Talk:Charmides (dialogue)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
 |
WikiProject Echo has identified Charmides (dialogue) as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia. |
[edit] Original research in the "Subtextual interpretation" section
Aside from its truly hideous title, the "Subtextual interpretation" section is problematic because it makes interpretive statements without giving any citations to secondary scholarship. I feel quite sure that the interpretation given is the idiosyncratic view of the editor who wrote it, rather than a widely held view in scholarship, but if I am wrong, it should certainly not be difficult to give references, following the example of WP:CITE and WP:FOOTNOTE. I have posted an {{Original research}} template on several of the other articles on Plato's dialogues, some of which also have sections bizarrely entitled "subtextual interpretation". --Akhilleus (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Granted, it WAS Ugly
Prompted by biting criticism from Mr.Achilles and Mr.Zoosnoose, I've re-phrased the analysis of Charmides. I agree, the original phrase was "hideous." Thanks for pointing it out. But the techniques in Charmides are from Rhetoric 101, and if you don't think it correct, you ought to come up with a better interpretation instead of just hacking mine off. As it is, you fellows want to leave Plato having made no particular point in this dialog. Brenda maverick 22:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- You seem to have missed the main point of the criticism, which is that any interpretation of primary source material must be supported by citations from secondary sources. Please see WP:OR. Statements like "Plato hints powerfully that Socrates' has ulterior (sexual) motives for his double quackery" are original research, unless you can demonstrate that this view has been published in a reliable source. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Achilles, I am trying not to be willfully thickheaded, and I bet that I speak for you as well. We might omit that particular sentence, but leave the rest. The Greeks were masters at rhetoric, and to depict Plato as having no particular point to make, that is what it is to misrepresent his genius. Give me a little time to relocate an article published by a Harvard classicist in 1920 called "Comedy in Plato." Will ya? Brenda maverick 02:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't deleted anything in that section, but unless it can all be supported by secondary scholarship, I think it should be. Plato obviously has a point, otherwise his work wouldn't be around, but the point is that the article needs to represent what secondary sources say about his philosophy, rather than making stuff up ourselves. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
