Talk:Sappho/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Sappho vs. Sapphire

There's no relation between the two, is there? Mathwhiz90601 01:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sappheiros is lapis lazuli, and I believe it's been suggested that the name 'Sappho' may be derived from it, just as in English we have the old-fashioned names Pearl, Amethyst, Emerald, Ruby, and so forth. (Those names don't seem to have survived long, but Jade, being more recent, is still with us.) Xn4 23:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, The name of The Poetess of Lesbos was not Sappho. In her native dialect, her name was Psappha. Therefore any suggestion of a relationship between her given name and a jewel is moot. Psappha (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Two points. First, The Aeolic form of her name is Psappho (Ψάπφω) and not Psappha; this may be confirmed by the form Λάτω ("Leto," nominative) in fr. 142. (My regrets if you relied on an erroneous statement in a previous version of this article, which I corrected at some point, in choosing your username.) Second, I wouldn't be so sure that, by analogy, the Aeolic form of "sapphire" might not start ps-. Wareh (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Meters

My own feeling, considering that most readers of this article will be non-classicists, is that it shouldn't give metrical schemata, but just refer to the meters by name, with internal links. The schemata will prove quite confusing to readers who don't even know what long and short syllables are. Strawberryjampot (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I recognize that the current presentation of this information could be more graceful and may come as a bit of a shock. However, the information is certainly encyclopedic and should be retained in Wikipedia; the "non-classicists" argument, if accepted, would require wholesale deletion of the many articles on Greek meter that exist in the encyclopedia (and, by analogy, math articles that are not interesting to non-mathematicians). The solution, as you say, is "internal links," but the problem is that these are already there whenever possible. Those schemata that are not available via any internal link are the source of your complaint. Ideally, we need an article Aeolic verse to receive the excess detail. I'll consider starting it and moving the schemata there, but meanwhile at least we have some new information in the encyclopedia awaiting digestion and polish. Wareh (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: the "non-classicists" argument, if accepted, would require wholesale deletion of the many articles on Greek meter that exist in the encyclopedia. Not at all: as I said, there should be internal links to technical metrical specifications, which would unclutter the main Sappho article of something which though justified will only be of interest to, or even comprehensible to, a very small percentage of users. And those that aren't there should be added in those other places. The suggestion was to put the technical stuff in another article and refer to it, which I think would be a good principle for almost all articles on ancient Greek poetry (for most modes, anyway: there may be some justification for giving a basic description of hexameter in a Homer article or of iambic in a Sophocles article.) Ideally, all that stuff should be put into an article on the meters of ancient Greek poetry, including an introductory section for a general audience and a more technical section for those who can read some Greek. I think though Wareh and I are basically in agreement. Strawberryjampot (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let me confirm that we are in total agreement; I only meant to insist that the information should be retained "in Wikipedia," and when I said internal links had already been deployed "when possible," I meant "when the material has already been covered in other articles" and not "to the full appropriate extent." My intention is to draft another article to receive the metrical material, so that this article will be entirely free of metrical schemata. I hope to get to this in a week, but I beg your patience if it takes longer. Wareh (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Update. I have stripped this section down to a basic overview of the Alexandrian edition, now that I have written the article Aeolic verse. I hope that anyone whose knowledge extends to reading Sappho in Greek will have a look at Aeolic verse & help improve it or comment on it. Wareh (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Lesbian Writers tag

I've reverted the edit which removed the Lesbian Writers tag on the claim that Sappho was really bisexual. Though as the article indicates, the exact nature of Sappho's personal sexual life is not considered entirely clear, still virtually no one today either within or outside of the world of classical scholarship would seriously object to the description of her as a "Lesbian writer," and I would venture to say that there isn't a scholarly or popular book or article published in at least a generation which mentions Sappho without accepting this assumption of her sexual orientation. If anyone disagrees with this, please discuss it here before changing the tag again; this is the stuff of which edit wars are made. (Footnote: yes I know that some historians would deny that the modern terms gay and lesbian map well to ancient sexual categories, but even if we accept this, that still doesn't mean that Sappho isn't considered or shouldn't be considered a Lesbian writer in discussing her significance in the history of literature.) Strawberryjampot (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The category certainly should be present; where do we think the word "Lesbian" comes from, after all? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is a no-brainer, keep her in. Haukur (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

Personally, I think three Romantic/Art Deco/Pre-Raphaelite/whatever style artist's conceptions of Sappho on this page are too many; one would be enough. My choice would be the Alma-Tadema one. Strawberryjampot (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the modern paintings, and would like to retain them; but there's at least one relevant Greek vase that isn't in the article right now. Are there other ancient depictions we're missing? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the modern paintings too, I just question the justification for using up so much screen real estate on having four of them (not three as I said before -- I missed one!) There are at least a couple of ancient vase paintings which unquestionably portray Sappho since her name written on the vase as a caption -- a Google image search on Sappho easily finds them -- and though there's no reason to believe they are more true-to-life than modern artist's conceptions, they're interesting as showing the ancient conception, and they would provide some variety. I myself though don't know enough about acquiring public domain images for Wikipedia to add one of them. If anyone can do this, I'd suggest removing three of the four modern paintings and adding one of the vase paintings. (Take a look at the Homer page for an example of a more balanced selection of images for an ancient author.) Strawberryjampot (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A repository of images can be found at Commons:Sappho. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. But one thing I'm not knowledgeable is permissions. Can someone point to documentation on this? Is it the case that if something is on Wikimedia Commons it can be put on a Wikipedia page without any further permission, or is it more complicated than that? Thanks for any advice. Strawberryjampot (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that we've got the (very beautiful) Brygos painter picture, I suggest getting rid of the Marble Head from Istanbul picture. It never looked very Sappho-like to me, and as I've mentioned above on this page the supposition that it's supposed to be Sappho seems unsubstantiated. I'll allow time for discussion before removing it. Strawberryjampot (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Bust of Sappho

Feel free to remove the marble. Images on Commons are ok to use--the purpose of Commons is to be a repository for freely-usable material.

On commons, there's a bust that is inscribed "Sappho"--it's obviously Flavian, but at least it seems clear someone ancient thought it was Sappho. It should be showing at the right. Do you think we should include it?

By the way, if anyone decides to search Google Images for Sappho, be aware that even with the SafeSearch feature, you'll get some rather *ahem* racy results--and I'm not talking about Alma-Tadema paintings, either. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and suggestion. I've removed the marble bust image. I'll look over the picture page and maybe make some more suggestions for consideration about pictures later. Strawberryjampot (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've re-done the pictures as a result of this discussion. Ordinarily I wouldn't make such a major change without allowing for discussion, but I decided the best way to show my suggestion for the images was just to do it; I won't complain if it's reverted or changed further, though I hope that would be accompanied by discussion, and that people will consider this explanation first. The rationale for the new version is this: the lead image is now the bust in the Capitoline, because it makes sense to have a full face portrait at the beginning, and this one is closer to authentic and (to my taste at least) more attractive than the Istanbul marble head. Next comes the Brygos Painter portrait with Alcaeus, who is mentioned in the adjacent text (the caption should mention that the other figure is Alcaeus but I forgot). Next comes another primary (i.e. not later copy) source, the vase by I think Polygnotos (should he be named in the caption?) showing Sappho with her companions, which is one of her main themes and is discussed in the adjoining text. Finally in the section on her later reputation there is the Alma-Tadema painting, which I think is the most appealing of the modern portraits and resonates with the others since it shows both Sappho and her companions and Alcaeus. Personally, I think we need only one modern romanticized portrait since a little of that sort of thing goes a long way. Images, sizing, position, and captions are things I've given some thought to, but of course they are all subject to discussion and change. Thanks to anyone who wants to comment or work further on this. Strawberryjampot (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the two vase pictures are too close together? Strawberryjampot (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I think those two vase pictures need to stay where they are, even if they're close together, since in their present location the one with Alcaeus in it is next to the text that mentions Alcaeus, and the one with her companions in it is next to the text that mentions her companions. Strawberryjampot (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I left in the papyrus image since it provides variation and since even non-specialists might be interested to see what one actually looks like. Strawberryjampot (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography?

Should this page have a Selected Bibilography or Further Reading section (in addition to References) like Homer and some other similar pages have? Strawberryjampot (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Critical comments

I'm a little uncomfortable with some of the judgments in the Modern Translations section, not because of what they say, but because they're unsourced and so could be considered Point of View and/or Original Research. Does anyone have any opinions about this (other than that this is commonly done on Wikipedia but that doesn't mean it should be ...) Strawberryjampot (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The most egregious problem is with the Mario Petrucci text, which was very recently added by a user who seems to have become a Wikipedia editor in large part to promote this. As I see it, this is just a more polished iteration of a spam campaign; I twice removed clearly inappropriate links/references to this translation by anonymous UK IP's in the past month (once as if it were a source for the article, once an external link to the publisher's site as if it were a source of information rather than a sales pitch for the book). Accordingly, I'm removing the whole paragraph, because this section is not supposed to be comprehensive anyway. As for the other recent translation, Anne Carson's, well, she is about a zillion times more notable than Mario Petrucci (just because his article's speedy-delete didn't take doesn't mean it's not an obvious COI puff piece), and "meant to" strikes me as a neutral enough description of the format (as opposed to quality) of her translation. Wareh (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the text about the Petrucci translation sounded too much like an ad, and the link was certainly inappropriate, since that site is clearly commercial. I don't think a basic listing of the translation would be unacceptable. Strawberryjampot (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite new to this so I'm wondering whose decision it is that this section is not "supposed to be comprehensive anyway". I would much prefer that it was and I'm concerned that one person here seems to be making decisions on behalf of the readership as a whole. In a discussion that begins with concerns about Point of View, it's hard to take seriously a contributor who uses the phrase "a zillion times more notable"; aside from the dubiousness of "zillion" I would be interested to know what the evidence is of Carson's notability. I would prefer this article to retain references to as many of the translations avalable as possible; I also think links to publisher's sites are useful in case I want to pursue the subject beyond the limited scope of a Wikipaedia page.Eclipse8888 (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the simple bibliographic listing of the Petrucci book is ok, but I still think the associated link to http://www.perdikapress.com/wp/?page_id=116 is inappropriate since that page is an advertisement for the book. It certainly is an ad, not just a "publisher's site": if you click on it you see a page headed by a promotional message for the press, followed by an adulatory description of the book, and ending with a "click to purchase" button. Also, shouldn't the listing of the Petrucci translation just be under references? I don't know if that's Wikipedia policy, but it's the way the rest of the article is: Barnard, for instance, is just mentioned by name in the main article with no footnote, but her translation is listed under References. Strawberryjampot (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Wareh's going far enough here; I don't think the article should mention Petrucci's translation at all, unless it's in the context of a complete list of English translations. There's clearly an attempt going on to promote the wares of the Perdika Press, not just in this article, but in several others, using named accounts and IP addresses. This seems like a clear case of spamming. What's missing is any indication that the translations are notable--that they've garnered significant reviews, or are by well-established poets/translators, etc. In the absence of such evidence, I don't think these works should be mentioned in Wikipedia articles, and any links to Perdika's site should be removed. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I would welcome a "complete list" of Engish translations, though it's naive to expect that anyone would be able to compile one; there must be zillions. As I've said, I don't see what the problem is with publicising a publsher but if it is I suggest that somebody goes through and removes all publishers names and ISBNs, including those from Anne Carson's publications. Eclipse8888 (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem, Eclipse8888, is that you seem to be here to promote an insignificant translation printed by an insignificant press. Wikipedia is not for commercial promotion. I don't understand why you're focusing on Carson, but if you don't know that her translation is a notable work, then you can't be very familiar with translations of Sappho.

As an aside, I'm now looking through the contributions of User:Anne_Prouse, and I'm not at all happy with what I'm seeing. This is spam, plain and simple. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why, if Wikipaedia is not for commercial promotion, the publishers and particularly ISBNS of commercially published works appear on the site. Surely titles, authors and dates would suffice. Also, as I said, I'd be very happy to see a complete list of English translations, in fact if Wikipaedia was doing its job, that's what it would be aiming at, but that can only be achieved by adding them one by one, which you're actively discouraging by singling out some. I don't have anythng against Anne Carson but I find it hard to take seriously the reputation of anyone whose supporters use terms like "zillions". Eclipse8888 (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This is strange. Many publishers and authors are cited on Wikipedia with references and links to their books. Naturally some element of sales accompany most such sites. If mentioning this new text is deemed so offensive and commercial, why is it that a brief quote taken from the national press, inserted precisely to demonstrate "that the translations are notable--that they've garnered significant reviews" was consistently removed (check the history). I believe these are grounds for a report to Wikipedia that certain users wish to establish themselves as absolute arbiters of particular subjects regardless of alternative, well-substantiated and legitmate sources. If the promotion of wares is the issue, why is there such an insistence by you on including only particular texts you deem acceptable, without yourself providing any substantiation or peer review? Where are your references and "significant reviews"? Your assumptions of excellence appear miraculously from the ether. If linking to a professional site is disallowed because it is also a press that sells books, fair point; in which case, you'll need to scour wiki quite thoroughly of many of its cited books and presses. Even if referring quietly to a publisher's site (which was done because there are reviews and other award notifications there) offends, this is not intentional spamming: those works happen to be from a press and presses also sell books! As I say, external quotes were deleted having far less subjectivity than much of the existing entry. What is being done here seems to me a form of negative spamming: spamming by exclusion. Please reinstate the work and its legitimate, substantiating quote, without the Perdika link if you insist. Are you really saying that users such as myself shouldn't have specific interests they wish to make more widely known? This is not, I promise you, an attempt to spam, but an honest dissemination of information I'm interested in. If that's a problem, why do you spend so much time monitoring this site? 80.41.3.18 (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I note that Waterstones has a Wikipaedia page with a blatant link to its website with a very large number of the "click here to purchase" buttons the contributor above finds so objectional. Perhaps that page should be removed for all the same reasons as objectors have cited here. Or are there indeed different rules for large (and commercially powerful) businesses from those for small presses?Eclipse8888 (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the same rule applies to all: WP:NOTABILITY. As far as I can see, Perdika Press and Mario Petrucci fail. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it also should be pointed out that Wikipedia policies on WP:Conflict_of_interest make it very clear that no one who has a close connection, whether legal, financial, or personal, with a person or organization should be adding or editing articles on that person or organization. Could the user(s) who are contributing and editing articles on the person and organization being discussed here please assure us they are in compliance with this policy? Strawberryjampot (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus, do we simply 'fail' a press with a significant output... on what grounds? How is it 'spam' to make proper reference to its contributions and those of its authors where those contributions are applauded and confirmed by outside sources? (Prompted by your comment, I've just checked the site and yes - the press is trying to sell books - but there are plenty of critical endorsements given on its home page and among the various books, from the editor of the Poetry Society's journal to the Daily Mail). Is contemporary poetry your specialism? I see you're an administrator, so I'm doing my best to take you seriously. But, as a specialist in my field, I can't agree with your judgement. How else are we meant to bring exciting new information of real quality to the attention of wiki users? Why couldn't the wording of the addition have been changed to make the added entry less adverty (in line with wiki guidelines)? I'd understand your point if the activities of this press were non-existent or criticised. But I do follow the smaller presses in this country and have a good sense of what they achieve, including such presses as Headland and Salt, which I daresay you haven't heard of either. That doesn't mean they haven't produced important work. Or is wiki only for the few larger presses or people completely outside the field? I'd ask you to reconsider?

On a more technical point, what is your interpretation of 'notability'? If a user such as myself knows of a good source for material (from an author, press or website) why shouldn't I add it? That's the joy of wiki. I add material I feel makes an important contribution to the debate. Am I then a spammer? Why can't we both have our opinions represented, if well-informed and substantiated? Let the users decide: isn't that the point? As for 'notability', there are endless books cited on wiki that were panned, that the critics hated! I can't help feeling there could be a little more leeway here... Anyway, I think I'd rather look elsewhere on wiki for places I can help by contributing what I know. Good luck. 80.41.3.18 (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

My interpretation of notability isn't significant. Read the policy at the following link: WP:NOTABILITY. Do Petrucci/Perdika Press qualify? (Please note: something may be good, worthwhile, valuable...and still not be notable, in the Wikipedia sense.) --Akhilleus (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That's fair point, Akhilleus, and I admit I hadn't read the notes on notability in any great depth. I'll adjust my inputs accordingly, but I've been pretty careful to make sure comments are substantiated. That's what I don't understand. I realise it's a matter of judgement, and you're entitled to yours, of course. But the section on notability you referred me to does say (referring to books) that "arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations" which seems to pick up another user's point (above). The endorsement by a national paper (which I mentioned earlier, which got deleted) was inserted precisely to establish third-party comment and notability. In poetry, it doesn't get much more notable than the national press! Surely not spamming? 80.41.110.85 (talk) 10:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Still no answer to my original question - who decides that this section is "not supposed to be comprehensive anyway"? As a user I would very much prefer it to be but any attempt to make it so seems to come up against a few self appointed guardians of what's good for me. I haven't mentioned any particular work that I'd like to see included but a number of people have attacked the inclusion of one work on grounds that are hardly justified in any objective way. In spite of the codification of 'rules' (which like all rules are exploited to give power to those who police them) it's almost impossible to identify notablity without being subjective.From an enterprise like Wikipaedia which I thnk is perceived very positively as being democratic, I'm quite surprised to read a phrase like 'in the Wikipaedia sense'. I'm very concerned to discover that large commercial interests are favoured by Wikipaedia in the sense that it's easy for them to assert notability, which then allows then to post a link to their mail order website. (In fact, is that allowed? It seems to be promoting the company's commercial and financial interests, but I don't see Akhilleus removing the link. To big a target?) I'm out of this, disappointed that an enterprise claiming to have such high principles is ultimately so small minded and partial. Maybe this discussion needs to continue somewhere else. Eclipse8888 (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The Mario Petrucci article seems inappropriate. The style is off and there is not a single critical word. Should we add some warning/cleanup templates there (I'm thinking "he has implemented public resources of real practical significance for education, creative writing and study skills, including exciting new forms of creative dialogue between science and poetry (such as his unique contribution to creative writing strategies using science" deserves at least a Template:Peacock) or would it be kinder to delete it outright? Haukur (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly appropriate, given the above discussion, to take out some of those adjectival feathers. Could someone please do that? I think the quoted lines should be trimmed to the facts... something like: "he has implemented public resources for education, creative writing and study skills, including new forms of creative dialogue between science and poetry (such as his contributions to creative writing strategies using science)" which is all pretty much verifiable. The rest of the piece is factual and well referenced. Meanwhile, I'll look for negative, balancing comments... 80.41.33.207 (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, a few more comments before I leave this part of the discussion to others:

• Discussion of the Perdika and Petrucci pages themselves should be moved to those page's Talk pages.
• Though whether a link is to a "commercial page" allows for some judgment, it seems clear to me that a link in an article about a business organization to the index page of that organization's main public web site is acceptable, even if it incidentally includes ads or ordering links, whereas a link in an article about a book or which mentions a book directly to a page wholly devoted to promoting and selling that specific book is an ad.
• There's some question in my mind whether the Perducci book ought to be considered a translation. The other translators mentioned I believe all are academic classicists or at least have a knowledge of ancient Greek. I've seen nothing in the material about the Petrucci book to indicate whether this is the case there. If not, it may still be legitimate to mention it, but as a creative reworking rather than using the word translation.
• I repeat that I wouldn't object to the Petrucci book being mentioned in the Sappho article as long as the above concerns were met. Strawberryjampot (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Since Anne Carson is mentioned on this page, I have to reply to "I would be interested to know what the evidence is of Carson's notability." You may wish to compare Anne_Carson#Selected_awards_and_honors with Mario_Petrucci#Awards, which by itself could be a useful schooling on the notion of "notability." Hmmm, the latter section is more than three times as long yet doesn't have anything of comparable significance to report. Something here is "hard to take seriously," but its not the zillionfold discrepancy between these two poets' statures. If you want to use Anne Carson as the criterion for this argument, then it will be a long time before Petrucci rises to her level and becomes significant enough that his association with a topic is worthy of notice per se. The bottom line is, Wikipedia does not have a policy that if you can supply a footnote, it's instantly appropriate content. The test on this page is whether Petrucci's translation is notable enough to belong in an encyclopedic treatment of the Greek poet Sappho, and the answer is that, no, the "buzz" being added here does not improve the encyclopedia's treatment of Sappho. Even if it can be demonstrated that some of us underestimate the importance of Mario Petrucci, then it would still be more than adequate to list his name with Barnstone and Lombardo, thus linking to all the appropriate information on a page where it would be relevant & notable (assuming Petrucci himself is worthy of encyclopedia coverage, a considerable question I leave aside). Wareh (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Music

The references you are looking for can be found at Ovid's Heroides, letter XV. This also covers the part of the Sapphic stanza and her relationship to Phaon. Please replace this material that you removed yesterday - thanks. --Doug ^talk 23:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ovid's Heroides is overtly a work of fiction, so anything derived from it needs to go in the "Legacy" section, clearly presented as Ovidian fiction. As to the music section, if the goal is to add something that doesn't need to be slapped with Template:Fiction, then the beginning but not the end of the process is to browse the ancient traditions gathered in the Loeb Classical Library edition of Sappho and Alcaeus (Greek Lyric Poetry, ed. David A. Campbell, vol. 1). (A) anything Campbell doesn't include among his testimonia is going to need an explanation of why it's valuable, reliable, or notable (and by "explanation" I mean attributing the interpretation of the evidence's value to a specific modern scholarly source); (B) anything that is in Campbell needs to be carefully presented as an attributed ancient account, not as fact. Meanwhile, if your goal is really to do valuable work on the Sapphic stanza, etc., read Denys Page's Sappho and Alcaeus or something of the kind, not the Heroides! As to Phaon, we already have more apocryphal fancies than are warranted. The references to Lefkowitz etc., clearly establishing the bogus nature of such stories, would be adequate grounds for reducing the space given to such credulous or playful nonsense; there is certainly no need for much more on Phaon here. A better article for this material, if you remain convinced it is encyclopedic, would be Heroides. But the first step I'd recommend is simply to read the current article Sappho; you'll find that much of what you tried to add is already treated, better (to name just one example, Plato and the tenth Muse). Wareh (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Added back in the "Music" section because it is a major part of her life and how ancient history records this with about a dozen references. The large picture gallery from Wikimedia Commons even shows over half the pictures are with Sappho depicted with string instruments, in particular the kithara and barbitos.--Doug ^talk 19:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

None of those images is from Sappho's lifetime. Of course a music section would be nice to have, and of course Sappho played the lyre to accompany her poems. However, the section you are trying to add degrades the quality of the article and is based on substandard and irrelevant sources; Byzantine music and Boccaccio are not relevant to this topic. Look at the "further reading" here for some titles that would, in contrast, be appropriate to base such a section on. Wareh (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason why the Music section was removed and why she should not be showed as associated with music?--Doug ^talk 19:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC) The references are not all to Byzantine music, but show ancient references as to how she is associated with these musical string instruments. The only reference to Boccaccio is a woodcut depiction showing Sappho playing the kithara. All three pictures on the article also show her with these instruments. Should these images then be removed from the article, since they are not a true representation of her?--Doug ^talk 19:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC) All your references are about Ancient Greek Music, ancient papyrus, or Ancient Roman Music, none are of Sappho. There is no Sappho text material there to reference to. All of my references relate to Sappho and her relationship to poetry and music.--Doug ^talk 21:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The references I gave you, which obviously you have not had any time to consult, do a pretty good job of covering everything known about ancient Greek music from the beginning to well after Sappho's death. Of course, you will also need to consult respected scholarly sources on Sappho. You've made a start on this: the Snyder and Yatromanolakis articles qualify, at least. If your contribution had introduced the ideas of those two articles accurately and logically, I don't think I would have had any issues. Wareh (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

As Wareh says, it's a question of distinguishing between fact and fiction. There aren't any contemporary sources for Sappho's life apart from her own poetry. I see no harm in saying somewhere (with suitable references) "In ancient (and later) art, Sappho is often depicted with string instruments, in particular the lyre, the kithara and the barbitos". That and some other material in Doug's proposed Music section could indeed go into the Legacy section, bearing in mind that there are no contemporary portraits of Sappho. Perhaps other parts of that proposed Music section might fit better into our articles on ancient music? When it comes to Boccaccio, we could only quote him on Sappho with caution, bearing in mind that he was more than a little inclined to poetic flights of fancy, but we don't need him here, as there are so many far better sources. Wareh isn't hostile to the principle of a Music section - but it would need to be carefully referenced, not least, of course, from Sappho's own work. Xn4 23:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Since music was such a large part of Sappho's life and her poetry writtings, let's see if we can agree on what it would take to add a music section. I believe the section that I would like to have in the article relating to Sappho's association to music is a good springboard to work from to show that she is closely associated to ancient Greek string instruments, especially the kithara and the barbitos. Is there room for improvement - of course, there is always room for improvement. Could there be different or better references? Yes, I'm sure there can be. These I have already submitted are good starts and additional references to support these that can be added from such sources like what you are suggesting. Below is the Music section I propose to enter in the main article of Sappho that was taken out yesterday.

Music

1473 woodcut of Boccaccio's depiction of Sappho playing kithara

Sappho is closely associated with music, especially string instruments like the kithara and the barbitos. She was a woman of high social standing and composed songs that focused on the emotions. Sappho often wrote poetry about ancient Greek string instruments like these.

Giovanni Boccaccio compiled images of women notable and famous throughout history. One of his images was Sappho playing a kithara. Often Sappho is also depicted playing the barbitos, which has longer strings and a lower pitch.

The instrument depicted is not a cithara, so I removed it (and the reference to it in the text) from that article. It looks like a cittern. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 12:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The barbitos is also closely associated with the poet Alcaeus along with Sappho and the island of Lesbos, her birth place. Here it is called a barmos. The music from this instrument was said to be the lyre for drinking parties and is considered an invention of Terpander. Aristotle said that these string instruments were not for educational purposes but for pleasure only - depicted in much artwork showing Sappho playing these.

First sentence: The additional references that you are suggesting speak of ancient Greek music and as you point out during the time of Sappho. There is probably text in certain of those that will associate Sappho to ancient string instruments, especially the string instruments of the kithara and the barbitos, as well as to her singing and her poetry writtings about these. This then backs up my first sentence which already has four (4) good references on these points.

Second sentence: The JSTOR reference gives details on this.

Third sentence: These two sources show she wrote poetry about string instruments - as well as does the first four references.

Fourth sentence and Fifth sentence: This is demonstrated in the image, however note that there are no Boccaccio footnotes. I don't believe anyone disbutes these statements. Interestingly, to me anyway, is that this woodcut image would be a much closer representation of Sappho than the "modern" pictures we now have in the article. As you have pointed out none of those images are from Sappho's lifetime - so maybe we should remove them from the article. These pictures all show a "modern depiction" of Sappho with the kithara whereas the woodcut representation is closer to her time period.

Sixth sentence The fact that the barbitos having longer strings and a lower pitch I don't believe is disputed. Sappho as depicted playing the barbitos can be shown in the gallery of pictures of Wikipedia Commons.

Seventh sentence: This is backed up with an excellent reference about ancient Greek music and poets associated with Sappho. The references you suggest would furnish the same information.

Eighth sentence: I don't believe this statement is disputed. It is already shown in many previous references.

Ninth sentence This is backed up with an excellent reference about ancient Greek dance and poets associated with Sappho. The references you suggest would furnish the same information. The part that it is an invention of Terpander I don't believe is disputed.

Tenth sentence The Aristotle statement I don't believe is disputed.

--Doug ^talk 14:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no logical connection between the first sentence and the second, nor between the second and the third. In addition, the third sentence is false; the word "lyra" may appear in some of Sappho's poetry, but her poetry is not about musical instruments.

Boccaccio is not worth mentioning in this article, and is not an authoritative source about the ancient world. Please stop trying to put material from De Mulieribus Claris in articles about ancient Greece and Rome; it is not improving the articles, and is creating big headaches for the editors who are trying to improve these articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, your last paragraph appears to be plagiarized from this source. Aside from that, this article is not the place for a history of Greek musical instruments. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Doug asked me to comment.

It has to be admitted that if a legacy section is relevant to an ancient author at all, it should (where appropriate) include classical, medieval and modern legacy. If Mengin's painting has anything to do with Sappho's legacy (and it has) then the woodcut has as well. Both the similarities between them and the contrasts between them are instructive.

If there is to be a section on Sappho-and-music preceding the legacy section, then -- I agree with others -- it has to start from Sappho's own surviving words. If that option is not rewarding (I don't know, without rereading) then, in my view, the topic needs to go under "legacy" and needs to be written as a history of the perceived connection between Sappho and music; which began very early, of course, and which both these images illustrate. Andrew Dalby 12:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Stylistic points for dates

Can someone post where to look for Wikipedia policy on the following stylistic points? Thanks.

• What forms do we use for ancient/modern dates: BC/AD or BCE/CE? Should they have periods? Upper case or lower case? What font -- regular, bold, italic ...? (I think the standard in US publishing is small caps -- can we do that here?)
• Should the year number come before or after the abbreviation -- e.g. 400 b.c. or b.c. 400 (I think the former is more common in publishing but I've seen both.)
• To give an approximate date, do we use circa or ca. or c.? What font? Strawberryjampot (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• • WP:DATE gives the policy for BC/AD vs. BCE/CE. Short answer: either system is fine, but once one is chosen, the article stays with that, and you give the date in the form 576 BC (no periods, upper case, regular font, no small caps).
  • Approximate dates are given as c. 1180 BCE – c. 1150 BCE.
  • On Wikipedia, consistent style is more of an aspiration than a reality. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus is correct, when editing go with the calendar era an article already uses and stick with it. Choose the most appropriate era if editors have left it a mess: This is essentially what I did when I cleaned up the eras earlier. Sappho and her commentators span the era divide, so clarifying where centuries fall (such as "mid-6th century BC") is important for this article, too.

I was being hyper-correct by placing AD before the year (@ first line under "Family" subhead) --it's grammatically correct in Latin, so Anno Domini 200 = In the Year of Our Lord 200. In modern English use "AD" now often follows the year, after decades of writers not knowing any better. ;) "BC" (and BCE/CE) must always follow the year, and always have. -Yamara ✉ 18:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It looks like this article is inconsistent currently but if I understand we should be using the form 620 BC, which occurs most often, and approximation as c. (e.g. c. 620 BC) and the AD or BC should come after the year. If this is wrong, please post, otherwise I'll use those and correct variances where I notice them. Strawberryjampot (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

LGBT people from Greece? Only if you put Robert Louis Stevenson as 'shapeshifters with multiple personality disorder from Scotland' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.246.245 (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Maximu of Tyre quote

Since this important testimonium was previously unsourced, I've added a source reference and changed the text to what it is in the source (note that the spelling "practised" is used there.) Strawberryjampot (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of remarks on female homosexuality

I've reverted the addition of remarks on female homosexuality for two reasons. First, as said in the immediately preceding paragraph, the idea that Sappho ran some sort of school, while not totally discredited, is generally considered dubious by scholars today. Second, the remarks are completely unsourced. If these remarks are to be added, they should be identified as the opinion of reputable scholars with appropriate, specific source references, and it should be made clear that this view of Sappho is not universally subscribed to. Strawberryjampot (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The picture yet again

I've deleted the image of the Istabul bust. This image was deleted previously as part of a general rearrangement of the pictures which involved a great deal of discussion (see above) after which nobody objected. If someone thinks it should be put back, please read that discussion and explain here why the original selection and arrangement of images in the article which was the result of that discussion should now be changed. Strawberryjampot (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Psappha = Sappho

but the article says: Psappho (I don't know about that!) It must be Psappha! Böri (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the correct nominative in Sappho's Greek is Psapphō. The noun is a stem in -οι- and its nominative and vocative terminations are exactly as in Attic Greek. This is clearly deducible from the nominative Λάτω in fragment 142 LP (for the vocative Σάπφοι, confirming that the stem is the same as for Leto, see frr. 65 and 133 LP). Before all of these fragments were known to scholars from papyrus discovery, there had been some speculation about a form Psappha, but I don't think you will be able to find a good reliable source postdating the papyrus discoveries that allows for any doubt on the matter. If you have seen Psappha anywhere in English or foreign-language Wikipedias, please help remove the error or mention it here. Wareh (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Wareh / Böri (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"Poetess"

I thought I should comment on my revision of "poetess" to "poet" in the lead paragraph in hopes of forestalling a battle over political correctness. Arguments about whether the word is dismissive or whether not using it shows an undue concern for political correctness are unlikely to be conclusive and at any rate are irrelevant to the issue of Wikipedia usage, which should be determined not by what this or that Wikipedia contributor thinks it ought to be, but by what accepted usage actually is. Ideological considerations aside, the fact is that for at least thrity years now "poetess" has almost totally been replaced in any sort of English language academic or serious popular prose by "poet." As a result, the term "poetess," whether or not offensive, certainly now has a quaint and old-fashioned overtone, making it inappropriate for a reference article (especially in its lead paragraph) that wants to be taken seriously. Strawberryjampot (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think "poetess" is dismissive, but your argument about usage is a better argument for the purposes of crafting a Wikipedia article. --Akhilleus (talk)

Schoolmarm

The article mentions the legend of Sappho's being a teacher, but only to dismiss it. The article says that there are no contemporary accounts of Sappho's running a school; this is doubtless true, because there are no contemporary accounts of Sappho's biography at all. What would be interesting to know is what some of the earlier non-contemporary accounts of her teaching career are. Rwflammang (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the article is far too one-sided as it is. There's certainly no scholarly consensus that the sources that say she was a teacher should be dismissed. Haukur (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I was her pupil once. She was in the habit of using her lyre-strings like bow-strings, to fire chalk at misbehaving students, and we used to fire back with the olives we stole from her drawer. It was chaos. My parents subsequently withdrew me from her school and enrolled me with Alcaeus, who was a better poet, I think, though he hit the bottle a bit hard most days. I sometimes carved nudes onto his desk while he slept with his head on it. Ah the old days. I'll have to dig up the school photos sometime. McZeus (talk) 05:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Image of the "New" Sappho

There's a great image of the most recently published text on this page, but the file name is P. Oxy. X 1232.jpg. The papyrus is actually P.Köln XI 429 (inv. 21351 + 21376). Does anyone know the best way to clear this up? Thank you, The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

{{Rename media}} Wareh (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Done—thanks so much, The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone did something in response to my tagging, but it didn't fix the problem. I'll try to figure it out when I (try to) upload my first image. In the meantime, I'll stick the info in the caption on the off chance that someone might need it and might be misled by the file name. In case anyone really needs to know, P.Oxy. X 1232 is actually Sappho fragments 43 and 44, not part of the New Sappho. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing your effort or the response (probably my carelessness: I'm in an airport). But note that (1) the file resides on Commons not Wikipedia, (2) the talk page of the user who moved it to its current title is here; if you explain the right thing to do, this editor may take care of it for you. Wareh (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

(Have a great trip!) What I did was just deleted by someone. I think your response tells me exactly what I did wrong. There was a big pink warning about the file being at Commons and I just added the tag. Tomorrow I'm going to try to get a handle on image stuff and will also contact that user. I don't think that anyone will be coming to wikipedia over the next day trying to figure out which papyrus is the "New Sappho", but will try my best to figure this out soon. Thank you for your help. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"Gynaeon Pornikon Erotomanes": Real or not? 95 percent of her works lost, but no mention?

I haven't done any research on this, but assume that his alleged decree, with this phrase, exists, so I'm not buying "Older Discussion's" shrillish assertion (Savonarola, anyone?). I do, however, strongly agree with Older Discussion that facts should be found. If the phrase "Gynaeon Pornikon Erotomanes" is real, and if Nazianzus did indeed issue said decree, the statement made in this article -- that he "liked" her poetry, would seem to be historically refuted and the record ought to be corrected in both this and «his» Wikipedia entries.

Can someone find and post the document to the Internet so that it can be analyzed? (Should be in public domain, and I bet that Disney and Warner Music won't be coopting her soon.) Can proof be provided (as in referenced) that he indeed liked her poetry, and if so, why he would issue such a decree? We «are» talking about book-burning here.

Also, the claim is made on the web that an estimated 95 percent of Sappho's works were destroyed/lost. The article makes no mention of this. Again, verifiable documents should be found and cited, since 95 percent is a very large percentage....

In the end, I think this section has a opinional, unsupported slant:

It appears likely that Sappho's poetry was largely lost through action of the same indiscriminate forces of cultural change that have left us such paltry remains of all nine canonical Greek lyric poets, of whom only Pindar (whose works alone survive in a manuscript tradition) and Bacchylides (our knowledge of whom we owe to a single dramatic papyrus find) have fared much better.

You can say that if you attribute it. If not, it's not encyclopedia material. Better to say:

However Sappho's, and indeed seven of the nine canonical Greek lyric poets' works have been lost, only the works of Pindar (whose works alone survive in a manuscript tradition) and Bacchylides (our knowledge of whom we owe to a single dramatic papyrus find) have been significantly preserved.

Dstlascaux (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where that info about Greg Naz. issuing a "decree" to burn Sappho comes from, but, knowing his education and literary proclivities (not to mention his conduct as an officer of the church), it's probably utter nonsense from some late hagiography. The phrase gynaion pornikon erotomanes is actually from Tatian, Oratio ad Graecos 33.2: καὶ ἡ μὲν Σαπφὼ γύναιον πορνικὸν ἐρωτομανές, καὶ τὴν ἑαυτῆς ἀσέλγειαν ᾄδει, "And then there's Sappho—that lewd, sex-crazed "lady"—she sang of her own liscentiousness". This is from a discussion about how much purer Christian women were than those dirty pagan ladies. These sites that associate the phrase with this Greg-decree aren't reliable. I'll add a citation for the percentage of Sappho work surviving if I come upon one, but 95% seems very high, and might be a relic some 19th c. work, before the papyri started appearing. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

And I've just stumbled upon a good little summary of the myth of the burning (note, however, a typo in the Tatian quote: gynaikon for gynaion). I've got to run, but will clean up and cite that section if no one else does in the meantime. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I have seen Cataudella's article. Not only is it completely persuasive on Gregory Nazianzen's poetic imitation of Sappho, but it has been cited with agreement and approval by scholarly sources from M.L. West to Anne Carson. I would strongly object to removal of this point ("that he 'liked' her poetry"). If such a range of secondary sources can agree on this, it is true for Wikipedia's purposes and should stand as is until we produce equally notable sources that specifically reject it. (Then we would record both views, not "correct" the one that has such solid acceptance.)

While the notion that Sappho's transmission is in any way unusually subject to suppression seems pretty bankrupt, I do agree that it would be a good thing to document better the how & why the notion has become so widespread. Wareh (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

According to link I give above (and stuck in the article) it's from Scaliger & contemporaries, but I wonder if one of the recent "classical receptions" series/journals have done an article/chapter on this very topic. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)