Talk:Iole

Comments

What does that image have to do with this article?? J. Van Meter 02:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find any source that supported some of the information here (like that Iole was Heracles' concubine) so I replaced it with information from Apollodorus. If anyone finds more reputable information that conflicts they can add it of course - as long as it has an ancient source :) Verloren Hoop (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Reading Sophocles' Women of Trachis might help. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Problems with this article

This article has been recently expanded, but the content that's been added is not very informative. Iole is a minor figure in Greek mythology, and probably doesn't require this level of detail. But certainly, if the article is going to give detailed accounts of ancient myths, and say that there are different versions of said myths, we need references to ancient primary sources, and it needs to be made clear if the narrative is relying on Sophocles, Apollodorus, or whomever. The vagueness of the current article helps no one--it says things like "According to one late Classical version of the tale, the king of Oichalia, Eurytus, had a young daughter that was quite beautiful, eligible for marriage..." but never tells us which late classical version it's referring to. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of the inline Classical sources provided are Seneca Tragedies translated by Frank Justus Miller; The Myths of Hyginus, translated by Mary Grant; Apollodorus The Library translated by Sir James George Frazer; Ovid Heroides ix.73-134 /Metamorphoses 9; and Apollodorus Bibliotece. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think this is a good illustration of the problem. Which of Seneca's tragedies are we talking about? Why does Apollodorus appear twice, when the Bibliotheke is the same work the Library? And why have these all been synthesized into a single version of the myth, when different authors have different takes on how Iole fits into Heracles' life? And why is all this detail here, anyway, when it appears to belong in Heracles, or possibly Deianeira? --Akhilleus (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Seneca's inline reference # 2 is SENECA, HERCULES OETAEUS. Apollodorus inline reference # 1 gives a brief mytheme of the Iole tale. The other Apollodorus references are for the details. The general mytheme of Iole is the competition for the royal daughter (archer contest), the broken promise of Eurytus (disqualified Heracles), Heracles justification for revenge (won fair and square), the jealousy of Deianira (concubine Iole), and the madness of Heracles (killing his first family, murdering Eurytus plus sons, and razing Oichalia) PLUS Tunic of Nessus of the accidental poisoning of shirt PLUS Heracles dressing like a woman and doing women duties. There are images in the article to illustrate most of these points. This seems to be the general picture with all the ancient sources. There are slightly different takes on this from the various ancient sources, however these are the general ideas. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That's some progress, Doug, but the current version of the article is completely unclear about which details are coming from which sources. You're trying to synthesize several different authors into a single version of the myth--sadly, this is something that many myth handbooks do, but we shouldn't do it at Wikipedia.

Anyway, why should there be so much detail here, when the major characters in this myth are Heracles and Deianeira? This myth is not really about Iole, at all. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There is an inline reference on almost every line which shows what detail is referenced to what source. In some instances some lines are referenced with several references since the same information is at those sources. Some information is a little different and so have different ancient sources. The central character of the article is Iole and what comes to mind here is a Judge Judy line she uses often: ...but for the fact that...

• But for the fact that Heracles fell in love with Iole first we would not have the tales of Tunic of Nessus, Deianira and Lichas
• But for the fact that Eurytus disqualified Heracles in the archer contest to win Iole, we wouldn’t have the tale of Heracles coming back to Oichalia in revenge.
• But for the fact that Deianira was jealous of Iole that we have the Tunic of Nessus tale that kills Heracles.
• But for the fact that Deianira accidently poisoned her husband because of the jealousy of Iole that she kills herself.
• But for the fact that Heracles loved his concubine Iole that he asked that his eldest son, Hyllus, to marry her when he was dying.

The article story centers around Iole with Deianira's jealousy of Iole developing the story of the Tunic of Nessus. Also in Other Versions Ovid shows Iole's ruse making Heracles dress like a woman and she is dressed like Hercules was in Phrygia. She is having her revenge against him for killing her father and brothers. Iole has conquered Heracles. Ovid goes on to say Putting aside the name of concubine, she will be wife. Iole, daughter of Eurytus, and Hercules of Boeotia. Will be joined with disgraceful bonds by an infamous Hymen.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Doug, you have a pattern of what Wikipedia refers to as coatrack articles--you take material that belongs at one article and place it in another. Patres conscripti and birthday of Alpinism come to mind. There's no doubt that there should be an article on Iole, but this story is about Heracles; Iole is a minor (and badly mistreated) character in this drama.

And yes, you've inserted plenty of inline references in this article, but that is not the best way of presenting this information. We need to have clearly separated treatments of how Sophocles, Apollodorus, and Seneca treat her (and whatever other classical authors mention her). Not all mashed together, as they seem to be now. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. Normally inline references are a good thing, but this article has been overloaded with them. It really needs to begin with a summary of one account of Iole, such as that by Apollodorus, and then other accounts of her, if different, can be explained. Singinglemon (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"According to the mytheme of the Classical tale..."

I've tagged this phrase with a "which?" template, because it appears to be a reference to a specific version of the story, but the sentence never tells us which one. There's also a problem with the use of the word "mytheme", which are supposed to be elements from which a mythological story is made up--but this sentence seems to be using it to mean the entire myth. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

In this sentence by itself one part talks of the beautiful Iole. This is in source # 2. Another part of this sentence of the king of Oichalia having a daughter eligible for marriage is source # 4. Both are inline references at the end of the sentence.

• 2 - For when her captive rival’s beauty was revealed, and Iole shone like the unclouded day or a bright star in the clear night glittering...
• 4 - The king of Oichalia had offered his daughter Iole in marriage...

Structure and Grammar

"Eurytus years earlier had taught Heracles to become an archer.[3]" This sentence appears at the end of the paragraph concerning the archery contest as if someone is telling a joke and forgot to mention a crucial fact until after the punch line. It sounds like a stream of consciousness rather than a well-thought out treatise.

"When the king seen it was Heracles winning,..." Seen it?! Who is writing this?! How can this be a Did You Know article? This is atrocious. Kwyjibear (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the latter sentence, but I'm sure there are more copyediting issues that remain. As I have indicated above, the substance of the article is a deeper concern. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Akhilleus for the better grammer. I believe ""realized" is better wording than "seen" - which is what I meant to say. In the Random House Thesaurus the word "see" can also mean perceive, apprehend, grasp, "be cognizant of", "be aware of" and realize. Your wording is better however. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Eurytus years earlier had taught Heracles to become an archer.[3]" - shows the irony here. Since Eurytus taught Heracles archery one would think that Eurytus would be the better archer, however Heracles scores higher. A great archer, he taught Heracles to use the bow. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Apollodorus seems to give us the most complete story followed by slight variations of his from Seneca and Ovid. Other ancient sources (i.e. Diodorus Siculus, Gaius Julius Hyginus) have similar information on Iole with additional variations.

I quote this as it stands; it is ungrammatical, diffuse, and uninformative. (It also indicates a fundamental procedural error of confounding the mythographers with literary treatments - and it omits Sophocles. But that is another set of howlers altogether. ) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Other versions"

I'm a bit confused by this section. We have what appears to be a series of quotes from Ovid Heroides 9, and each is said to be from "another version". But they're all from the same work, aren't they? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Corrected wording to show it is Ovid Heroides 9. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Good article

Thanks Akhilleus for making the major edits and contributions to help bring this up to a potential Good article status. If you see any other improvements that can be made to get it to a Wikipedia Good article please give me some additional pointers or edit accordingly to improve the article since you have more knowledge on Greek mythology than I do. Perhaps you know of others that might be interested in improving the quality of the article. In any case, thanks again for your major contributions to improve the article. Do appreciate it.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't made many edits to this article yet (certainly no major ones) but I hope to do so when I've had a chance to do a little more research. I would love for this article to become a GA, and I'd be glad to work with you towards that goal. At the moment, though, I don't think it's a GA--maybe we can get it there quickly.

A good place to get some help on classical mythology articles is wikiproject classical Greece and Rome. It's not a very active project, but a message there usually gets one or two people to look at the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the hints. After you have done the research, perhaps you can show me better the separated treatments of how Sophocles, Apollodorus, and Seneca treat her. We will work together to get this to GA quickly. Where I found much of this ancient source information on Apollodorus, Seneca, and Ovid was at this site. Perhaps that will help in your research - anyway it will be a good start. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

• • lead should include Heracles and Iole's story in a little more detail. about she being an indirect cause of his death. her husband and son.
    • put additional on lead
  • violation of WP:LAYOUT: Images - text sandwiched between imgs, imgs not spread out (Reduce imgs)
    • reduced images to a minimum plus spread out more

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Good work on sourcing but avoid oversourcing. 1 ref per sentence, 1 ref for the whole para is OK, if each sentence is attributed to the same ref.

• reduced references to a minimum

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

• • son Cleodaeus, siblings, mother not discussed
    • added information on Cleodaeus, siblings, and mother
  • the focus should be Iole, not Heracles or Deianera, their story can be curtained. Also the story of centaur Nessus.
    • focused more on Iole and curtailed Heracles and Deianera and Nessus

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

4. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   All the best improving the article.

• Too many quotes in Other versions section; merge as text. For (looks like wikiquote) policy, see WP:QUOTE.

• reduced quotes to a minimum

• Winning Iole in a contest covers more than what it's title says. Please rename appropriately.

• changed heading to reflect what the section is about

• Maintain consistency in spellings, 3 versions Deianera, Deianira, Deianeira are found. Just choose 1

• made one spelling

• A rewrite considering WP:QUOTE policy and WP:UNDUE is needed, with additional info about family.

• copyedited accordingly

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• replies to review. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Plutarch

Parallel Lives of Iole and Clusia: An exact citation, please, for this figment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be Pseudo-Plutarch. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Took out the Plutarch items that seem to be in dispute. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not helpful. When described for what it is, not the Parallel Lives, it's a useful reference. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources

• Graves, §§144, 145, 146.
  • Ath. xi 461
  • Ps. Apol. ii 7 7
  • Ps. Plut. Fab. Par. 13(Nicias of Mallus)
  • Hyg. 35, 36
  • Hom. Β 596, 730, φ 13-14
  • Serv. apud viii 291
  • Str. ix 5 17, x 1 10, 18; ix 40,10
  • AL 4, 33 (Pherecydes)
  • Paus. iv 2.2, 3.6, 33.5f, 27.4
  • DS iv 38f
  • Pl. NH xxv 21
  • Soph. Trach. 44-5, 283 ff, 460-751, 912-fin
  • Ov, 9, 155 ff
• Graves' theory, which we should mention, rather than adopting, is iconotropy of an image of the Great Goddess, in full Minoan skirt, hovering over Oechalia, which he translates as "house of bread". If this is oikos + halis, it is unsound in meaning and formation, but better than most of Graves' Greek.
• He argues that the legend as we have it is physically possible, saying that his father saw an example. There is (another?) off one of the bridges of Bristol; this may be interesting enough to include.
• The last Strabo is Hyllus marrying Iole; Graves calls this the tanist marrying the queen. He does not explain why the goddess isn't Deianeira (and he also calls Poeas, or Philoctetes, who lit the pyre, the tanist.)

• Brill'sche Pauly
  • Hes. Cat. fr. 26,31a
  • Apollod. 2,6,1-3; Diod. Sic. 4,31,37
  • Bacch. 16
  • Creophylus, Capture of Oechalia, EpGF
  • Panyassis of Halicarnassus, Heraclea."

Shouldn't the Graves source and above reference material be put into the article? --74.219.90.114 (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by user who has never consulted this standard source

• Don't understand what the issue is for Graves 144, 145, 146 from the unsigned editor. Where is this referenced and what is this concerning?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Expanding article

Concerning the "Expand" template - isn't it assumed already that short articles probably should be expanded by others that would have knowledge on the subject? There doesn't seems to be anything in particular asked for in any section. What specifically should be expanded, so that the template is no longer needed? If the editor that entered the template has additional specific information on the subject they are interested in or a specific section - why not enter it to make the section complete. If there isn't anything specific, then I assume the template isn't necessary. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No; some articles contain all the available information, or as much as will conveniently fit in an article. This one, however, is an incompetent wsaste of space which will need to be rewritten from real sources as soon as possible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Where did the expand template come from, anyway? I think there's a good argument to be made for contracting this article. As I've already said, Iole is a minor character in these stories, and I imagine they're covered (or at least should be) at articles like Deianeira, Heracles, Sack of Oechalia, etc. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The matter of Oechalia should be here, or possibly there; notice that neither that article nor the Sack exists. But what I meant by the tag was that this article should mention Sophocles at least as much as Ovid. I suppose there are two ways to do that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed tag since apparently there isn't additional material about Iole in Sophocles that isn't already referenced by Ovid. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, there may well be nothing in Ovid which isn't derived from Sophocles; but any article on this subject which doesn't mention the 'Trachinae is incomplete. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Put in the parts of the play that pertain to Iole. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Doug, have you any idea why the extensive quoting of primary sources is discouraged? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Then read WP:PRIMARY. We are not an indiscrimate heap of cut-and-paste quotes (that's the Web, which we are trying to improve upon). Civilized editors have other reasons not to pass off Jebb's fin-de-siecle prose as Sophocles, if only so that somebody will read the article (not to mention fairness to the poor man); but all we should do here is describe literary uses of Iole. That's one paragraph for Sophocles, another for Ovid. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• hello all. i'm who added women of trachis as a 'see also' in this article a while back. i was a bit startled by the lack of even a mention of sophocles in the opening section, but it seemed as if there was a major overhaul in process, so i figured the intro would come around. it hasn't yet- come around that is - at least in terms of referencing sophocles. basically though, i agree with user:Pmanderson in thinking the recently added trachiniae excerpts don't belong here. if the consensus is that they do belong, at minimum the "later on in the play" type of headings should be replaced by the precise line numbers. but there must be a better way to make use, in this article, of the material in the play. J. Van Meter (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Not for a couple of days; I won't have time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that the primary source quotes should not be there and have removed them - replaced with a synopsis of Ovid and Sophocles. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 10:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Iole/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   It is a little confusion where the first section—by Apollodorus—actually comes from. Without careful reading, the reader must revert back to the lead to find who's tale this is. I would recommend something the likes of: "According to Apollodorus, ... " The lead is a bit dubious, in part because it mentions matters that are not taken up later in the article (such as the family relations of Iole, and additional, non-mentioned sources), and the lead also is written with too short paragraphs (at current length should be one paragraph). Take the content from lead and make at least a paragraph per sentence (if others mention her, how do their tales differ etc).

Revision as of 17:39, 11 September 2008 was copyedited with the paragraphs expanded. Also the wording "According to the classical tale by Apollodorus" was added to show from what viewpoint the story is coming from. Also added was "There are different versions of the mythology of Iole from many ancient sources. Apollodorus seems to give us the most complete story followed by slight variations of his from Seneca." Also was added "Apollodorus says one..." to show this version is generally from Appollodorus' view.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There is no inline reference for the sources from Ovid and Sophocles.

Revision as of 18:02, 11 September 2008 there was inline references added for Seneca. There is also inline references for the sources from Ovid and Sophocles.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This article deals explicitly about Iole as a member of a plot. There is not attempted to discern any academic theories surrounding her, nor to what degree she has been depicted later as a figure in other culture or society (of course I don't want to see a list "in popular culture" or anything like that, but surly she must symbolize something). The to-do list is also a bit striking, as it points out several areas the article does not cover. There is obviously more to work on in this article.

There were additional edits made by several others between Revision as of 15:58, 11 September 2008 and Current revision as of 22:57, 11 September 2008.

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   External links in captions? The MoS says nothing about this, so I have to let it go, but I would rather discourage it (use a reference instead). The article should aways start with an image in the upper, right corner. Please move one of them there.

Revision as of 15:58, 11 September 2008 a different image was added with a different caption.

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Putting on hold. There are issues that need working on, in particular to covering aspects such as theories, including more sources. There are also some breaches with the MoS that need fixing before this article can be passed, including instances of lack of references. There is a fair amount of work until this passes GA, but the article is out for a very good start—and is well written—so a GA is well within reach with a little effort. Good luck, and don't hesitate to comment or ask for advice if needed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 14:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

   A week has now passed since review, and no work has been done. I react to the way this article has gone to renomination for GA without the proper work being done, and after a new review of the article noone bothers to fix up the fairly straightforward fixes (that I cannot do because I am not an expert on the topic). So please be more active the next time you file for GA, so as not to waste other peoples time. There are a lot of other important tasks to attend to on Wikipedia. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Above is remarked comments with various good faith edit improvements made between the time of the GA # 2 review on 14:17, 11 September 2008 and reply 19:10, 18 September 2008. Other work will be done in the future to perhaps bring this to a GA status someday. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Image change

i've replaced the image at the top of the page because according to the entry here, the painting is a depiction of Omphale and not Iole. J. Van Meter (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iole. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720034913/http://press.princeton.edu/books/lyons/appendix.html to http://press.princeton.edu/books/lyons/appendix.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iole. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820093121/http://english.edgewood.edu/heroides/hero09.htm to http://english.edgewood.edu/heroides/hero09.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)