Talk:Myrrha/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rewrite

Ok since this article lacks references and any real account of the myth (which I personally think is quite an interesting case) I'm rewriting it all. I will be done with a rough draft (but still better than this) within a week. Mottenen (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

done with the rewrite and I must say I'm satisfied for now Mottenen (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I am still editing this article. If anyone has anything to add/edit, please do it on this talk page. Mottenen (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

GOCE reporting for duty!

Looks like a neat topic and even just with a quick scan, nice writing. Let me read it first for content and give suggestions on substance and organization. I noticed a few places where we could make it a little more Adonis('s momma)-like and will go after those nextt. But that's just by being another pair of eyes. Think you know what you are doing.TCO (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

1. Do you like what you are getting? I can clean up the rest of the thing, similarly.

2. There will be some things (like three different Latin words) where I need your input. Are they just variations within Latin of same term (grammatical variations or more different)? Also how did the word move from Latin to English? Via French, or directly?

3. Love that you can read the classical texts. I am a modern man who never even studied Latin, let alone Greek.

4. We can slick the thing up and take a run at GA. I think what it really will need (and that will become apparent as we work on it) is a bit more content. I know you said you had exhausted the sources, but I wonder about secondary work (not just Ovid). Is it covered more in (I donno, am not a mytholgist or classicist) Bullfinches or whatever the other big books are? How about scholarly journals? Also, I wonder if there is more on usage in literature and themes and stuff. Any pop culture usage? how about names? Does Smyrna, Georgia come from our wayward father-loving lass?

5. While you're allowed to do the citations the way you are, I think it is more helpful and Alexander cutting the Gordion knot to separate the notes and citations (As a reader, I prefer a journal that does that, like has letters for explanatory footnotes and numbers for source citation endnotes.)

TCO (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Response

1. Yes, it would be great if you would do a full ce

2. It is not further explained in the dictionary I got them from. I guess they are just variations, but if they are bothering you I suggest deleting 2 of them. - My aunt has studied Greek and Latin, I'm going to ask her.

4. I haven't thought of Bulfinch, I'll try it out. Problem is when I search for any words like greek mythology or myrrha or smyrna my library can't find anything more relevant - living in Denmark the number of English sources are unfortunately limited. I'm trying very hard to find any more references in literature. I think I read somewhere (maybe Park) that Smyrna might be related to the city, but no source suggest HOW - so I left it out.

5. This being my very first article I don't know how to do that - please tell me.

• cheers Mottenen (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It's quite good for a first article. Even for a native English speaker, which I guess you're not. I actually figured you were a returning exiled editor or the like. I'll get the rest of the ce done and help out a bit with some of the ref formatting. If I have more content questions or suggestions, will list them, just as normal talk page discussion.TCO (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Geography

I left the map small when I was making the scrumptious paintings bigger because I thought it explained such a simple concept. But...is anything known or special about how the myth spread from Cyprus like through the islands or what have you?

Also, if we want another graphic, then one showing our pregnant lady's flight across the middle east, etc would be helfpul. Obviously you have to put a nominal location for that island in the red sea? Or the IO? And then landing in Sheba (I assume you define that as Yemen, not Africa). TCO (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Response

It is etymological speculation that Greeks met the myth through Cyprus, but they seem very sure of it. The problem is that the myth was already old when it was recorded by e.g. Apollodorus or Hyginus. All we have are some words that can be related to each other as well as knowledge about the cult of Adonis.

I could fix that. I would do the Cyprus-route then since Ovid's version is the most commonly referred. The translator simply stated that Sabaea is Yemen today but I see your point, let me think about it. Mottenen (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. From my skimming seems like Ovid's version is most common now, and most detailed in the telling. By kind of discussing his version as the core, and then the others as variations this is easiest on the reader. You can finesse some of the uncertainty, by saying "nominal route, per Ovid" or the like. I mean when we get down to it she was a mythical character (didn't exist) and the Greeks and Romans did not probably know all the ME geography anyhow. I just think it would be nice service for the reader, rather than clicking on all the bluelinks and having to build a map in his mind. I would just do a second simple map (better not to confuse the issue wrt the actual etymological spread). We can call it "Myrrha's flight" or the like.

Question, when we talk about her flight, does Ovid have her crossing Arabia or is that one of the alternate sources? (some just say she ran into the forest, per my web surfing). Also, when we talk about leaving behind the palm trees and the mythical island, do we just mean she passed them by, or that they somehow were created by her? (Like a U.S. chain of islands being the tears of an Indian princess or something?)TCO (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay I'll do that. Already working on it. I'll place the fictional island in the Red Sea and make her cross it right before entering Yemen/Sabaea.

I think they might be just "fillers" - to picture the landscape in the reader's head. Myrrha is not cited for having any magical powers herself. Quote from my edition: "This way and that she roamed across the broad lands of her father's kingdom, till she left the palm trees of Arabia and Panchaia's fields behind her. For nine months she wandered and at length, tired out, in the land of Sabaea." I don't know whether it would make a difference to use Panchaia instead of Panchaea, but feel free to correct Arabae to Arabia if it sounds better. I thought it would be best to use the old names consequently Mottenen (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Image status

They're gonna check that for GA or FA. Wonder if we have permission to be using that UVM stuff. Obviouslly the paintings themselves are not copyrighted, but not sure about the slides. (Just soemthing to check.)TCO (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

PD-art would apply, no? "A mere photograph of an out-of-copyright two-dimensional work may not be protected under American copyright law." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Just read that policy. Yes, I agree.TCO (talk) 06:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

random content thoughts

Have been prowling around a little. No action needed, just sharing, in case it helps us somehow.

• Stuck a see also from Adonis to link to here. Probably should have something in article on "mom", but it seemed tricky as that article seems to be written more about the Semetic myth than the classical version.

• Looked into the Smyrna thing a little. There are a lot of town names, including an Anatolian city. But there was also an Amazon girl called Smyrna, so not clear where they get their name. Maybe when we get deeper into the content it will be meaningful to mention this dual Smyrna-name girl issue.

• This article has caused me to understand what myrrh is and to see why in the We Three Kings carol there is the verse about myrrh with "bitter perfume" and "wrapped in the stone cold tomb".TCO (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Maybe I should write something on Adonis' article too - I've got a lot of great sources right now.

• • I'll see if I can find any references to a connection between a city and Myrrha/Smyrna, but I think it's going to be hard

• • Nice reference with the carol - I didn't even know that existed, but it sounds likely we have a connection. Mottenen (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The town Smyrna is more likely to be related to an Amazon of that name (married to Theseus in some accounts) - if we want to add it, it would only be to dismiss any theories on a girl-town relation. Park p. 210-212 Mottenen (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you know award

I think this page would be a great one for the "did you know" award. They want to promote new articles or ones that have had significant recent growth from a stub. I looked in the edit history and in early January, there was almost nothing there. Also the topic would really fit well as it is a compelling story and all (not a boring article by any means). I've never gone through the process before myself, but will look into getting your work that award.TCO (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That would simply be awesome! I did rewrite the whole thing because it didn't really account for the myth at all. How will I know whether it will come to the DYK's? Mottenen (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If you want to research it and submit it, feel free. I could keep working on the article. Just want you to get the little reward (and traffic), for your efforts. They have a page where you go nominate the thing and it explains the criteria and procedure. (I have never done it either.) Just need to write a little "hook" a sentence calling out a very compelling fact and cite some part of the article. There are examples of completed ones on the front page. I'm not sure if we fit the time window (has to be recent content addition). I think you've met the requirement in terms of amount of content. This article is full of sex and violence and history and even biology. It's inherently interesting in that respect. The DYK has had an issue in the past of too many of the hooks being about something very boring, but this is not. So I'm sure they would favor the subject matter. TCO (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

How about: "Did you know that Myrrha made love with her father, was transformed into the myrrh-tree and while a tree gave birth to Adonis?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mottenen (talk • contribs) 21:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Perfect!TCO (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

What do I do about the 'over five days' rule? Mottenen (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, to tantalize. I think we are too late. I looked back the the 13th and most of the content was in by then. I just missed the window, too, with a little BLP: Wilmer W. Tanner.TCO (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually maybe there is some wiggle room per rules D8 and D9, here. When did you move this into article space from your user page?TCO (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Content questions

1. "What is clear though is that the Greeks must have added a lot to the original story before it became the version Ovid recorded." (added to the story of Adonis or the story of Myrhha?)TCO (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Quote from Grimal, p. 94: "... the myth that has just been summarized shows that the Greeks must have embroidered on this legend, given it a romantic twist, and enriched it with details borrowed from the myths of other non-Semitic agrarian deities, such as that of Core." The myth referred is the combined myths of Myrrha and Adonis (the myth of Myrrha almost always leads up to that of Adonis). Mottenen (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

OK.TCO (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

2. (ec) Seems like a contradiction where we say Latin eymology can be traced back only to 200 AD, but Ovid wrote at 0 AD. Did he write in Greek? Or only mention the name of the girl, but not the fragrance? Just trying to understand the 200AD. TCO (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The 200 A.D. is from a dictionary. It had its words categorized into sections where the oldest Latin-category was "c. 200 A.D." so it is likely to be traceable to long before (but I don't have any sources that can give me a more exact year). Ovid mentions myrrh, the fragrance in: "The land of Panchaia may be rich in balsam, bear cinnamon and zendoary, and many kinds of flowers, and exude incense from its tree, but it is not to be envied while it grows myrrh with the rest. A new tree was not worth so great a price." It is right before accounting for the myth itself. Mottenen (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

and no as far as I'm informed Ovid wrote in Latin and all names used in Metamorphoses are the Latin forms of the Greek gods (Venus = Aphrodite and Ceres = Demeter)Mottenen (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Metamorpheses

I asked at the talk page and they also said Ovid wrote in Latin. (What a radical! I thought all the educated Romans preferred Greek for seerious scholarship. I guess since he was writing racy stories and all...  ;-))

P.s If you want another project, that article is a page that went to FA on Puertugeese Wiki and suggestion was made to convert all the content over (see talk). There is a way to request a translation (I have done it once but for a much shorter article). Would only bother, if you intend to mother that article to a en-wiki GA or FA, though.

It's quite an important article to suggest to a newbie, you know ;) At the moment I think I will expand Myrrha, Adonis and maybe create the article on Byblos (her story is quite alike Myrrha's, but Babylonian instead - think I saw it in Hyginus') — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mottenen (talk • contribs) 22:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

disambig stuff

I think we are probably cool leaving it with the asteroid. I was a little worried about my cutting the ladybug, but then I looked and there are at least three other wiki-species with myrrha in the name (moth, butterfly, tree). There's also some sort of atom collider: MYRRHA (SCK*CEN). If anybody is really concerned with the whole searchability thing we can just ask for a disamb page. Low priority. And this page is obviously the majority usage and properly named.TCO (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but the ladybug-thing had a tag not to remove it so I left it there in the first place Mottenen (talk) 06:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If that person comes back we'll set up a formal disambig page, to handle the issue. Giving "top billing" to a redlink is just inefficient. If it's a redlink, why send people to it (from the very top of our page)? Your peer reviewer had the same concern. That's 3:1, the fellow is outvoted.  :-) Also that person did not seem aware that the ladybug was only one of (at least) four species using the name somehow within the binomial name. Or the MYRRHA nuclear facility. If we take this thing to GA/FA, we can set up the disambig page then. But a higher priority would be expanding the content by doing more research. TCO (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Assessment

I asked for one of the projects to give this thing an upgrade. This is more like a C (maybe B) article. I would change myself, but I don't like to take articles I'm working on above Start. TCO (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I've dropped a request on all three of their pages - no response yet Mottenen (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't mind me, I'll be dropping refs in periodically as I develop them

• <ref name='Apollodorus 1998'> {{cite book | last1 = Apollodorus | last2 = Hard | first2 = Robin | title = The Library of Greek Mythology | work = Oxford world's classics | publisher = Oxford University Press | year = 1998 | location = US | pages = | accessdate = 2011-01-20 | isbn = 978-0192839244}}</ref>

• <ref name='Shelly 1997'> {{cite book | last1 = Shelly | first1 = Mary | last2 = Conger | first2 = Sydny | last3 = Frank | first3 = Frederick | last4 = O'Dea | first4 = Gregory | title = Iconoclastic departures: Mary Shelly after Frankenstein: essays in honor of the bicentenary of Mary Shelley's birth | editors = Syndy Conger, Frederick Frank, Gregory O'Dea | publisher = Fairleigh Dickinson University Press | year = 1997 | pages = | isbn = 978-0838636848}}</ref>

• <ref name='Hockman 1984'> {{cite book | last1 = Hochman | first1 = Stanley | last2 = McGraw-Hill, inc | title = McGraw-Hill encyclopedia of world drama: an international reference work in 5 volumes, Volume 4 | volume = 4 | publisher = VNR AG | year = 1984 | pages = | isbn = 978-0070791695}}</ref>

I completed these three for now, the rest are really hurting my head. I think for translations that are books by themselves we don't have to cite the original separately (but I could be wrong).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Mottenen, if went to your talk page and dropped off a list of google books that I think are the ones you used, would you verify them for me? NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course :) go aheadMottenen (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Give me until tonight.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

try to get it ce-ed by end of day tomorrow

got distraceted by reptiles.TCO (talk) 06:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The Latin words

Okay it seems that myrrha, murrha, and murra are all synonyms in Latin. The differences can be explained through natural development in the language and that the word(s) are/were translated from Greek where "r" has an "rh"-kind of sound. Hope this answered your question.

Anything else about some strange words? Mottenen (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Good research. Please go in and reword what I wrote. I'll work on the rest of the article. TCO (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Issues with some words being edited

Okay I can't figure these things out:

• Semitic vs. Phoenician. The source says that Adonis was a Semitic god, but in the article it has been changed to Phoenician. I understood it that he was a god to all using Semitic languages, so why has it been changed??
• Canaanite vs. Ugaritic. Same story, why has it been changed that he is now the avatar of the Canaanite Baal instead of as in the source being the Ugaritic Baal's avatar? Baal was a very broad title given to many gods, so making it specific that we mean the one being worshiped in Ugarit seemed logical to me. Mottenen (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Someone else changed the Semetic to Phoenician. But I think it might be more precise. The Semites range all across Arabia, but it you read the article on Adonis, it seems like he just came from that sort of "Tyre" region where the Phonecians were. Phoenicians are a subset of Semites, no (and probably a little more precise in terms of identifying a culture and time rather than just an ethnic group). Can you check a little more into the substance? What do other sources say?

2. That was my herecy, sorry. *Shame* I was trying to separate the two blue-linked words (I did keep the city thing). I'll have another go at it. BTW, I did actually read the wiki article on Ugarit and Baal and the Baal cycle and Caananites and all. But maybe I made too much of an assumption.TCO (talk) 13:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Secondary literature - suggestions

Okay I think I might go have a look in Shakespeare's Venus and Adonis - I'll post any relevant info I come across here. Do you have any more suggestions on other literature?? Mottenen (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Good call. Some suggestions:

• Google web (try a lot of different search restrictions)
• Google scholar (there must be some academic criticism of the story as well as archeological type speculation)
• I think there is also likely some discussion within the context of "Electra complex" or "incest in Greek myth" or the like. Probably Myrrha is not the most common example, but it is AN example that will be cited in a context of discussing that "meme". So, reading those kinds of sources, we may find some good commentary on Myrrha, that we can extract.
• Google news (use the archives and search old stuff, I doubt you find much, but check it off)
• Google books (lots of times academic monographs and the like may come up).
• Amazon.com
• Maybe another search for paintings of Myrrha? Are we just relying on that one professor's website of slides? Maybe there are more paintings (or sculptures?) out there.

I hope these don't sound trivial, but I have found with my turtle work, that Google really was my friend. And that often when I went hunting after one source, I would find other sources that were useful for my article, just by the act of searching away. For instance, who knows what useful thing will come up if you put - Was Adonis Semetic or Phoenician? - into your search window?

Some more "tricks". A lot of times with Google scholar, the papers I come to require a subscription to read them (which I don't want to pay). but if I note the title and then do just a google web search, I can find a free version available elsewhere (e.g. on the author's website). The other thing, is maybe try digging into the "refs to the refs". I suspect you are using sources that only have a few pages on Myrrha (since they are covering a much larger subject). But if they cite some primary literature, we can go read that and it will go into more detail.TCO (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thank you (I didn't know all this). I'll try it out in the weekend - I fear I won't have the time to do a decent research before. Mottenen (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If you can find an Ph.D. (or M.S. etc.) thesis on the myth (or perhaps the Italian tragedy), it will be useful for this article. Not just for what it says itself (sometimes theses get very particular on one tiny aspect or, in literature, have some questionable interpretations), but for the literature review. Usually the first chapter of a thesis describes all the previous work on the topic. That sort of thing can be gold. I'm actually not an expert on how to find theses, but someone here on wiki is (good Village Pump question)! I did find this site, which will at least give titles of theses. I don't think anyone expects you to go buying them, but if you are at a university, the library may have a subscription to UMI (stores most US theses). Also, sometimes if you get the title then you can go and see if it is on the web somewhere for free. Or email the author and ask for an electronic copy. (Also allows a little bit of shoulder-brushing with some scholars and that can be useful for other questions.) [1]

Not to overwhelm, but a few more thoughts:

1. In the US, we have an Interlibrary Loan (ILL) system. Maybe you have same in Denmark. That means you can actually get books not from your own town, but other place's libraries.

2. Sometimes with google books, you can see all or enough of the source to get by. (view mode).

3. type Myrrha into the WP search window and hit enter. Bunch of pages mentioning things wrt Myrrha. 1600s poet, 1990s play, etc. early 1900s composer. Etc.

4. I think we could cludge together some sort of influences section for Myrrha with things named after her. Several binomial animal names. The asteroid. maybe the reactor (not sure, that may be coincidence).

5. Byron? http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2220/is_1_44/ai_94130273/pg_12/

6. http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?PID=396824 (book is not out yet, but maybe the author has some academic writings.

7. (kinda random) [2] 1963

8. I can't find original for this. Looks old. [3]

TCO (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

We do have an ILL system but it's not that good when it comes to searching in topics etc. Thanks for your continued help (you can't seem to let this go ;) ) - I'll check out those sources (wauw this is bigger than I thought). Saw it got a reassessment, but where do we need citations? All that's written is or can be verified (I promise). (Btw I'm not a female) Mottenen (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

shame of being a concubine or shame of incest?

Does the issue of being a concubine (a kept woman of a man, who he is not married to) really concern Myrrha? Or is it the shame of the incest taboo? IOW, this just seems a little off. Or is it that her father is already married so all that she could be would be a mistress? Just asking and trying to understand the logic. (I suppose I should break down and read the myth as well.)  :-) TCO (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you should take it as the taboo-part. It's a little tricky to decipher what Ovid means, but I don't think she fears being a kept woman - at least not as much as it being known she has an affair with her father. Mottenen (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

desire to fool her father

"Her longings showed themselves partly as despair and partly as a resolve to try finding a way to fool her father into believing she was not his daughter. At last losing all hope she saw no other way out, but suicide." (I really need to read the myth, but) it seems that she later decided to fool her father into thinking it was not her. This was what she did with the nurse. So why the suicide, and then doing exactly what she wanted to earlier? TCO (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

She couldn't think of a way to fool her father and it broke her heart not to be able to get him- so she decided to kill herself. The nurse "saved" her and talked her out of the suicide-thing and promised to help instead (was that the answer you were looking for?) Mottenen (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes.TCO (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ceres and Demeter

(Just asking) is this note necessary or is it an obvious equivalence like Zeus and Jupiter or Venus and Aphrodite?TCO (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It's rather obvious. Some times when referenced or summarized the translators have a bad habit of using Demeter instead of Ceres. If you find it redundant, feel free to delete Mottenen (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

splitting source citations and explanatory notes

Recommendation: take a look at Painted turtle or List of U.S. state reptiles and follow the pattern in terms of segregating explanatory notes from source citations. If you open edit mode, you'll be able to see how the "nb" notes work. The reason for doing this is that it's better for the reader. When he sees a mark, he can tell if it is explanatory (he might be more inclined to read that, as it has "content") or if it is a source citation (and if he wants the source citation, he can, for instance, scan later in the para if the source citation is at the end, but there is an explantory note earlier). Also, by doing this, you can actually add source citations for the explanatory notes (for example the pronunciations can be sourced, but otherwise you are prevented from "nesting" references inside references).

I'll be out of your article by end of day and turn it back to you, so no conflict then. We can work on the reference format themselves, after, but let's start with this simple task.TCO (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

And I will help you guys out. The only thing I need right now, if one of you would be so kind, is a the exact editions and years of publication for each of the items under 'bibliography.' I've been generating wiki friendly citations fir these but I've had some trouble with one book having multiple additions and such. Maybe if you could point me in the direction if the google book or something. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. Mottenen, you should try to get as much out of NYM as you can. He is a whiz at referencing, at the hard lessons of FA/GA, a good worker, and even a peacemaker. Not a mean old former perma-banned troll like...me.  :-) TCO (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hard-worker might be a stretch; your the diligent one of our little duo.  ;-) And who called you mean? I'm going to have to tell their mother. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay what datas do you need? :) I have all the books right here beside me.Mottenen (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Arabia (names)

It's always a judgment call on personal and place names whether we use a more modern form or ancient (and then the translation). I think this story has so much "color" that we don't need the affection of Arabae. But conversely, it would be silly to mention "France" rather than "Gaul" if discussing Julius Caesar's conquests. So, I don't have a hard and fast rule.TCO (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternate versions

Is it correct that there are essentially just Ovid and then Appolodorus? I realize that Appolodorus actually containst several different versions. But in terms of classical sources is it just Ovid and then "all the versions within Appolodorus"? Or are there further indepedant classical sources/versions?TCO (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The others are Apollodorus, Hyginus, and Antoninus Liberalis. Of the 3 Liberalis' is definitely the most detailed (though it's only approximately half a page in my book-verison) but they all look very much alike. A detail from Liberalis I forgot is that here Smyrna gives birth prematurely when discovered by her father (meaning she gives birth as a human). Right after she raises her hands and prays and Zeus changes her into a tree called the smyrna (guess it's the same). In the end Thias (seems like a misspelling, but Liberalis calls him Thias, not Theias) kills himself in shame. These details are rather unique though and can't be found other places as far as I'm informed. Mottenen (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it is important to mention at least the presence of these other actual classical sources. Even if you just explain that they are similar to Appolodurus. IOW, your talk comment needs to go into the article section of "other versions"!  ;-) You might also think a bit about timing (not pushing that, and obviously we view Ovid as the "core" story for ease. But psuedo-Appolodurus lived before, no? And I don't know about these others. Just look into it, maybe there is a point buried in there. TCO (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Should probably add a note wrt "psuedo Apollodurus". I think it is nicer style to refer to him in article as Apollodurus, but maybe explain this concept with with first usage by an explantory note. Wiki, at least, seems to differentiate the real Apollodorus from the writer of Bibliotecha.TCO (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah we might have to - it seemed like overkill when I wrote this article to account for the Apollodorus/pseudo-thing, but I think I underestimated how high the standards are ;) Mottenen (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a widdle "nb" note. And we need to check the w-link. I prefer not saying pseudo-stuff in article as it is long-winded and people really do refer to the authorship conventionally as Apollodorus. So I like how it reads right now. But the nb note covers us. And a better use of a note than Ceres-Demeter!  ;-) TCO (talk)

Electra complex

I added this to the See also. I still think when we dig into the content more, find Freudian and feminist and other literary discussion of the myth, we will end up having a section of text on "literary criticism of the myth", and then that will be "in article". But putting it here for now.TCO (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, maybe I should search for some Freud literature (though it was Freud's friend Jung who proposed the complex). I'll see what I can do. Mottenen (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

abondoning human feelings

"Though Myrrha abandoned her human feelings when she was transformed, she still mourns her tragic fate and her tears..." this seems paradoxical. We say she abondonded feelings (emotions) but then that she cries. Would it be more correct to say she abondonded her fears or her sensations or her vulnerabilities, but she still mourns and cries? Think on it...TCO (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It actually says directly she abandons her feelings but still weeps. I know it's a paradox, but I'm just as confused as you are Mottenen (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we probably shouldn't read much more into it. I just wondered if they meant abandoned physical feelings, but retained emotional feelings. I would leave as is, unless you come up with some other scholarship or alternate translation.TCO (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay I have 2 translations: from the one I'm referencing in the article and the Danish one I have (on verses):

• (English one): "Though she lost her former feelings when she lost her body, yet she still weeps, and warm drops flow from the tree"
• (Danish one): "Although the old mind is gone and away with the body, the tears are not. They still drip from the tree."

Mottenen (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The Danish one serves my purposes better.  ;-) I donno. Think about it and decide what you want to do, over time. It's a tiny point, but the more we can make thinks seem blatantly logical to the reader, the easier for him to get drawn through our article. I will go finish the rest of the article. (Great topic.) TCO (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Dante illustration title

I'm not sure if that Dore painting has a formal title or not. I know that it is an illustration to a book. Not trying to change the name of the work, but even if that is name of the work, is confusing to say "condemned for incest" when our paragraph emphasizes that her disguise was the worse crime than the sex. (this is how I finesse it.) TCO (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoops I see your point - she IS condemned for deception (actually reading the Divine Comedy was my first encounter with Myrrha and the trigger to write this whole article ...) and since I haven't heard about the painting having any official names either we should change incest to deception or the like, I think Mottenen (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

See also -suggestion

How about adding List of Metamorphoses characters to See also since we are referring to not so few of them in relation to Metamorphoses? If you have any other suggestions add them Mottenen (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Go for it. TCO (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

CE done, thoughts

1. Nice topic. This is one Wikipedians (I guess people in general) will like because it is so scandalous. Also, kind of helps out the Project as is more "Great Books" as opposed to pop culture. Good find.

2. Writing and org was pretty decent to start with. I found a few things to change in logic or prose, but really just polishing.

3. It's probably a B article now. To get to GA, it needs:

A. More content. Go hunt down all the primary literature on criticism and etymology and all. There's gotta be more out there. No one expects you to do a Ph.D., but there is so much on the web, see what else you can get to really show scholarship and that you can bring back to flesh out the topic.

B. Ref formatting. NYM will show you how this is done.

Good luck! - TCO (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a million times! :) I will go out hunting now, but I couldn't have gotten further without your help. If all goes well, may I contact you in a week or 2 if I've found enough more (I got no idea how long the research is going to last from now on, but I'll do my best)? I'm still waiting for Bulfinch to arrive so we'll see what he has to say on this. Great job with editing, suggestions etc., thanks again! Labor omnia vincit! Mottenen (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Glad it was not too painful. Keep after it and have some fun! I'll enjoy a little break. Need to work out some and keep the Grecian ideal of sound body as well as mind!  :-) TCO (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Article

Hi there. I found this article through Wehwalt's talk page, and it's very interesting. Would the principal author(s) mind if I go through and perform a little extra copyediting and maybe give a few thoughts on the article in general? Of course, I won't change any important facts or anything like that.-RHM22 (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Mottenen is the main author, but pitch in, man!TCO (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'm all finished. I fixed a few minor things such as slightly awkward wording and very minor typos. There a couple of things that I think might cause some problems at GA:

• First, reviewers might not like this sentence: "Apollodorus and others, however, place the myth in Assyria." The reason is that sometimes phrases like "some say" or "others believe" attract criticism because it's unclear who you're actually speaking of when you say "others". For instance, perhaps you could include something like "Apollodorus and others, including Rocky and Adrian, place the myth in Assyria", replacing "Rocky and Adrian" with some sort of ancient historian(s).
• Second, this strikes me as something that might confuse some people: "The tragedy Mirra by Vittorio Alfieri (written 1786) is inspired by the story of Myrrha. In the play, Mirra falls in love with her father, Ciniro. Mirra is to be married to Prince Pyrrhus, but decides against it and leaves him at the altar. In the ending, Mirra falls to pieces in front of her father who is infuriated because the prince has killed himself. Admitting that she loves Ciniro, Mirra grabs his sword, while he recoils in horror, and kills herself." It's unclear what is meant by "falls to pieces". Since this is a myth, it could imply that she literally falls into pieces or that she had a psychological breakdown of some sort. I know it sounds ridiculous, but for someone who never heard of the myth or the play before now, I'm not completely sure!

Overall, you did a very good job on this interesting article. As you can see, my only problems are very minor. Is this your first signifigantly expanded or created article on Wikipedia?-RHM22 (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, I forgot to add that you definitely need more inline citations. I usually put them after most sentences (unless the fact is obvious, like "some birds fly" or something), but you don't have to. It's most important that you add references for direct quotes and anything that's likely to be challenged. I believe it's also encouraged that each section have a reference, except maybe in a plot summary. I'm not really sure if describing a myth counts as a plot summary or not, though.-RHM22 (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

One more thing. I noticed in the PR that you said that you didn't want to use your Greek source. I just wanted to let you know that foreign language references are fine if the same information cannot be found elsewhere. As long as the author/publisher is reliable, and you can understand what is written, foreign language sources are fine. Ok, I think that's it now!-RHM22 (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello RHM22 and welcome to the article :) Thank you for your comments, here are what we were trying to get through:

• "The others" are Hyginus. In the first place I thought Antoninus Liberalis too, but as I read him closer he places it on/around Mount Lebanon - aka. in Phoenicia (don't know why I thought it was Assyria) - and he also calls the king "Thias" instead of "Theias, king of the Assyrians" as Appolodorus does.
• "Falls to pieces" is a phrase I used to describe her breaking down mentally. I see your confusing given it's a myth, but I didn't think of it that way.
• Yes this is my very first article - TCO, Brianboulton, and many others have been very kind with help (copy)editing it and I am grateful for all the help.
• Everything can be verified I assure you - tell which parts aren't yet, and I'll tell you where it is from. We too the liberty to say myth/story is the same thing when we put the citation in the end so people can look there if they want to read the myth in it's entirety.
• My source isn't Greek - it's a translation into my own language (Danish). But since nobody outside Denmark speaks it, it would be foolish to add those sources - very few on Wikipedia can read them (I guess). The translator is renowned though - translated the Odyssey, the Iliad and more and he definitely knows his stuff.

Anything else? Mottenen (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think to flesh that whole section out we should at least list who the different classical non-Ovid sources are (and discuss their timing). Also, Apollodorus lists several versions. But then it seems we also have independent versions as well. Just need to expand the discussion and such. It's not padding. We have a short version in the lead. But someone after reading our section on alternate versions should know not just what the different aspects of the myth could be, but the different chroniclers (should not have to ask on talk for instance). I saw some other version as well in all my searching. Cina or something like that. Ring a bell?TCO (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is a great start. It's a lot better than I did when I was new. I'm still pretty new actually. TCO has requested a review from Wehwalt. He's pretty busy, but I'm sure he'll come through here and give you a great review. He's a lot more expirienced than me, so he'll have quite a bit to add. By the way, you don't have to use the foreign language refs, of course, I was just letting you know that you can if you need to. I doubt I can help with anything that I haven't already done (except maybe minor copyediting occasionally), but if there is something that you think I might be able to help with, you can leave a message on my talk page anytime. After all the help I've gotten since I've been a member, I'd love to help anyone even newer than me learn the ropes!-RHM22 (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we got what we were getting out of Wehwalt for a little while. He bumped the rating to C class. I think we need more content to keep moving up. Article is already better written than 99% of C articles. But we need "more" than a retelling of the myth. Ref formatting and number will help as well, but content is the main need. for the refs, one for the Ovid plot summary is fine (or perhaps one per paragraph). The other section since we talk abut a lot of versions should be bristling with notes. And then all the litcrit and origin paras and such should be full of them. this is a tiny example, but let;s have a ref for the pronunciation in the first two explanatory notes. We can work on format as well. but content development is the key, which means Googling!TCO (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

We should reference English translations (or MAYBE original Latin and Greek) of Ovid, Appolodorus, etc. It's totally OK that you used those versions to get going, but for a readership which is English speaking, sending them to a refernce that is in Danish (on a topic that has lots of English versions and was in LAtin originally) is not most help to the reader. Google books can help us there. Just need to find decent versions, verify enough that the plot summary did not change and then use that citation. NYM is great at that sort of thing! TCO (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Milton and lit crit

I couldn't follow all this, but here is some stuff that came up on an unrelated search. Book about Milton, but also discusses Myrrha (was she in Milton)? [4] TCO (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard about Milton mentioning Myrrha - hmm of course it's worth a try. Poems like "Paradise Lost" are gold in these articles! Mottenen (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

sculpture

Have not been able to find a good sculpture of Myrrha. My google-fu must be off. She seems popular enough with the painters. We could probably find some Adonis or Cinyras sculpture if we wanted, though.

Also interesting that Cinyras was the son of Pygmalion and a sculpture-maiden. Cursed family.

Just came across this Samuel Johnson translation while looking for a sculpture (always happen when I fire up the Google window, find stuff that may not be what I need but still helps another part of the article). Not sure how critical, but are a few comments at the beginning of note. Definitely seems that Ovid almost warns his readers that this will be a bit rough of a story to read. Also that Myrrha seems more appropriate to the lush and decadent East (warmer lands and maybe a history of incest) than the European soil. [5]

I guess I was kind of thinking her story may influence more than just other literature, but also paintings (we sort of have those, but don't discusss, but also sculptures and music [was one composer per Wiki]).

TCO (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean with composer?

Ovid really warns the audience - didn't know that was very interesting, I though it was just to make a dramatic beginning and smooth out between the stories in Metamorphoses (like some sort of filler) Mottenen (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess it's a bit of a literary interpretation, but I see it pretty easy looking at Ovid's text. And Johnson makes the point.

Put Myrrha in the search window of wikipedia and hit "search" instead of "go". It's one of the many WP pages which mention a Myrrha connection. Some guy from the 1900s. Didn't save the url, but it's in there.TCO (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

place names

Coming up empty on place names called Myrrha (think it is flaw in my searching method though). TCO (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Never heard of it either. We have the city named Smyrna but I already argumented it is unrelated to this smyrna - as for yet. We are not done with research Mottenen (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

there is a category for myrrha over at Commons (I had dorked up the link)

let me fix that somehow. there is a tiny category over there. But likely will grow, and does have a coupla images.TCO (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah the first article (the one I deleted and rewrote) had a link to it. Took images from there. Mottenen (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It's fixed. I needed to wlink to the category, TCO (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for removing the link. I thought someone inserted it accidentally.-RHM22 (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Another image of the birth

Found this on Commons (did a search for birth of Adonis). Having issues wlinking: [6] TCO (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think our current image is probably better as the girl is the center of the image on ours, but not here. But when we get more text, well, here's another image to use for embroidery. TCO (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

NIIIIIIICE! :D I wish I had your research talent ... Mottenen (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm an old man using Google. I expect better from you!  :-) TCO (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

All that shows up on mine is crap - spelled in all kinds of ways - found this though: [7] - site saying Myrrha stopped at Apheca. Not that I can find that info anywhere else though .... Mottenen (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

search in English? I don't usually even do advanced searches. Just play with different terms in and out of quotes in the regular Google search window

Conger/Himes

Though I have credited "Iconoclastic Departures" to Conger (because she was the main author - it was natural) it is essentially a collection of essays on Mary Shelley's novels. The essay "Knew shame, and knew desire" is written by Audra Dibert Himes - this is why she should be credited in the article. Mottenen (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense. When we get a proper fancy reference in there, it will list the author of the essay and say it was in a book and all that jazz. See some of the references on Painted turtle.TCO (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Venus and Adonis

Okay it's not much space Shakespeare gives Myrrha. she is mentioned in stanza 34: (Venus speaking) "O, had thy mother borne so hard a mind, She had not brought forth thee, but died unkind." I think it's rather ironic or what? I don't even know it it's worth a mention - even though it's Shakespeare. Mottenen (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Bet we end up using it in the end. When we have assembled a lot more stuff. It will be a pretty minimal note, though. But in a context of a lot of different references. The Milton crit that I saw on Google books did mention Shakespeare mentioning Myrrha.TCO (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

One small question: the lead says "The myth details the incestuous relationship between Myrrha and her father, Cinyras." Should it possibly say something like: The myth details the incestuous relationship between Myrrha and her father", since the name of the father seems to change depending on the historian? No big deal, just a thought.-RHM22 (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine either way. I think we are sort of using the Ovid vision as the "core version" and I prefer being somewhat particular vice vague. Then we refer to the other versions it's as variations from the core. Think this makes sense because there is a huge amount of literature and such based on the Ovid version (even in his day Metamorpheses was a bestseller blockbuster of the sort we are used to now, and then Shakespeare and then the Romantics all referred to Ovid...even in the Middle Ages, he was a very popular source). But I'm fine.TCO (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. I suggest leaving it as-is, since the Ovid version is the most commonly used. Like I said, I'm not familiar with the myth (aside from reading the article) or indeed Greek myths in general, save for the most famous ones, so I wouldn't make a change like that without consulting one of you first.-RHM22 (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

building a para on name derivations, all scientific, but can tweak if needed later (NT

no text TCO (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I was going to suggest a mention of the ladybug and any other creatures that take their name from this myth. Do either of you know why the bugs are named after her? I didn't notice anything on Google, besides very basic information.-RHM22 (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

One of us will have to research it. Fire up google scholar and get the paper where it was initially named (we will need it anyhow for the reference). TCO (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to be short with you. Just a little bumming tonight. If you look at Painted turtle under taxonomy, you can see how we hunted down the papers where things were initially named. We need to do the same (at a minimum, it proves the name, but also if there is any commentary like you said about why they chose that. That kind of commentary could end up in article or maybe we find out something wasn't honoring Myrrha...if they were referring to the substance, I would still keep it but maybe explain...her name and the substance have been linked for thousands of years).TCO (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think you were being short! I'm sure I come off like that a lot, so I know that almost none of us on Wikipedia are trying to be rude or anything like that. Communicating in Wiki can be a difficult thing, without all the subtle nuances and whatnot. I don't believe I've ever used Google Scholar before. I'll have to give it a check to see what interesting information might be there.-RHM22 (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I did a quick Google Scholar search. It didn't turn up much about the species, but that is a wonderful resource for information on scientific topics!-RHM22 (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Somebody named it somehow. It's gotta be referenced somewhere. Try using the scientific name and searching backwards? Sometimes Google books or even Google web will get it done (or you can find a source that does classificaiton and gives the reference). I mean crap for Painted turtle the fellow wanted the original citations and I tracked them down and they were 1800s. One was even 1700s in German in Gothic script.  :-( It's no hurry, but we will need to get the date and who and ref of the naming. You were right on, when you said, let's get the naming reference...TCO (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I looked again, but I still couldn't find anything. A couple websites looked promising, but you have to be a member to view the entire paper. I might be looking wrong, because I just did not see anything useful on Scholar or Books. I'm sure there's something there, but I can't find it.-RHM22 (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Good try. I know you went after it, man. We'll get it somehow. If it's a JSTOR paper (or Bioone), you can usually get the citation (JSTOR has a button to display it) and then we can try a few things. Sometimes taking that title of the paper and putting into google web will get a free version (old papers often on Harvard open library, newer ones at author websites). Otherwise, we can send try a university library that holds the journal or has some fancy access. NYM is at a school, so that should work.TCO (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

'Somebody named it', somebody named what? The link below has information on who named the ones it lists. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Suncreator found a bunch more species that use her name. Mostly butterflies. I'm thinking we have a few sentences of prose and then a table with all the species (is more kind on the reader). We need to get some of the refs and find out why she was so popular, confirm reference is really being made to her etc. (And we need the naming ref for each species, just for citation.) I wonder if it is the act of transformation that makes her popular with butterfly people.TCO (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

All of the stories in Metamorphoses are about transformation. You might be right, or they might name them after the plant, though that doesn't give much meaning. Found a book which can act as a reference to the names? Mottenen (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the link. Some are butterflies, some are moths, a few are insects. 10 listed on that page plus 2 synonyms. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a killer search, SunC. What I'm thinking is we keep this pretty tight, and at the "back of the bus" in terms of the article. But we basically put a little text table (similar to what SunC has with search itself). Above that would be a few sentences of commentary (similar to what SunC just said) and cutting my "species by species" discussion, now that we have 12 of them. Would want to get all the original naming refs (yes all 12). Basically what Sasata had us do for C. picta. The refs would be citations, and then we would do a quick scan and kinda see if there was any commentary. I'm anticipating that we can make some comment about myrrha being chosen for butterflies since she was metamorphosized and then the butterflies do too. But there might be more to it than that. just have to look at the refs. We probably want a modern classification ref as well (do you think it's legit to use the search result itself for that, Sunc)? Would also want a little "gallery" of images (like in picta how we show the subspecies) across the bottom. I think there are only 3 or 4 in Commons anyhow, and I'm not going to try to get pictures donated. It's definitely kind of a flourish and not to distract from the LitCrit and Later Writings (and even Other versions and Origins) which need some building up. But it will be positive for the article and its readers.

P.s. Can you do a plant search? I suspect the myrrh tree is the only one, but you never know. I wasn't expecting to find 12 species and Ravel cantatas and all that!  ;-) TCO (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Cinna

What about this dude and his Zmyrna work?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvius_Cinna (see bottom and there are references we can search)

From what I gather, his work was not lost? But have not seen a translation. Maybe you have to read it in the Latin. Is he mentioned by your other sources?

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

TCO (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

My first thought is "oh that's probably Ovid's main source of information on his Metamorphoses-Myrrha" - dunno, going to find out though. Mottenen (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Chin (art)

Just putting this as a placeholder, since he did a Myrrha sculpture. Think this guy is pretty NON-notable. And page lookse self generated. See history, then look at contribs of main author. Mel Chin TCO (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we get a picture of that sculpture? Anything where Doré's work is the inspiration is worth a look ;) Mottenen (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me ask him to upload a picture. I was a little skeptical of him at first, but we have the NYT reference now. I'll go over to his page and to a little peacemaking.TCO (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Translation in poetic form

James Gresham (poet) TCO (talk) 09:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems more like a section for the article on Metamorphoses? I don't know how relevant it is for us who translated the poem - but maybe, it just seems a bit random ... Mottenen (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

influence in music

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Caplet

http://www.answers.com/topic/myrrha-gavotte-gavotte-for-band (despite comments, the tune gets played and is on CDs, come across it in other searches. Sousa is a big name.)

http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/2211006/a/Ravel%3A+Cantates+De+Rome+-+Alyssa,+Alcyone,+Myrrha+%2F+Plasson.htm (Ravel? noteworthy?)

http://www.americancomposers.org/kuster_interview.htm (modern)

Rock (not sure if notable): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3Uz0PkiQUA and Baal_(band)

Looks like a Myspace band, but the Wehwalt name intrigued me: http://dna-production.org/releases/dna91/

TCO (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about Caplet unless we find out more about him, but that should be possible.

I liked the Kristin Kuster-interview, that's interesting.

Haven't heard about Baal before but the danish music magazine GAFFA sees their debut album as quite extraordinary. There is an article on them here [12] - use google translate danish-english. But what are their relation to myrrha?

Doesn't seem like the Wehwalt-guys got any real idea about the myth ... Mottenen (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've come across Caplet a coupla times. He's a more obscure composer, but still known. On the Baal thing, they had a Myrrha song. I figure based on the name, they understand the Semetic connection. Can you add your source to the wiki article on Baal (include the Google translation) and then take off the unsourced tag? Will make them look a bit better.TCO (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

William barkstead (or sted) play

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Insatiate_Countess

TCO (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

He is in the article Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship (if it's the same guy). And he wrote a poem we might be able to use! Mottenen (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Book: [13]Mottenen (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

another butterfly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyommatus

TCO (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we make a list of all the species/animals that are called myrrha? would make it easier to search in biology books etc. Mottenen (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

See the article. If you want more of a list then that, make it. P.s. there may be some other animals with myrrha in name still. I just did the ones that came up on wiki, but often for obscure animals there is no wiki article. I don't know how to search for that though. TCO (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Rename section

How about "In art" and make the "Literature and poetry" (perhaps we even have to split that when we get more stuff) as a subsection? Then we have a natural place for eventual sculptures, paintings etc. Just a thought. Mottenen (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It has to be noun form. So either we say the whole "Appearances in..." " or we just say Literature, Scientific names, etc.

However we say it, think one section on all her literary appearances (I guess including poetry and drama, but probably not opera, with literure) and then another on the other arts (painting, sculpture, music) makes sense. And one on scientific names. I was hoping we find some pop culture or some place names, but that is not happening so far.TCO (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be that perhaps all latter sections (literature and biology) should probably be merged into one section, titled "Cultural impact" or something like that. They're both kind of about the same thing (Myrrha's legacy), so it seems like one section might be the best idea to me.-RHM22 (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's put it in. I'll just add an additional level of hierarchy. Still want some section division at lower level.

That looks good.-RHM22 (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Parallel to Jocasta

Myrrha tries to hang herself because of her sexual drive towards her father, Jocasta hangs herself because of her sexual drive towards her son (Oedipus). Maybe it should be mentioned how both women react in the exact same way when facing incestoual love. More at [14] Mottenen (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we will have a "criticism" or "interpretation" section and then discusion of the Myrrha as a part of a common theme of incest or female-driven incest makes sense there. TCO (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Arts and music

OK. I got something in there. We can expand the discussion and/or add others as we choose. We need to get an "in article" ref for each artist or composer. (If there are too many with current listy sentences, than we can "bundle" as we did in Painted turtle (and as policy advises). TCO (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be slick if we could get some recording of one of the more famous (or pleasant to listen to, no Bartok-like stuff) Myrrha pieces. Not sure what all the copyright rules are on older performances and if we would need to find some 100 year old phonograph record or the like. But it's an idea. Keep throwing stuff like this in and it all adds up and looks impressive. (paintings that we had in the beginning a good example.) TCO (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Article is moving there...

Hope I am not taking all your fun. And that at least you see what is going on (although really doing it is the way to learn). Or the opportunities for you to learn and contribute. There's a bunch more work to be done (Later writings and LitCrit sections). Suspect more can be done with origin also if we get more scholarly and look at the primary literature.

I'll do some cite template pushing. Those sections on the arts and science will generate 15-20 solid references. Make the thing more scholarly. Just some drudgery to get them in there.TCO (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

P.s. Download the cite toolbar 2.0 (look it up) and make a "Favorites" copy of the Magnus link generator. Will help you...TCO (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Can't find that toolbar , link? Mottenen (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

[15], also Magnus tool [16]. Warning, they have some very nuanced differences (formatting of date field). But otherwise are identical. Some people prefer just keeping the cite template saved to their user page and using that. Whatever works.TCO (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Pop culture

I don't think we can use these unless there is more proof that the names really refer to our myrhh-tree girl. But just putting here in parking lot:

• [17] D&D figure

• [18] Wonder Woman comics

• [19] Anime

• [20] and [21] horse. (was another squidoo site, but Wiki did not like me listing it). Don't think she did any big racing deeds, but she had some famous progeny.

TCO (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Baal band update

OK. There are TWO obscure bands called Baal. The one that we have on wiki is Danish and is NOT responsible for Myrrha. The one that is, is some sort of Euro-exiled group in Japan. That is a goth metal industrial rock band. Or some such claptrap. The Danes have a nicer sound btw. Anyhow, even with the Japanese, I could find no notability, other than some very wierd interviews (people asking these totally complicated rock critic questions and then these wandering bizarre responses) and I can't find any evidence in the discussions (or lyrics) that they were really inspired by Myrrha. I'm cutting it for now. Am open to putting back, even for a very obscure band, if we can ever establish that they even know the myth.TCO (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

P.s. the article on Danish band seems like wiki content, not a proper article. That said, I did get to the band's website and they have some nice tunes. This is extremely ironic as I usually make fun of wiki for covering obscure pop culture, but I wish they covered Baal bands better!  :-) TCO (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

NYT search

comes up with 57 hits for Myrrha. Good refs for the Chin and Kunstler factoids.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/05/arts/music/05comp.html?_r=1&sq=myrrha&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=8&adxnnlx=1295773945-2B3BcTFAIPIl5caNotd9TQ

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/08/14/nyregion/new-york-day-by-day-the-see-through-woman-of-bryant-park.html?scp=4&sq=myrrha&st=cse

And some other stuff to scan. TCO (talk) 09:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

metamorpheses play 2002

We should probably note it as well. Got a bunch of awards. Wiki has an article on it. The NYT had a review where they mentioned liking the Myrrha story more than some other parts of the play. TCO (talk) 09:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about the one by Zimmerman or ...? Mottenen (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Tony award winning broadway play. It shows our girl getting around. Just a sentence at least. We have the NYT ref after all. wiki has an article also.TCO (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I see your point - I'll see if the Eggenberger book has anything about the play like a summary. (Though it might be too new) Mottenen (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Good call. A 2002 Google news search might get more reviews as well. I think they changed the story a bit (per NYT article), so we might need a couple sentences to explain the usage of her in the play. TCO (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Those differences

Should I try rewrite the difference section and split it in Hyginus, Liberalis and Apollodorus? It just seems kind of messy right now, and the main idea of taking details in chrono-order fell apart when I found out how much they differ from each other. (You get me?) - Btw, we made it to the front page!!!! Mottenen (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the way to do this is to discuss them one by one. I think we have a pretty good plot summary under Ovid. I think the "other version" section should be more textual about the different classical authors, when they wrote, what the differences were in their myths, if any of them were popular or promoted by others (there was something with Cinna and Cattalus). You don't need to group them so much, other than maybe a topic sentence if you want. We have kind of a summary grouping with the sentence in the lead anyhow.TCO (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Congrats on the DYK, newbie. Maybe I should submit Wilmer W. Tanner. What day should I put it under, today (nominated) or when I updated content?TCO (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry I never intended to make a whole headline for each of them - just separate them from each other a bit. Hmm, then I will have to hunt down the years the wise guys think they lived I guess. Aim for Pseudo or normal Apollodorus? (I vote for pseudo)

Thanks a lot, I'm so proud :D - you have to add it under the day you started the edit, hurry hurry! Mottenen (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice work on your first DYK! If you want, there is a special userbox you can add to your userpage. Just paste this somewhere on there: {{User Did You Know|Myrrha}}-RHM22 (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, looks nice :) Mottenen (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

HEY. I just lost my DYK virginity also. Didn't know they had those userboxen.TCO (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! Mottenen (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Greek letters

Why has the way they wrote Myrrha and Smyrna in Greek letters been deleted? If you search through many of these mythology-Greece articles they usually have this piece of (useless) information. I think we should add it, just to be sure Mottenen (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a little crufty, since we already really discuss it in etymology (and I don't think it's lead worthy even as a note). But I don't mind it being there as a note, if you are worried the other articles do it. Just add it back. Only thing, are the pronunciation guides we have for the Ancient Greek or for the English. Would just be clear about how it's worded (i.e. Ancient Greek blabla). And I don't think modern Greek has much relevancy if that's what that was.19:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It's the English pronunciation, and I agree that Modern Greek is irrelevant. Mottenen (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think pronounciation is necessary and would probably appear a little clunky with the Greek. You should probably model it after Orion, which appears to be the only current FA about a Greek myth character. I think the original Greek characters should definitely be added to the lead, because most foreign names are shown both in English and the native language of the person (or character in this case).-RHM22 (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Youre probably right. I couldn't find any FA on mythology-characters so I just took from Cerberus but the lead looked weird with both greek letters and pron. so I threw them in the notes. Adding them again now Mottenen (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I dislike the long parentheticals on lead sentences. That is prime billing and should not be clunky. Also the peer review already told us to take it out. And people like Tony1, etc. advise not going with that "old wiki" style of crufty first sentences (sometimes containing Chinese script and pronuncation and the like) as the lead should be engaging and clear. Its in the article under Etymology, which is the very next section (so it's in the article). It won't kill me, whatever we do, but just sharing that perspective. I think you could even just move the current nbs as a distraction (put them in the article main space). They're still "in" the article. But lead sentence doesn't have blue speed bumps then. TCO (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks OK with the Greek actually. TCO (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It's all starting to look pretty - maybe except for the arts-music and the scientific names, but they're not developed so no panic Mottenen (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Source for the asteroid

Found a reliable book on google books for our asteroid - it was named after our Myrrha: [22] Mottenen (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

And datas on it, like radius: [23] Mottenen (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you run it through the cite template and add refs in article, please? There is a template you can cut or paste or else download the toolbar (I like) or use the Magnus ref-maker site that NYM likes.TCO (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

1. <ref name='Schmadel 2003'> {{cite book | last1 = Schmadel | first1 = Lutz D. | title = Dictionary of minor planet names | publisher = Springer | year = 2003 | pages = 372 | accessdate = 2011-01-24 | isbn = 978-3540002383}}</ref>
2. <ref name='Lewis 1984'> {{cite book | last1 = Lewis | first1 = John S. | last2 = Prinn | first2 = Ronald G. | title = Planets and their atmospheres: origin and evolution | publisher = Academic Press | year = 1984 | pages = 470 | accessdate = 2011-01-24 | isbn = 978-0124465800}}</ref>

Like this? Mottenen (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Good job.TCO (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Mind showing what we are to use these for ? Mottenen (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Go in edit mode and add the first ref after the first 381 sentence and the second ref after the second 381 sentence. Then save. We'll get a consistently formatted reference with full details displayed in Citations.TCO (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Temporary to-do list

• Clean up "differences"-part: separate the scholars (Hyginus, Apollodorus, Liberalis, and maybe even put Grimal there) Done
• Add more Shakespeare: in Othello act 5, scene 2 some Arabian trees' drops are mentioned - possible reference
• Add citations to the lead?

Not necessary, so long as the information is included and cited in the article.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Avoid citations in the lead, overlinking (a fair amount you have to but watch it) and just making it too long or too "hard". The lead is an executive summary that should be engaging and "easy" to process. We'll get into things deep in article. Our current lead is very "sweet". Keep it tight!TCO (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay I didn't know that :) Mottenen (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Elaborate on the arts: Kuster, Chin, Faulte (evtentually delete all we can't find anything on or move them to the discussion page)

The should all be reference-able. NYT search handles first two. And the act of referencing will probably bring us more insights. Or at least a shiny footnote. But a lot of times the article will have more info, or even the google searches will uncover other things...like wandering in the library and the book next to the one you need also has something good!

• Find sources to the animal species and see if we can find a connection.
• Expand the Commiphora myrrha -plant part with some interpretations or something ...
• Find (more) interpretations of the Myrrha myth (Lit crit" section on academic interpretations).

That's it for now Mottenen (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

New/rewritten things longing for copy-edit :)

If anyone should ever feel like it, here is a list of the sections recently edited that just needs some copy-editing to be finished. (I will update it regularly)

• Other versions
• Art and music
• Scientific names (need sources for the insects though, any suggestions?)
  • Probably just let myself or NYM take care of this as the science geeks (you can if you want, just thinking your interest more in literature). I just haven't been making it a priority. But there are like 12 species and we will want to summarize in text (or maybe a table). But in any case, we'll pull all the originating refs and then one on the current classification (SunC's search I'm hoping is legit to use as that.) It'll be like 13 refs for a small paragraph. We also may get some more info from scanning the refs as to the motivation for why she was used for so much insect naming. That would be a prhase or sentence of content. It;s basically a bunch of work for a short amount of text, but we'll get it eventually. And they will be legit refs that help pad your citation count.
• Literature - two last paras + the new one on Othello (right af Venus and Adonis)
• INTERPRETATION - at last it's here!

Mottenen (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy to see new content going in. Keep it up! TCO (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I did a quick copyedit of the sections you mentioned. It all looks pretty good, but I did have one question. What is the "day of choosing"? I guess it's probably some type of arranged marriage, but I'm not sure. Would it be possible to put some sort of explination in there?-RHM22 (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm simply doing everything I can not to use the words in the text - I don't want it to look like I'm just copying. I meant the day that she would have to choose a husband. That is, I guess the parents had more than herself to say about that matter. Is it clear now? Mottenen (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Notes

Am I using them right? (Btw. is it not B soon?) Mottenen (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

(edited) Notes looked fine to me, but NYM is the expert.

On the B, it might be, I'm not an expert on the grading. I would feel more comfortable bugging Wehwalt if we had the Interpretation section more fleshed out. There has to be lots of literary criticism of the myth from classicists, literature teachers, feminists, all that jazz. Build it up to be 3 paras or so and then lets get Wehwalt to give us our next little "reward". Rather not ask and then be told not ready!

We're doing to need to have exhaustively covered the topic to get to FA and I think your initial desire to take this thing to FA was right on. Would be an awesome FA in terms of the topic. But we need to really understand and have all the content. It will need to get copyedited like a bitch as well, but we need the meat on the bone. (mixed metaphors, I know.)TCO (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, notes look good.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I get you completely. At the moment I'm collecting material for the interpretation, though there isn't nearly as much as one would expect (maybe they're not too happy about this sort of taboos?) and I've maybe found a reference in Othello by Shakespeare too. Mottenen (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

But look at Erebus and tell me why this is not even B, compared to this "good" article ;) Mottenen (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel ya man! I know you are beavering away at all the little citations and all. And totally appreicated the input on Jutland horse. It might be B now, but let's just give a little more of a start on that crucial section. Looks too bare now. Just give me a couple paras and I will get the reviewer (who is one of the best writers on wiki and a wizz at drama and literature and has like the second most FAs on the site) to give us another boost. Having had positive interaction from him as this thing progresses is a move that will help us in the end.TCO (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe general criticism of Ovid will help as well (extract the parts that talk about Myrrha). TCO (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll check it out. But I'm going to gala tomorrow so might be a bit quiet from me the next 48 hours ;) don't go steal my work though, I will be back! Mottenen (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

One team, one fight. Have fun. Article will be waiting. I need to get going on some turtle stuff.TCO (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, heard you forgot some references Mottenen (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Myrtle

Okay some less reliable sources say that she's transformed into a myrtle-tree. If you come across a reliable source saying that, please let me know. Then I can add something somewhere maybe.

PS: Bulfinch turned out negative, doesn't mention Myrrha. Mottenen (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Note 3 possibly a cult

Move from User talk.

As a note for the vague-tags, what about it is vague? The cult means the aspects of how to worship the goddess. This means that "prostitution associated with the cult of Aphrodite/Astarte" could mean that the worshiping of Aphrodite or Astarte (both were goddesses of sex) sometimes might use normal worshipers (like the girls) to pleasure other men, in this case foreigners which is not good. Cult = worshiping and it is used and referred to in both "reality" and "myth" (for the ancient Greeks the myths were reality). You get me? :) Mottenen (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

See Cult (religious practice), though it's lacking citations. Regards :) Mottenen (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"Possibly a reference to temple prostitution connected with the cult of Aphrodite or Astarte. It is unknown what caused Aphrodite's anger, but it could be neglect of her cult. Cinyras was associated with the cult of the Paphian Aphrodite in Cyprus"

It's vague in the sense that it's "possibly", it's an alleged without substance, WP:WEASEL, even. The 'Cult' comes into WP:LABEL, then the two are combined. I suggest either the note is cut or that it's clarified in-text attribution to the author in the ref. i.e Apollodorus considered that it was possibly a reference to temple prostitution connected with the cult of Aphrodite or Astarte. etc. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm really trying the best I can to follow you on this one. It is put as a note in my translation of Apollodorus (meaning it was an elaborating note by the editor/translator). Here's what it says word by word in the note:

"slept with foreigners: presumably a reference to temple prostitution in connection with the cult of Aphrodite-Astarte. The cause of Aphrodite's anger (perhaps neglect of her cult) is not recorded. Cinyras was associated with the cult of Paphian Aphrodite in Cyprus."

Nothing is really certain and it's all just good guessing. Mottenen (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

And no, cult does not come into the label-thing if we link it to the "religious" meaning. Which I am going to do now :) It is simply a normal phrase when discussing religion-associated matters, but the word has got some nasty side-meaning later I agree (but the link should clarify that's not what is meant here) Mottenen (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the link to the Cult (religious_practice) is good, that takes out the contentious label part. The note reads like an editorial summary, so just attribute it to Apollodorus and then it's done. I'll do it myself, feel free to revert amend if I misunderstand. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay it looks good, thank you very much for your help clarifying. Mottenen (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Image of flight

Here's the image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Myrrha%27s_flight.jpg

If you are editing the article I will leave it to you to put it in, so we avoid double-editing (or whatever you call it).

Is it okay? Mottenen (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Image is good and I like how quick you turned it around. A few suggestions (not "need tos", just really for consideration):

• move the Panchea text slightly left so it is not in the Red Sea (black on blue, hard to see when image reduced in size and sitting in article
• move Sabaea to the left and down (it was south Yemen as far as I can tell from the Wiki article).
• maybe a cartoony palm tree or two in Arabia (probably not in the middle of the desert but maybe on the shore of the Red Sea or...somewhere.
• (I don't know about this last one, just throwing it out, may be too silly) some sort of myrrh or Myrrha-tree were she lands at the end.TCO (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I've just started doubting whether I'm violating any copyright here. How much use of an image editor program can be called "fair use"? I have been using SMART-software to edit the images but if it's copyrighted then I might need to write them a mail or something - or delete the images. (I've already read their policy but I can't figure out what I'm allowed to) Mottenen (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Literature or art?

Okay I found out that the play "Poor Beck" (summary, criticism) is inspired by Myrrha, but should I add it under art or literature? Alfieri is under literature. What do you guys think? Mottenen (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm totally the wrong person to give advice, but I would say literature...no? Plays have to be written out. Take that with a grain of salt. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's just call it literature. But I added an opera under "art and music" because I felt music dominated more in that type of set, agree? Mottenen (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Opera is music. Plays are literature. We are all in agreement.TCO (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's all good. Got a question for you at the "Image of flight"-topic if you haven't seen it TCO :) Mottenen (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for layout

First of all, how about making citations 3 columns? With almost 60 references it starts to a little look messy (but I don't know, take a preview - I did). And thanks for your help again Mottenen (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen it, that way. Can you show an example here, or even off-wiki? I think they will be fine even if there are 200 citations. They all come at the end, "endnote" style. Everyone is used to it and it doesn't really interrupt text.TCO (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm it's split in columns on my screen? Strange ... nevermind then Mottenen (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Take a look at {{Infobox Greek deity}} used on other article for example Apollo. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice one. I suggest these informations, but please comment:

Myrrha
Marcantonio Franceschini, The birth of Adonis, 1690
Abode	Cyprus
Symbol	Myrrh tree
Genealogy
Parents	Cinyras and Cenchreis
Children	Adonis

Mottenen (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Myrrha
Marcantonio Franceschini, The birth of Adonis, 1690
Abode	Cyprus
Symbol	Myrrh tree
Genealogy
Parents	Cinyras and Cenchreis
Children	Adonis

Would set the image size larger. Default is 200px and think that it looks fine with 300px. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I will implement it then Mottenen (talk) 06:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not as crazy for it with something like this. Where it's nice is on a story about a city for example, where you can scan and see the "almanac-style" figures on population, the lat and long. Little details that it's nice to scan the box and grab quickly. For this, you just have some fields that are words that are pretty easily in the first part of the lead anyhow. Won't kill me to have it. Just my two cents.TCO (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You have a point. I can't decide (or care). It's not like we have something exciting to tell in the infobox. Mottenen (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I have grown to appreciate "boxes" more than I did at first. The species taxoboxes, with the Linnean classification quickly clikcable are something I use often. Infobox for a city or a state or a movie or the like (where you can list a lot of almanac style numbers) is also a useful device. But this myth one is all just a couple words that are in first few sentences of lead. I was about to add a field for "notoriety" and put in "incest", but I realized it's just in the lead anyhow. This is a good case of over info-boxing. If we ask someone like Tony1, that will be there reaction. Again, it really doesn't kill me to leave it and I totally appreciate the effort to find the usage by the project and all. I just think a big painting and a sweet lead will serve reader better on this one.TCO (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Peer review close?

Can we close out the peer review? Somehow bothers me seeing the banner at the top of talk. Nothing happening with that fellow from a while ago. his review was complete.

I guess you're right. Had sort of hoped he would stop by before we took it to GA nomination, just in case, but I see your point. Mottenen (talk) 11:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I closed it now. Was a bit surprise it was still open and no one was commenting. It was the oldest open peer review. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

At this point it seems appropriate that a GA nomination for this article can be considered. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I take that as a compliment :) I would like to hear TCO if he thinks a last CE is needed first, though, before nominating it. What do you think? I would like it to run through GA as smooth as possible. Mottenen (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Found a reference

Found this http://www.jstor.org/pss/3296771. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Clicking the full citation on that JSTOR, you can then cut and paste the title into a google search window. [24] I did not find any "free versions" online. However:

1. There are a huge slew of other interesting papres that reference this source and that can also be used in our article "Ovid's bad girls" made me smile!

2. The author of that JSTOR paper transitioned to Latin scholarship as a result of studing the language for veterinary career. (see the science Myrrha connect!)

3. A terse email request for a pdf of the paper from Nagle would likely get a copy sent to you, Mottenen. This is a very normal thing in scholarshop and if you don't go to the well too often people usually help you out. Also, I would not push this, but that sort of brushing shoulders can lead to other help with an article.

TCO (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

lots of progress, wow!

Just a few thoughts/reccs, do with as you will

Nice significant adds of content. Kind of leading to following

A. On the Myth section, you've kind of got stuff at both the front and at the beginning that contrasts versus Ovid.

1. I would move that stuff you have on top of Ovid that is comparisons and then put it down integrated into the later section. cut the summary of the summaries (nuke that). So it would go 2 equals Myth, no writing, 3 equals Ovid, then 3 equals other myths

2. Within Ovid, maybe add some comment about Metamorphoses being wildly popular (RS avail in wiki article for that) at the time and that Ovid;s version is has become the familiar version of t

he myth to present day people. Then all the story telling.

3. I like how you've got more meat in Other versions. But take it even a step further. Give me some dates. Let me know if any of the versions were known to have influenced each other or Ovid (don't explain a negative, but if there is anyhing mentione it. And discuss all the differences in story (you have that).

B. Not perfect, but would stick the Guardian comment in Interprectation, at beginning or end. It's commentary on the myth, not literature.

C. I like the in-article discussion of myrrh. You will get some who kvetch, but the two are so linked and the term so strange to the modern ear. I might move all the myrrh stuff except the Latin name (so the Biblical notes and acnient usage) and stick it at the end of etymology and origin. Follows well after the myrrh-Myrrha word linkage. And explains the substance a little earlier in article (so doing more good). Only bad thing is you lose the connection to the image of myrrh. could just switch back to lady bug though. donno if there is a way to fit two images in that tiny Origins section. you do have pics of the tree anyhow in the form of her transformation.

D. There are some things that are gone missing now. If that is intentional editorially, fine.

E. Prob needs a new logic edit. and new copyedit.

F. More active voice in Interpretations. Maybe identify "schools of thought" or at lesat a couple specific people making the Interpretations.

TCO (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

A.1 Just delete the "introduction" to the myths? Do it, and I will see how it works. 2. I can do that, no problem, just need to find some source. 3. I've already arranged the versions chonologically, I could write some dates where it is speculated they're written, if that's better. I think it is going to be hard/impossible to prove whether or not they inspired each other though.

D. I haven't deleted anything, I think? What are you missing?

E. What is a logic edit? Should I sign up at the Guild of CE again?

F. Okay, I will do that.

Mottenen (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, what has happened to the "art and music" - it is double music now (how about the sculpture by Mel Chin?) Mottenen (talk) 11:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

A1. Cut the retelling of the story sentence, the "shared story" (you have that in lead and besides you get into it in Ovid next anyhow). I think everything works easier (and is justified) to just treat Ovid as the core story, and discuss the others as alternate (albiet earlier) versions. It's completely justified in terms of current literture and even in the ancient world's popularity. Any facts or context on the Appolodorus etc., just cram down and integrate in that other versions section.

A3: Not sure if it works bette to have a "top para" that discusses the othe versions, lists their time, physical location, liaterary location (where they parts of larger works, for instance Ovid integrates Myrrha into a set of other stories), or if you want to have that info with each version where you talk about the differences in the myth itself. Use your judgement on that, but either way give us the info. It's fine if you we don't know the relation of the myth chroniclers to each other (if we can source and say that, let's though. But even if we can't make a definitive statement, let's describe the relevant factors (time, location, nationality, etc. of the chroniclers). You already have the "what's different in the version itself" well described. just add the other stuff.

D. I had another opera in there. Had Myrres en Arbre. I'm not saying I miss them. Just...whatever!

P.s. thank you for catching the "musical Mel"!  ;-)

TCO (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC) F.

Just for the "other version"-thing. I've already said that they were parts of larger works (Fabulae by Hyginus, Matemorphoses by Liberalis, and Bibliotheca by Apollodorus). I can add the presumed authors' nationality, writing language etc. as notes if that's what you're after? (we might have some trouble with apollodorus - the "real" or "pseudo"?) I'll check up on the Myrres en Arbre and Mary Zimmerman now, btw :) Mottenen (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you do have the name of the larger work! Can you give any more context though? What was the larger work? Were they all myth lists analagous to Metamorpheses? Anything else? Popularity? Length? Placement of the myth? Like so that it is more than a random name. We can handle the Apollodorus thing with right wording, maybe same caveat that we had before. I just want to know where the author of the Biblioteca is beleived to have lived. TCO (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Also within Ovid, I think a sentence explaining the popularity of the Metamorpheses, and also a sentence describing where the myth is within tha work (whole song of Orpheus thing). And then you could go write to the quote from Ovid on how disturbing the tale is. That would be the intro paragraph before recounting the tale itself.TCO (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Not looking for a tangent, but just enough info so that the reader can put things in context.

Can do it, but just going to have to put it right first. But I need to know, where do you want the details on the individual "other version"-works (Fabulae etc.) - as a lead in the "Other version" or as an intro to each of them? Mottenen (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Try having it next to each version. I'm thinking it will be a sentence or two before you get into the details of the story difference. We can always change later. I'm easy though. TCO (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sidenote: I don't like the ref number 52 - it's like linking to a book nobody can access anyway, and we can't even tell which page(s) we're referring to. Mottenen (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I would not bother to link to a list of books. Have since been given a better link (Systematics of moths in the genus Catocala). I will update later. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks SunC Mottenen (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I read somewhere that we all see google differently based on geographical location. It could be that TCO's link was specifically to the page. For me I couldn't even tell what book it was referring to. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, peeps. Was just trying to dump the ref and have you do the formatting. I guess with Google books, will just do the whole ref then. More work for me. It was a page calling out the synonmy thing pretty clearly (lower right corner). But if the other link serves the need, let's not bother. One is enough.TCO (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Quotes

I recommend adding a few quotes. They really dress the page up, they are "fun" for the reader ('cause you are going to pick punchy ones), and are a very powerful method of "proof" as well as giving people a feel for something. Like on state reptile, all the non-Americans have a WTF reaction when we Yanks use the term, but reading the Vermont text-box, makes it pretty evident what it's all about.

Think about where a coupla quotes will help you (consider all the sections). One place I see it nice is the myth itself (I like the Ovid remark describing the story to come as disturbing, you can dig it out of Boswell translation). Even he, at the time, realized what the Guardian said 2000 years later [the reason it's such a great story is because the girl's action was so fucked up]. Ovid sort of has a "hold onto your seats, now!") Another possibility is in Interpretation (a quote or two, may make it all "hit" better and cut some of the vague nominalizing. Of course, Literature could use one. Even the art, music, science, if there is something that reads well and is insightful.

I think you probably want to use blockquotes, rather than boxed ones, but you can play with that. (Just watch the layout formatting, images on the left of a blockquote mess up the indents, may need to move an image or such...but that's doable. Get the best ones to amuse the reader and advance the article, and we'll do the jigsaw puzzle image work to make it all work.) Here is a good example of some wonderful blockquotes in an article: Allegro (musical).

TCO (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I can find the quotes and then I'll put them in here; you will have to show me how to format them ;) Mottenen (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, we can help with all that. Just find some sizzling quotes that are FUN and help the reader learn something. FYI: the blockquote markup is in "Wiki markup" in that place below "Save page". Also if you look at Allegro in edit mode, you can see how he did that in terms of new para and all. For a quotebox, we might want one within Interpretation as it's image-less anyway. You can just go into edit mode and steal one from Painted turtle or state reptile. TCO (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

How about this Ovid quote (from the Mary Innes translation): "Paphos in turn had a son Cinyras, who might have been considered one of fortune's favourites, if only he had not had a family. The story I am going to tell is a horrible one: I beg that daughters and fathers should hold themselves aloof, while I sing, or if they find my songs enchanting, let them refuse to believe this part of my tale, and suppose that it never happened: or else, if they believe that it did happen, they must believe also in the punishment that followed. If then nature allowed such a crime to occur, I congratulate the people of Ismarus and our part of the world, and count this country happy to be so far from regions of which produced such wickedness. The land of Panchaia may be rich in balsam, bear cinnamon and zedoary, and many kinds of flowers, and exude incense from its trees, but it is not to be envied while it grows myrrh with the rest. A new tree was not worth so great a price."

You can just take a part of it only if you want, but I think it works good as a dramatic intro. (remember it is Orpheus singing, in Ovid's book numer 10 (use X)) Mottenen (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

butterfly species

1. When you dug up those refs for species was there anything interesting on "why"? Could be nice to add. I'm thinking it's in homage to Ovid's Metamorphoses as the butterfly does a metamorphosis. For the ladybug, I heard they are incestuous (kidding). Actually do beetles have a metamorphosis also?

On Cupido myrrha I added the location of Anatolia. To my knowledge this is the nearest mainland place to Cyprus, and perhaps may include Cyprus. Interesting bit here, Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Yeah, like a lot of those islands, it's history is pretty Greek (even a lot of Asia Minor was), but geographically (and mostly politically now) it is Turkish. It's one of those places in Europe that people still squabble about and that Wiki edit wars flame on for years.TCO (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Finally realised that a 'ladybug' is an american term for a ladybird. All butterflies go through a Metamorphosis, I image ladybirds do also but am not sure. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

2. I know your concern with that image. I think the usage is as a synonym. Like that was the old name and then it changed. (I think that's what your search showed us). Or maybe the Wiki page. Donno. I'd love to have some butterfly image as she really is on a lot of moths and butterflies and such, and we kinda cover the myrrh with the two transformation pics and resin. Change of pace for something else. But we might need to do some Flickr search or the like. Would be stronger if we picked one that was "clean", not the whole synonym thing, but one where the animal was named and the species designation (at least) has not changed.

I actually think the Catocala nuptialis page should change to Catocala myrrha and that Catocala nuptialis is the synonym but the quality of references is so poor it's hard to make a case. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh....OK. Play it how you want. I was probably too conservative.TCO (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems you are correct as have now been given the link which says "Catocala myrrha is a synonym of Catocala nuptialis." Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

discusion of citation needed

Disagree with the cn's in the Ovid section as it is a plot summary. One reference at the end obviously covers the material, which is clearly called out as a description of the work of literature. That said, Mottennen, I would just put a ref at the end of each para and be done with it. It really won't make it look that ugly.

(I'm on the fence as to the one on Divine Comedia as perhaps you're making a personal statement on the interpretation of that piece of literature. Probably better to have a secondary source making this inference or be clearer that Dante spells out that Myrrha's crime is more deceit than incest.) TCO (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources

I would like to add some sources that might be necessary to this article Galinsky 1975 Tissol 1997, Littleton 2007, McKinley 2001. The literature is vast, but that's what it means to bring to GA mythological characters of which there are 3000 years of writings. --Brunswick Dude (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to point to the fact that many sources are books themselves, such as "Songs of Solomon", Shakespeare, or Dante himself. All of these should be removed and replaced with secondary sources that write about the myth.--Brunswick Dude (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I can dismiss the Littleton source right away - read it when writing this and it didn't bring up anything new. I will check out the others now. I'm just skeptical they will bring very much new (relevant) information, but if it makes you happy.

What do you mean with Dante and Shakespeare should be removed? Isn't it notable how Myrrha has made an impact on such writers? I find it important to have both the passages that have references to Myrrha as well as a secondary source that interprets it. We already have an interpretation-part for the "original" myth. Look at the peer review, it says clearly that I have to cite the exact edition of the books I'm referring to (including Dante). Regards Mottenen (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

And no it hasn't been 3000 - more like 2100 years, and we have covered pretty much of it. Regards Mottenen (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagree with removing the Shakespeare reference.TCO (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

All I'm saying is to prepare this article to be a solid GA pass so that it is ready for a FA right away. Exhaustion of the secondary sources is key to getting the article to higher statuses. TCO please understand that Shakespeare may not qualify as a secondary source, and neither can Dante, or Ovid. Summaries of works on Myrrha, be it Ovid's, Shakespeare's, or Dante's, should come from secondary sources, and possibly recent ones (30-40 last years), not from literary works themselves, otherwise, that will be seen as a strong sign of original research, which is frowned upon for the pass to higher statuses of the article. I'm just trying to help and my experience in reading the history of the articles tells me that reviewers look strongly at the sources. I am a reviewer myself and I thought initially to be the reviewer of this article, but at this point I feel like I already got too much involved to have the integrity of doing it: on the other hand I see that a good work has been done and if we go the extramile with the sources, the road to GA is a little harder, but sure. --Brunswick Dude (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

We might not be so far apart as you think. I agree that we should hit the secondary literature and criticism and all. I think basic descriptions of Shakespeare and the like (in the same manner that we describe the music and statues) is OK if it's in the clearly labelled other literature section, not the "Crit" section. We should be wary of using Shakespeare as an interpreter of Myrrha, sure. (Although interestingly you probably CAN use Boswell as a "critic" of Ovid's Myrrha, if you read his translation notes.) But simple description of what the usage is (without much reading into it) is OK. Although if we want to get more insightful than just description, we would do better with secondary sources that discuss the differing usage. Cool?TCO (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I refuse to delete the Dante, Shakespeare etc. references. Look at the mythology FA's Orion (mythology) and Ganesha. They have some cultural references too, besides the secondary literature interpreting the "subject". I am willing to read and add the extra interpretation you've linked to, Brunswick, but please let Dante be. Regards Mottenen (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

We'll get there man. Keep the Dante and Shakespeare. For sure keep the simple descriptions of the literature (like the description of Mirra). Try to back up your inferences though or be careful about what assertions, you make. This is a little bit different on Wiki than original literature interpretation which you might do in a class for school. Don't drop your impulses and don't become stilted, but be a little careful is all. TCO (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

P.s. Ovid's version of the myth is the core one. His version has been popular for 2000 years (ancient world bestseller, frequently translated all through the dark ages, still referred to today, etc.) and inspired the other works of literature, art, music, and science. It's not quite to the extent of Homer and Odysseus, but almost. Yes there were previous classical myth chroniclers and even an oral tradition. They're all addressed. But the weight is on Ovid, as it should be, for the reader.TCO (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll get to it. A lot of reading (again) now. :-( Still trying to get in touch with Nagle, but she isn't responding (do you think hotmail mails are blocked by University mail accounts?). Just recently got that nice pro interpretation article again (some problems with my library account, long story). Mottenen (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

She might be blowing you off. Try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange Also try if your library can access it. Or can ILL it. Also it is not just about Nagle, but all the other papers that came up when I put her paper into the google search window. Go roll around in the soot of Google and litcrit and come back grimy!  ;) TCO (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Dryden added now. Would one of you guys ce it? I've done the best I can, but I'm pretty tired now. If anything seems lacking citation, it's all in the paper I've cited in the end. Might be back tomorrow with more stuff. Mottenen (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Better late than never. It's common practice on wiki to back up old sources (thousands or even just hundreds of years old) with a more current source that says teh same thing. The original writings of Ovid and such are fabulous additions to the article, wouldn't remove them for anything. Maybe the interpretations made could just be backed up by another published work (seems like you've already started doing this...nice work!).

As for making this article "a solid GA pass so that it is ready for a FA right away," ehhhh, I can't say I agree. GA and FA have distinct and vastly different criteria. Don't try to write the perfect article then go from GA to FA within weeks; it's a lot of fine tuning and formatting (and content adding, can't forget that) that takes a while to complete. This article is in good shape for GA I should imagine.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ovid prelude

Saw your edit note. Glad to see this. It's going down the right track. Give it a rework to try to make it a bit more like "this is the context for Myrrha" and less a digression (probably cut some of the commentary on "reading Ovid"). Try thinking about what you want to say, then Googling to find the sources to support it, rather than starting with your onhand materials. (Of course if the googling finds more or different info, adjust what your point is). It's going in the right direction, now, but give it a bit more work.TCO (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Misunderstood you then - I thought I should put Myrrha in a context? The idea was (1) to first describe the time/society in which it was published first, (2) to describe Ovid as a poet and what Metamorphoses is compared to other classical works, (3) to tell what preceded and what succeeded the myth of Myrrha, (4) make a short (not vital) interpretation of the beginning so we get the meaning of it, and (5) open with the bloody quote, that I simply loooove! :-D Did I get it all wrong? (btw all informations can be found in the paper I've cited in the end; handy, right?) --Mottenen (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No...you got it right! I just want it a little better, but it's headed the right direction. Forgive me. This stuff is a process. You're making progress!TCO (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. So, do you want me to expand it or make it fill less? Actually, I was worried that it might have been too long an intro, but considering that quote ... And if expand, what informations would you think is relevant to this intro? --Mottenen (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Shorter, but with more of what I want in the content. (IOW, less of a "dump" from source 12 to make a paragraph and more giving the reader the key info in a paragraph and then sourcing it from multiple places.) After mentioning the date Ovid wrote his piece, mention the ancient and recurring popularity of Ovid's Metamorphoses (find some sources, what you are doing is setting the stage for why this version is front and center, why it "is" the myth.) Tighten up on the literature discussion, and mention it after popularity. Have the supporting citations from secondary literature (translator acceptible, for instance Boswell) in any immediate sentence where it might be read as you making a judgment (or even mention in text that it is someone else's view). "Way" ahead is too informal. Cut "way". Shrink the quote down to just be the long sentence about horrible. Read the Boswell comments on how Ovid introduces Myrrha (which I cited for you a while ago) and see if any of it belongs in here or is easier to use than source 12. Tighten up on the literary interpretation of Ovid (some of that could move to interpretation though) and make it more about context of Ovid's Metamorphoses (popular piece historically, where Myrrha is within the document). Little dryer.TCO (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Article

I just stopped in to take a look at the article, and it's really grown by leaps and bounds! One small note: in the "other versions" section, it says "0 A.D.", but there was no year 0. Did you mean 1 A.D. or was there supposed to be another number in front of the "0"?-RHM22 (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh brilliant of me. Sorry, I had completely forgotten that! :) I just meant around the time Christ was born (it is not certain, but just a good guess). I will correct it now! Thank you very much. Regards Mottenen (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Acceptable?

Okay, is it good enough now? I've expanded the interpretation-part quite a bit, addressed every possible citation-problem etc. - can it go good? --Mottenen (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I got you a reviewer and a good one. He will go through it. Appreciate your pushing things. I need to go and review one of his articles. I end up getting more help from him than I give, so let me go and do that. (And there was no specific quid pro quo, just the right thing for me to do.)TCO (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You're awesome! --Mottenen (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Bible paragraph

I moved the Old Testament stuff to the front of the Bible paragraph. I just think we should discuss the older, before the newer. Also, it seems to connect more to the discussion of first millenium BC linguistics as the OT is a Hebrew tale from that period (and I think the NT was written in Greek, no)? Still looks fine with the gift of the magi having an emphatic place of honor at the end of the section. Just think this is a better way to fit it into a section that is really more about linguistics.

I also added a couple of refs (from the Wiki song of Solomon article) on the dating of that literature. I did not format them.

I cut back a little bit that seemed like you were making literary interpretations of the Bible in SoS. I think the point comes accross anyhow, just by presenting the context and we shouldn't be making (much) interpretation in wiki articles. If the Musselman source makes the inference on Myrrha and eroticism and myrrh, then please go and add it in, but call it out in text that this is Musselman's (or "a scholar"'s) viewpoint.

TCO (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It's Musselman who says it is discussed with "erotic overtones". I don't know about SoS being particularly erotic so I think I will rewrite that a little bit (haven't read SoS, have you?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mottenen (talk • contribs) 11:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you accept the changes I've made? --Mottenen (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

PS: I like that Myrrha is now about 30% longer than the article on Zeus hehe ;-) --Mottenen (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No sweat. I accept whatever you want.  :) Song of Solomon is well known and agreed upon to be erotic, as a whole. I just was questioning the mrrh specifically being called out as erotic. Was it? Or just SoS in general?TCO (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Musselman states that myrrh is described with erotic overtones in the SoS :) Mottenen (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Myrrha/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Not bad, but needs a little work. I tend to go above and beyond the GA criteria and assume the nominator wants to do the same.

Lede

• The first paragraph should in a way be the ne plus ultra of compacting information, and should really be about what the article is best known for. I think you are using it to begin the story in the lede. I would modify the prose.

• Addressed. Mottenen (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• The third paragraph has the word "myth" in consecutive sentences, and it's a bit jarring.

• Addressed. Mottenen (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Origin

• "Ezekiel notes seeing the cult of Adonis in Jerusalem" Perhaps "writes of". I'm a bit unhappy with this given the uncertainty of who wrote any Biblical book. I would rephrase to state that it is mentioned in the Book of Ezekiel. And you never know when you may get religious zealots overrunning your page.

• Agreed and addressed (just used the same phrase as my source, Grimal, but I see your point). Mottenen (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Myrrha, the girl," Perhaps better, "woman".

• No, what made the story so horrifying was an (to us) underage girl falling in love with and seducing her father without his knowing. I wouldn't call her a woman, since none of the sources of the myth (Ovid, Hyginus, Liberalis, and Apollodorus) does. Mottenen (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ovid's version

• "Published in 8 A.D." We know this to the exact year? Amazing.

• Yes we do. According to the unsourced Metamorphoses-article and the Doll-paper it was finished in 8 A.D. Mottenen (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• "was ahead of its time " Why?

• Stylistically, it was written more like a modern psychological novel which made it stand apart (according to the Doll-paper). I wrote it in the intro to the summary but TCO wanted it to be shorter so I cut it. Don't really know how/where to put it in. Mottenen (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• "showed how Ovid was more interested" Perhaps "showed that"? It needs to be changed, either way.

• Addressed. Mottenen (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• "questioning how the laws interfered " In what?

• In people's lives, addressed. Mottenen (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• "macho". I think that if this is a direct quote, show that it is. If it isn't, perhaps change the word to something less ... macho.

• Redundant, so I deleted. Mottenen (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• "The narrator in Metamorphoses ". I would reverse this and say Metamorhoses is not narrated by Ovid, but rather by ...

• Adressed. Mottenen (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Orpheus sentence: Variations on "sing" are used 3 times in sentence. Can this be adjusted?

• Do you know another word? Singing is what he does. Mottenen (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Tells, speaks, addresses, informs ...--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Okay I'll try.

• Addressed. Mottenen (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Cenchreis" If in your view this character is so minor in mythology that there will never be an article about her because she's just a name, then I'd unlink this. Otherwise, fine.

• Another user put the link. She seems like a very minor character, so I've deleted the link for now. If somebody makes an article on her they can feel free to make a new WL. Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not certain you need to constantly remind the reader that Ovid is telling us this or that (isn't it really Orpheus btw?)

• I'm referring to the author when summarizing the myths consequently (same goes for Apollodorus when he "quotes" others). I can delete some of the "Ovid"-mentions though. Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• "crime"? or sin?

• As far as I know the Greeks didn't use the phrase "sin" very much? I imagine it was both legally and morally criminal to have sex with your daughter at that time, so I still think "crime" is best. Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Besides, my translation uses the word crime. Mottenen (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• "One night when everyone was asleep" Perhaps better, "the household was asleep".

• Addressed. Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• "and escaped due to the darkness of the night". "escaped in the dark" (or night).

• No it should be read that she escaped because of the darkness (that it saved her because Cinyras couldn't find her). Rephrase? Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Other versions

• " All three differ greatly from one another" Perhaps, All three versions differ greatly

• Reworded it, better? Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• "accounts for three possible parentages for Adonis" I don't understand this fully, perhaps "tells of three possible ..."?

• You just want me to use "tell" instead of "account" or is it something else you're confused about? Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• "the myth takes place" "is set"

• Addressed. Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• "She had devised many tricks in order to delay her parents" Perhaps "her parents' marital plans for her". This whole sentence seems a bit florid. You say she devised many tricks because she was being driven mad with longing.

• Yeah I see it. Reworded it, better? Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Interpretation

• " has been interpreted with various conclusions" Perhaps, "has been interpreted in various ways" or "has been the subject of a number of interpretations".

• Liked the first one better. Addressed. Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Second paragraph, first sentence needs rewriting.

• Addressed. Better? Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Myrrha is then made into a woman in the grip of an uncontrollable lust" Really, isn't this just repeating the first part of the sentence?

• The point was to make clear she is no longer the innocent little girl, which is shown through her desires. Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• "It has been argued that incest being a taboo marks the difference between culture and nature. " How about "Smith-Jones (whoever) has argued that the incest taboo is fundamental to a civilized society."

• Addressed. Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• "When the poor girl has been gripped and consumed by the irresistible desire," POV.

• Better now?Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• "she laments that she is not born as an animal, because then there would be no problem with her having intercourse with her father - on the contrary actually, since in the animal kingdom it is not uncommon that horses, goats, birds etc. take their daughters as mates." How about "she laments her humanity, for if she and her father were animals, there would be no bar to their union." I think the reader will know that animals commonly mate with relatives.

• Addressed. Are you sure? Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• "interpreted as an indirect attribute of Adonis." Perhaps "to be influcences on the character of Adonis"?

• Reworded it to almost your suggestion. Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• "2 goddesses" Two.

• Addressed. You never use numbers unless on dates here on Wikipedia? Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• " In Ancient Greece" Link?

• Yes. Addressed. Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think we need the full title of Doll's work. Just summarize.

• Deleted the part "the cases of blabla". Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Doll suggests that both Ovid and Proulx' " I think Ovid needs a 's, but am not positive.

• We better be sure, so "Ovid's". Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Putting a one sentence blockquote out there is sort of POV, it means you are really emphasizing that statement. I would drop it back into the text.

• Addressed. Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• I would move the discussion of Orpheus back to your other mention of him and his songs.

• Addressed (and agreed). Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• The Guardian needs to be italicized, and check that article to make sure you are italicizing the proper word or words.

• What do you mean with the proper words? If you mean in the reference, I'm using a reference generator. Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Dryden

• I would move this section into Cultural Impact, and surely it can be divided into paragraphs?

• I would like to leave it in interpretation. It is an interpretation of a translation. IF I was to move it, should it be merged into the bottom or the middle? Dividing into paragraphs, addressed. Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Okay moved it. Mottenen (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Dryden's conversion to Catholicism have anything to do with it?

• I don't know, it didn't say anything about it in the paper so I would have a hard time verifying such a comment. Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Cultural influences

• Why does Myrrha having rabies mean her most serious (not "biggest"!) sin was deceit? Also avoid "This means".

• Sorry, I'm a foreign, wrong word :) reworded it and added note explaining. Note that using "sin" here is okay because it's Dante and his Christian interpretation, not the Greeks' understanding of her "wrong-doing", if you get me. Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• I believe essays have titles in quotation marks, not italics

• Right you are! Addressed. Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• "In 1997 the myth of Myrrha and Cinyras was one of just 24 tales" Strike "just"

• Addressed. Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• "The work as a whole " Split sentence.

• Addressed, if I got you right. Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• "back in his days" Suggest substituting a phrase involving the word "contemporary"

• Better? Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• "The score was aimed at generating tension," Not certain what this means. I would go over this sentence very carefully, anyway.

• It's in the review I'm citing. Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• "In more recent times, Kristen Kuster has created" I'd say "More recently, Kristen Kuster created"

• Addressed. Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• "the illustration of Myrrha by Doré featured in Dante's Divine Comedy." Perhaps "Dore's illustration of the legend of Myrrha for the Divine Comedy". No need to mention Dante.

• Addressed. Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• "represented" "Depicted"?

• I didn't write that, thought it was some smart English phrase somebody did under a ce. Addressed. Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Can you tell us why any of the insects and so forth are named for her?

• We are guessing it has something to do with Myrrha being metamorphosed, just like butterflies are from larvae but we haven't been able to locate a source agreeing with us yet. Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll give it another read when you've gone through these.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Awesome go through, WW. Very obvious that you parsed it.

• I'm the source of the Myrrha "the girl" as I think she is under 18 in the story, and the term is more piquant (has an edge to it) more than the tendancy to call all 12+ females women. But I don't care. Besides, I called Suzy a whore.
• Agreed on the article reading too much like independent Dante interpretation. Either we need to cite someone making that point or perhaps, describe it by facts without an assertion. For instance "Dante places Myrrha in the 10 (lowest) circle, that of liars, rather than the 2nd (less sinful) circle, that of sexual deviants." And it's how deep she is in Hell, that is the telling thing. Not the rabies (that's just how punished).
• For the insects, the biology crew should take care of this for Mottenen and there will be something interesting after we look at the inital papers where the things are named. We just haven't done it. But it's just some grunt work, can be done. TCO (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Addressed and gone through all of it now I think. Mottenen (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Not to butt in, but in reference to Mottenen's question about spelling numbers versus displaying them as figures: the MOS recommends spelling the numbers if they can be rendered in one or two syllables (five, six, seven, twelve, nineteen etc.), but using figures when the number is higher (85, 1,935). Obviously, figures should be used when rendering years and in infoboxes and tables where there is little room.-RHM22 (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, should probably read the whole MoS at some time soon :) just couldn't really get myself together to do it when I hadn't even written a GA yet. Thanks for clarifying RHM22. Regards, Mottenen (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've never read the whole thing. If I did, by the time I got back to the beginning, it would have changed. Anyway, I'm going to pass the article. I think the prose can be improved, and I urge an outside copyedit if you plan to try to advance this article further. Formality of language is a harped-upon thing here on wiki. Good luck!--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)