the caption should merely be tweaked to say that some scholars think it represents Alcibiades (citing a reliable source that says so), but that others disagree (citing a different source arguing this point). --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The original main image for this article from when the article passed FA review back in 2006

I would like to apologize for being a complete idiot; the image description on Wikimedia Commons, which I had not read when I started this section, describes the bust as "So-called “Alcibiades”, ideal male portrait. Roman copy after a Greek original of the Late Classical period; the hermaic pillar and the inscription (“Alcibiades, son of Cleinias, Athenian”) are modern additions." In any case, I still would like to know if there are any scholars who do think the bust may be connected to Alcibiades, even indirectly. As a back-up option, if it turns out the bust has nothing to do with Alcibiades whatsoever, we could potentially replace it with this other image (also at right), which was the original main image for this article when the article passed FA review back in 2006. It is a fictional depiction from 1881 and the artistic quality is generally lacking, but at least we can be sure that it was definitely intended by its creator as a representation of Alcibiades. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I did a cursory internet search and couldn't find anything to contradict the statement on Commons that this is a portrait of no one in particular, simply labelled "Alcibiades," presumably to make museum goers more interested in it. This is unsurprising: there is the well known "Woman with a stylus" Roman fresco commonly labelled Sappho, on the basis on no evidence at all, and a female bust in Izmir which the museum calls Sappho, likewise out of sheer fantasy. There is some justification for including an image of an ancient figure which is intended to be so-and-so, even if no one really knows what so-and-so really looked like, provided the caption makes this clear. But to include an image as being of so-and so for which there is not even any evidence that its creator intended it as such, is just to perpetuate a falsehood. (And as I've mentioned, the fact that a museum gives a statue or painting a famous name is not in my opinion necessarily a reliable source.) The Uncle of History (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: I'm not enough of an art history authority to judge, but I would have guessed that that bust if was supposed to be anyone in particular would have been Alexander the Great. It seems to have that tilt of the head which is characteristic of many portrayals of Alexander. The Uncle of History (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@The Uncle of History: I would agree; it bears a noteworthy resemblance to known portraits of Alexander and the clean-shaven, curly-haired look was definitely characteristic of Alexander's style. I am rather dissappointed that it is not really Alcibiades, since it is really a great bust, but I would have to agree that, unless we have a source identifying the bust as Alcibiades or at least reasonable evidence that it is supposed to represent him, we should not have it in this article. I am not really crazy about the alternative image, since it is an extremely recent fictional portrait and it just shows Alcibiades as a typical Athenian man of the time period, but I suppose that it is probably better than nothing; after all, it does give an impression of how men at the time typically wore their hair and beards.

As an alternative possibility, I know there are a large number of famous paintings by well-known artists with Alcibiades in them, several of which are already used in the article. None of them are portraits, but a cropped version of one showing only the part with Alcibiades's face could potentially be used in the infobox. Obviously, these are all fictional representations also, but the painting's prestige could make up for that pitfall. Archimedes, which is also a featured article, uses Domenico Fetti's famous potrait of Archimedes Thoughtful as a stand-in for a real portrait of Archimedes, so there is definitely a precedent for using famous paintings of historical figures as stand-ins for contemporary portraits. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

My proposal for the infobox

@The Uncle of History: What do you think of using this image for the infobox? I like it because it is a high quality painting by François-André Vincent, an artist who is not totally obscure; it is a relatively close-up view on Alcibiades (even though Socrates and Aspasia are also in the painting); and the iconography used to depict Alcibiades is fairly consistent with that used in other paintings. If you do not have any objections, I will put it in the infobox. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The Vincent picture is ok with me. The Uncle of History (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Fixed a dead link, not sure what to do with a note

I fixed two instances of a dead link, specifically: [old] [new]

Same original material, same source, so I figured I could go ahead and just replace the old url with the new.

Now that I've done so, however, I don't know what to do about note [e], which made a lot of sense as long as the link was dead, but now seems redundant...

I've never edited wikipedia before and I don't want to be "aggressive" in deleting other people's work, so I thought I'd just leave this note here to seek advice Hasadigaeebowai (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

References

@Hasadigaeebowai: Your replacement of the links was fine. Thanks for fixing that!

As to note e, the one starting Thucydides records several speeches …, it does not appear to be affected in any way by the new link. Nor do I quite see how the link could affect a footnote in any material way. Article text and explanatory footnotes like this are part and parcel of our article on a given topic, while citations or references to a given source (in this case, the link you fixed) are a tool to verify that the information in our article (including the explanatory footnotes) is accurate. The existence of information somewhere outside Wikipedia does not make the same information here redundant. If that was not what you had in mind, perhaps you could elaborate? --Xover (talk) 06:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Xover: Hey Xover, thanks for your help! I'm sorry for how poorly worded my comments were. Basically, besides my ignorance as to how to determine what should and what shouldn't be footnoted, what seems off to me, currently, is that the link and the note which immediately follows it treat the very same subject matter (Thucydides' comments regarding the speeches he recorded, and specifically how he disclaimed "verbal accuracy"), but are very differently worded. Would it not be more consistent and accurate to change the footnote, so that it mirrors the content of the link, or vice-versa?

Is the use of two different translations perhaps intentional? One is more academic, I guess, while the other perhaps is more educational?

I realize that I may be nitpicking. I have a bit of OCD, so minor inconsistencies tend to disturb me way more than they should. --Hasadigaeebowai (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hasadigaeebowai: Ah, I see. The short version of the problem is then that our text does not accurately reflect the cited source. In these cases we should generally update our text to match the cited source; whether our text is in the main article prose or in a footnote is immaterial to that question. I don't think I understood the specific discrepancy that concerns you, so it's possible the issue is more complicated than "just update the article to match the source" and more discussion is needed, but my suggestion is that you just go ahead and do so using your best judgement. If someone disagrees they can revert your change and raise their concerns here for discussion. That's the Bold—Revert—Discuss-cycle that's the common way of improving articles on Wikipedia. --Xover (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Xover: Thank you Xover. I will follow your helpful advice (while I try to educate myself a bit on wikipedia standards/best practices).

Specifically, since I have major doubts in this instance that anything should he changed, and since as a noob I think I shouldn't attempt any changes unless I feel quite sure that they would constitute an improvement to the article, I will refrain from doing anything.

I believe that having two different translations referenced may be a feature, rather than a bug. The translation we link to is more academic. It resides on a university website, it comes with original greek text as well as plenty of references and even commentaries. It looks like the right resource for someone who wants to pursue the specific knowledge in greater depth. The note, on the other hand, links to a Wikisource full text of Thucydides' "History of the Peloponnesian War", translated in an easy to understand simple modern english. It looks like something geared more towards a general public rather than academic institutions/university students, and as such it seems quite appropriate for a footnote meant to explain the matter at hand to a wider public.

The only slight complaint I still have about the whole thing is how the link and footnote are presented in the article, right next to each other, with no discrimination. Also, right underneath, the link is presented a second time, while the footnote isn't. Perhaps those two details could somehow be improved. I might get back to this one day, after I understand how things are supposed to be represented a bit better, but in any case, it all seems like a very minor issue.

Thanks again, and see you around! Paolo --Hasadigaeebowai (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

FA sweeps

The biggest issue I see here is the sourcing. There's way too much reliance on primary sources as there should be for a Wikipedia article. (t · c) buidhe 20:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Tone of this article

What's up with the tone of this writing? It reads like a campfire tale or a eulogy, instead of an encyclopedic article. It gives account of historical facts with weird narrative phrasing, speculating over personal traits of the man and formulating hypotheticals on the fly. I quote "Alcibiades took part in the Battle of Potidaea in 432 BC, where Socrates was said to have saved his life.[18] Alcibiades later returned the favour by rescuing Socrates at the Battle of Delium in 424 BC."

• returned the favour*?

"Alcibiades was famed throughout his life for his physical attractiveness, of which he was inordinately vain."

This is not of encyclopaedic relevance and reads like a personal judgment or take on behalf of whoever wrote this sentence. 2800:A4:272B:FA00:6D77:1413:1AD9:83AD (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)