This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
I've tried to be honest to the fr: article; although I have added one or two quotes from the Perseus Project online Hippias. Additionally, there seems to be more controversy here than in France as to the authenticity of the work, I've therefore done a bit of reading there & added the section on the Authenticity debate.Bridesmill 00:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
This is one of the reasons wikipedia is not respected. Socrates offers 3 definitions? Is that a joke? Did the maker of this page even bother reading the text?
And why is "appropriateness" suddenly a claim of Socrates?! 290D Hippias: "Whatever is appropriate for a particular object makes that object fine. That is what we will accept."
Just before what you cited, in 290d too, the anonymous defines the appropriate... But that's right that this article is not very good. So, I rewrite the french article (that had inspired the english one), but have not finish yet. Théétète (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Why isn't it understood that if an editor finds a "complete blunder" in a Wiki article, that editor is free to change the article by correcting said blunder?188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Hans Wurst
"The dialogue can be read as much as a serious philosophical work as a light satirical comedy with two actors." -- Surely this has been put the wrong way round. The work is by Plato, who to a general audience is known only as a philosopher, so anyone coming to the article with no previous knowledge of the work, but having heard of Plato, would expect it to be a serious philosophical work, and it would be possible to say "However, it can also be read as a light satirical comedy". 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)