Talk:Sock and buskin

Why Latin and not Greek?

Why are we given the Latin versions of the names, and not the Greek versions? It's about ancient Greek theatre, after all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article is a shameless promotion for one school. The article should be titled Melpomene and Thalia or maybe shouldn't exist at all. 15:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)15:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorkyH (talk • contribs)

Bad Reference?

The only information that this article references is, "Some people refer to the masks themselves as 'Sock and Buskin.'" But, the reference provided—Charles Mackay (1887), A Glossary..., p. 48., linked via Google Books—doesn't contain this information anywhere on page 48, nor on 49, where the "Buskin" entry ends. Should this reference remain the way it is? It seems incorrect to me. And if it doesn't need to be here, then is there anything left of this article at all? Could it be folded into a larger category until better sources are unearthed? I'm not changing anything myself, just wondering out loud, continuing my search for scholarly sources on those theatrical masks, or "sock & buskin," if you will... 207.161.57.156 (talk) 01:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sock and Buskin references

Found on the web: https://theaterlove.com/comedy-tragedy-masks/ What are the two drama masks called? The tragedy and comedy masks are usually called “Thalia and Melpomene” or “Sock and Buskin”. Although the words come from Greek drama, it’s a modern invention to use them as names for the theater masks — the ancient Greeks and Romans did not start the trend.

https://thegreekdesigners.com/2016/03/07/drama-masks-thalia-melpomene/ The Comedy mask is known as Thalia, who in Greek mythology is the Muse of Comedy and Idyllic Poetry, portrayed as a happy, cheerful young woman crowned with ivy.

The Tragedy mask is known as Melpomene, who is the Muse of Tragedy. Melpomene is depicted with the tragedy mask in one hand, and a knife or a club in the other.

https://symbolsproject.eu/explore/human/profession/civil/mask-sock-and-buskin-/-comedy-and-tragedy.aspx The sock and buskin are two ancient symbols of comedy and tragedy. In Greek theatre, actors in tragic roles wore a boot called a buskin (Latin cothurnus) that elevated them above the other actors. The actors with comedic roles only wore a thin soled shoe called a sock (Latin soccus).

https://academiaaesthetics.com/gallery/sock-and-buskin/ Also known as a sock and buskin, the masks have deep historical origins in ancient Greek culture. The sock (soft and comfortable) is considered a comedic symbol, and the buskin (hard and unyielding) a tragic one. 47.50.145.161 (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Theatrical mask" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Theatrical mask has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 7 § Theatrical mask until a consensus is reached. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 15:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shoes vs. masks

@Swpb: The source you have just added repeats verbatim a paragraph that appeared in a previous version of this article, making it likely that this is a case of WP:CITOGENESIS. The use of the terms "sock" and "buskin" to denote the comic and tragic masks is recent and erroneous and is not found in scholarly sources (e.g. the OED or Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable). Zacwill (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to drop the source you think is citogenesis, that's fine. But the claim being supported is not that calling the masks by those names is etymologically correct, merely that it is widespread. Which it patently is. Clearly, the terms originate with footwear, but just as clearly, they have also come to commonly denote the masks. Whether that is a linguistic "error" and/or a modern development is beside the point. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 17:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it widespread in reliable sources or is it just widespread on the internet, possibly as a result of the incorrect information given in this very article? Zacwill (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other source you have cited is the blog of an anonymous Twitter user, by the way. Zacwill (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter whether academics refer to the masks that way, just that a significant number of people do, which seems to be the case. I really doubt the usage became widespread just because of this article, but even if it did, it's certainly widespread now. It could be (and again I think this is unlikely) that Wikipedia said something that wasn't true before (that the term is widely used to mean the masks), and thereby made it become true. Now obviously that's not something Wikipedia should be in the business of doing, but if it did happen and the use is indeed now widespread, I think it's appropriate to acknowledge that widespread use, no matter how it came to be. And unless there is a reason to think the use is not as widespread as Google makes is appear, I don't think we need to wait for an academic source to acknowledge what's apparent. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 18:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This approach is not in line with Wikipedia's verifiability policy. We cannot repeat information that does not appear in reliable sources. Everything I'm seeing on Google comes from WP:FANDOM sites, Etsy stores, and WP:BLOGs. Much of it repeats words and phrases that were used in this article, hence why I suggested that Wikipedia was (at least partially) to blame for the spread of the misconception. Zacwill (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]