Talk:Odyssey/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Peisistratus

The link to Peisistratus gives the page on the Athenian tyrant. Clearly this is the wrong Peisistratus, but I don't know which is the right one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.221.101 (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

B.C. changed to B.C.E.

I changed circa ... BC to BCE "B.C.E./C.E. ... do not presuppose faith in Christ and hence are more appropriate for interfaith dialog than the conventional B.C./A.D." Seems more fitting for an encyclopedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aka khan (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia accepts both systems. WP:DATE is the applicable guideline. WP:DATE also tells us to stay with whatever system was used first, which in this article seems to be BC/AD. So let's stick with that. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't BCE be more appropriate, as the story deals with gods of a different faith? Bit like using AD/BC in an article on Hinduism or something. Just seems odd. 212.108.17.165 15:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's more of an academic standard of practice than an affirmation of faith. I personally use B.C.E. and C.E. in my writings, but please realize that the 'Christ' and 'Domini' of BC and AD are empty signifiers by now. CaveatLector^Talk 21:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Best to avoid any risk of running afowl of a religious group by using the secular equivelent though. Icarus'sNewBag (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If the academic world is going to shun BC and AD, then in my opinion, we should come up with a new year system altogether. Especially since we have these stupid months named after Augustus and Julius Caesar. The whole system is crazy. We should have stuck with the Mayan calendar :-)

--Telemachusroxmysox Tu es nemo!

B.C.E./C.E. will be the standard for the future. It's really not appropriate in this article to use the Christian references.

Dick Scalper (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Plot outline

The book numbers should be discreetly restored. There is still no mention in the article of the famous episode called Nekyia that is book 11. --Wetman 06:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As a start, I put in cross-references between this article and Nekyia. Yes, what would be the "discreet" way to add the book numbers? Perhaps in bold (Book 2.) but without breaking up the text? The present outline is relatively short, so to divide it into 24 separately-headed sections would not be very "discreet". Andrew Dalby 12:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Bard

i thought the old version explained how wandering bards would sing. this version just calls Homer by the two more precise terms. i would contest that bard, though introduced by the celtic tradition, is the generic term in English for any such singing wordsmith. The Jackal God 15:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's true that some people use the word in that way; the problem arose (in my mind) because, when you follow the link to bard, you find no support for that usage. It's about Celtic bards alone. If reverting, to be helpful to the user, I think you'd have to take out the link to bard or edit that article.

Some who write about Homer (including me) don't use the word "bard", or other culturally specific terms, because they carry baggage. Celtic bards (a) had a training that is described in detail in the sources, and (b) didn't mainly or normally compose epic poetry. They aren't wholly comparable either with epic singers in general, or with archaic Greek ones in particular. I (and some others) use the word "singer", and one could use it here -- I was trying to be more helpful, making a couple of links which would indicate what these singers may have been. Andrew Dalby 16:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a further problem, which was why I found myself rewriting some more words. The poem is far too long to have been originally composed at an oral performance. Andrew Dalby 16:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with using the word "bard", but I think it's more helpful to direct readers to aoidos. As Andrew points out, archaic Greek epic was (probably) composed in a different way than Irish/Celtic poetry, and the subject is complex enough that it should be covered at Homer or in a separate article (maybe aoidos), since it concerns not just the Odyssey but the Iliad, and is of some interest in relation to the Theogony and other archaic poetry. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

maybe use the word bard but have it linked to the article on aoidos. use of the word bard does not imply any relation to celtic or irish poetry. the wiki entry on bard is marginal and lacking. as for the length of poem compromising a performance, that is non sequiter. bards didn't recite it all at one sitting, but over the course of several days. the earlier version alluded to that, at least in my mind, lol. The Jackal God 17:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It is only at a much later period that there is evidence for "recital over several days"; "recital" in itself implies that a fixed text already exists. As I see it, the sentence is talking about the origin of that text. Andrew Dalby 13:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

then don't use the word "recital"? the version i learned is that there were a number of wandering bards (Homer was neither the first or sole one) telling these stories known from myths. Homer didn't invent the myths he sang about; rather, it was the way in which he recited them. so yes, there was a body of oral work before Homer, which he made use of and adapted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Jackal God (talk • contribs).

That may well be true. But the article's about the Odyssey, a text we can read in writing, and the question that particular sentence has to deal with -- by all means have another stab at it -- is how the text was composed. Andrew Dalby 16:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

it is relevant to the school of thought that determines authorship of a work according to the person who composed it, not the one who turned an oral work into a graphic work. the odyssey existed orally before it existed graphically. i noticed the sly little argument under aoidos that follows another route, perhaps mistakenly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Jackal God (talk • contribs)

Yes, perhaps mistakenly. I wish we knew! But why do you say sly? Andrew Dalby 20:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

it attempts to redefine the parameters of the debate. frankly it smells like desperate skepticism, or skepticism, part II, but i do appreciate the craftiness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Jackal God (talk • contribs).

Jackal, could you please sign your posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ That will automatically convert to a signature with a timestamp. Signing your posts makes discussions much easier to follow. I love cody with all of my heart and he is the one for me no matter what anyone thinks. together forever will the two of us be you have to understand i have never felt this way befor and he just makes everything ok. its a brilliant feeling really to have someone to hold and be there for and cherish. he makes my heart feel warm and its beautiful it really is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.0.218 (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I don't really understand what you're saying: are you accusing Andrew of writing the article in an underhanded manner? Are there important sources you feel are being left out? I don't really get the drift of your remarks. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

no i'm not accusing andrew of any indecency, and sorry about the tildes, working on that. i just stated a preference for the word "bard" and dismissed the reasons for not using it. as for the "sly argument" that is in reference to another talk page referenced here, which end which a conjectural conclusion that it states is undisputedly true. The Jackal God 01:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. I think that very little in archaic Greek literary history is undisputedly true. I try not to be sly or crafty, but of course I have opinions, like others, and they may emerge in what I write. Luckily Wikipedia allows others to correct them! I have suggested, over at Talk:Aoidos, some changes to subheading or text or references that might resolve this particular problem. Andrew Dalby 13:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC) again, i didn't in any way mean to insult you, i was referring to the structure of the argument, that is all. i respect your contributions and opinions. The Jackal God 17:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Additional derivative works

• The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes discusses self-awareness in the Odyssey that is absent in the Iliad.

• Homer's Daughter by Robert Graves retells the Odyssey from the perspective of Nausicaa, a suggestion of Samuel Butler. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.159.149.162 (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Jaynes' book is not really a derivative work. It's a secondary source, whereas things like Homer's Daughter are works of art that are inspired by the Odyssey. In my opinion, the Jaynes book is not worth including in the article. While it garnered a bit of publicity when it came out, it hasn't been very influential on subsequent Homeric scholarship--for instance, it is not cited in Morris & Powell's New Companion to Homer. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• I feel the television series and books 'Odysseus: The Greatest Hero Of Them All' deserves a mention. This was a spin-off of thildren's programme Jackanory in which Tony Robinson tells a version of Odysseus' adventures re-written by himself and Richard Curtis for children. The narration and chgaracters were all preformed by Robinson in real locations. Their version of the story was also released as an audio book and published as 2 print books:[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.50.125 (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The television & movie versions will stop people from ever reading The Odyssey.

Dick Scalper (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning?

A 2000 year old classic epic poem should not have a spoiler warning. No other encyclopedia has spoiler warnings on the Odyssey. Besides one can reasonably assume a section titled "synopsis" will give details of the story. A spoiler warning for works like these make Wikipedia articles seem silly

This has been discussed several times, both on this talk page and at Talk:Spoiler warning or someplace like that, and consensus is that classical works of literature (by which I mean ancient Greek and Roman literature) don't need spoiler warnings. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoil? the Odyssey? I don't see how you could even do that. Everyone who is anyone knows how it ends. I read it for sixth grade advanced english for goodness sake. **Telemacusroxmysox

GA failure

This page has been failed for GA for a complete lack of references. There are reams of scholarship on the Odyssey. Where is it? Why doesn't the page rely on it to structure its descriptions of the Odyssey's themes, etc.? The editors of this page need to spend a lot of time in the library reading about the Odyssey; then they can begin writing this page. Awadewit ^Talk 23:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Hi everyone, I have been trying to add my website to the external links page, because it offers a free E-book full text translation of the Odyssey, yet every time it has been taken down and reguarded as spam. Seeing as how this link is fully relevent to the article, and a great study guide for students, does anyone have any information for me on how i could keep this link up? The link I have been using is: http://www.richerresourcespublications.com/E-Books/Odyssey/Odyssey_e-book_link.htm and the full text is accessed by clicking on the book cover. Any help would be greatly appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.176.122 (talk) 19:19:46, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

This link is spam--the site is selling e-books (for $24.95!), and shouldn't be added. There are plenty of free translations available on the web, and we should only link to those that are non-commercial. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I will take down the shopping cart on that page, but the link IS to a free online e-book. Nothing must be payed in order to access it, there are no prerequisites to reading it, just click on the cover and use it. It is a very good translation, done by Ian Johnston, and I think it should be available to all. WNPR did a segment on it, and their classics critic loved it. It is a disservice to remove this from the site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.176.122 (talk) 19:44:41, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who's been reverting what I deemed linkspam (both here and at Antigone, Oedipus the King, and Iliad). See User talk:Crowe537 for my original spam warning (which I had to repeat at multiple anonymous IP pages). I'll repeat here what I told this editor on my talk page: "I believe the spam warnings I posted raise some important points you're not addressing. First, any Wikipedia account (or anonymous IP) being used solely to promote the offerings (free or not) of a single website is strongly suspect. More importantly, Ian Johnston makes all his works available on his own website. If any of his work is notable enough to be linked from an encyclopedia article (which might be doubted, given that it's all basically self-published material put on the internet as resources for courses), then the authoritative source (the author's web page) only should be linked, and there is still no reason whatsoever to link to richerresourcespublications.com. This is not an idiosyncratic quest on my part, and in the past I've seen users completely blocked for doing exactly what you're doing. Please stop promoting the richerresourcepublications.com website." To me, the promotional agenda is clear from the fact that the edits always tout the website as a whole, which, as Akhilleus says above, is in the business of making money (quite possibly by selling the creative work of the editor who is adding these links!). Wareh 20:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. I just noticed the editor says above "my website." External links to a website with which the editor is affiliated are always a violation of Wikipedia policy. Wareh 20:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Linking to Johnston's site is just fine; there's no need to link to any mirrors. Additionally, as Wareh pointed out, your website is selling Johnston's work in e-book format, and unless Johnston has given you permission, you are violating his copyright. We're not going to assist you in ripping him off. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Internal co-linking possible? (copied from here)

Hi everyone. Just made a small addition to the "Structure" sub-heading 0f the Odyssey article. I mentioned the fact that the in media res style was later also used by Alexander Pope and, on searching, noticed that, whilst there was an article on his mock-heroic style, there were no references to the equally-common synonynmous label of "mock-epic". Do you consider this important and, if so, is it possible to link the two terms to 'point' to the explicating artucle on mock-heroic? Tamsyn 23:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be in medias res. I think you want to make a link like this: mock-epic. If you click on "mock-epic" there, it will take you to mock-heroic. If you edit this page you'll see the code that makes this work. If that isn't what you meant, please clarify. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Telemachus' Age

Hello everyone. There may be something I'm missing here, but common logic would dictate that if Odysseus left home when Telemachus was one year old, spent 10 years in war and 7 on the island of Calypso, then Telemachus would be 18 years old at the point where the story begins, not 11. 128.32.78.175 16:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Kate

No he'd be 20 - Odysseus also spent one year on Circe's island and various months here and there waiting for a favourable wind. In total he was away twenty years. Timrollpickering 16:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if we factor in non-Homeric tradition Telemachus was born before Odysseus left for the Trojan War, so it's possible he's even older than 20. But I don't really think the epics worry about people's ages--I mean, how old do you think Odysseus and Penelope are? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

My recollection is that Telemachus hasn't been born very long when Odysseus left - certainly it's a key part of the narrative that he has no memory of his father. But other than Telemachus being old enough to both fight and not know Odysseus there's no need for clarity and consistency, which Greek myth is not always known for. Timrollpickering 03:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Article changes

It looks like the second paragraph of this article has been tampered with. I've never edited Wiki before, so I don't know how to fix it. Plus, I don't know enough about the subject to be able to do so.

Really Good article

This is a great article about a great book - bravo - Now I will try to sign this post because I don't know how yet. 134.241.194.66 (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)SqMarlboro

I have news for you - (rhetorical you meaning anybody) typing four tides really works! In case you didn't know?? 134.241.194.66 (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Odyssey-fitz.jpg

Image:Odyssey-fitz.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

the cyclops is a member of the giants with one eye in the middle of there head —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.126.26 (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Textual history

I think the article should discuss the textual history – how has the text come down to us, etc. Bossk-Office (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

dating odysseus' return

Isn't the same as dating the poem. At any rate, there's a huge literature on dating the poem; there's no reason to create a section based on the work of two scientists who have no expertise in ancient Greek poetry, and who themselves say that classical scholars are unlikely to accept the theory: "They concede that scholars of Homer are still not likely to give much credence to the idea." Since this is a marginal view in discussions about the poem's date, I would like to take this section out. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The connection between the eclipse of 1178BCE and the Odyssey is nothing new. In Fred Espenak's eclipse webpage at NASA

( http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhistory/SEhistory.html ) one may find a link to a figure depicting the path of totality: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhistory/SEplot/SE-1177Apr16T.gif In this calculation, the path is far from Ithaka. Therefore, the eclipse is thought to occur at the beginning of the voyage, when the ships are in North Africa. These two authors have made the calculations with the programme "Starry Night Pro", which applies different values for Delta T describing the slowing down of Earth's rotation. So not only "scholars of Homer" are quite uncomfortable with the conclusions. Siffler (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Intro

"The original poem was composed in an oral tradition by an aoidos, perhaps a rhapsode, and was intended more to be sung than read." This does tend to contravene the useful principle in encyclopedia-writing that one ought to describe things using less obscure words than the one you are trying to describe. In general, the intro suffers from being written by people who know a lot about the Odyssey but not much about encyclopedias. Unless anyone strongly objects, I will have a go at redrafting it. Lexo (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Fagles-odyssey.jpg

The image Image:Fagles-odyssey.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary cutoff

That's what I get for assuming that Twinkle will handle an overlong edit summary. The summary should note that this is a consensus built within Classics articles across WP. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 01:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I never understand why people working on a small number of articles can declare that they have a consensus to violate major Wikipedia policies. It doesn't work that way. DreamGuy (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This discussion does not make sense unless we have (what I assume to be the) full edit summary:

Providing external links to listed translations does not violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY and is a consensus built within Classics articles across WP.

It is unclear to me what part of WP:NOTDIRECTORY is being violated by the links to well established etext sites for the subject work. Please let me know what I am missing. To me, its very like linking to a company's main site from the company's article. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The links that DreamGuy removed and CaveatLector restored were to Project Gutenberg and bartleby.com. (See this diff.) I can understand removing bartleby.com, which is ad-supported, but I don't see the rationale for removing Project Gutenberg. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

EL templates?

Can someone tell why this article shows up in Category:External link templates? I can't see it, can it be hidden in some way, or spillage from another included template? MURGH ^disc. 05:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This would be more likely to get an answer at the WP:HELPDESK, so I'll transfer it there. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The Wandering Trojan

Might seen quibbly but I think it's important.

When you write "it is the second—the Iliad being the first—extant work of Western literature." I presume you mean classical literature. If so, where, then, would you place Vergil's "Aeneid"? Tamrhind (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Much later - perhaps not even third. Tedickey (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"extant" means "surviving". So Vergil is about the 1500th or so--he was in the 1st century BC, and there were perhaps 6 centuries of written Greek literature before then, and several centuries of Latin. A lot is missing, but there's still plenty left! --Akhilleus (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

hmm - I knew "extant", but was thinking of works dealing with the Trojan Wars, and didn't respond to the question directly Tedickey (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Tyrant/Dictator

I changed 'dictator' to 'tyrant' as a description of Peisistratos. While the terms are more or less interchangeable in Modern English, for the Ancient Greeks tyrant meant something specific, and different from dictator. - JPL 209.252.104.131 (talk) 05:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of nemesis

The analogy is strained in more than one respect, since Odysseus' nemesis was Poseidon, not the Cyclops Tedickey (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Something's backwards here.

Why does the Odysseus article treat the Odyssey more fully than this article? Ifnkovhg (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Odysseus is far, far too detailed, in my opinion. It isn't supposed to be Coles Notes. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Xenia?

The "Xenia" section is both structurally and substantively sketchy. It doesn't seem to deserve it's own section, nor is it clear why its content ought be included at all in the article. Scholars have derived thousands of ideas and terms from The Odyssey. Why is this the only one that gets this attention? Furste (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm moving the section here. It seems very random, and might profitably stay on the talk page until we can better contextualise it.

Xenia

One of the major themes of the Odyssey, and a matter the book frequently refers to, is the Greek idea of xenia (hospitality). For example, in book nine, Odysseus says to Polyphemus the cyclops; "but we on the other hand come reaching to your knees in the hope that you will provide us with a gift of hospitality... as it is right of strangers to do. But, best of men, beware the gods; we come as suppliants to you, Zeus is the avenger of both suppliants and strangers, the god of guests, he who walks the same footsteps as venerable guest-friends."

--Quadalpha (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ionia

"in Ionia, the then Greek-controlled coastal region of what is now Turkey.[1]" I'm not an expert, but I thought that the Ionian sea is on the eastern side of Greece. It strikes me that either Ionia or Turkey could need checking.

The two are separate places and in Greek have slightly separate names (the distinction is clearer in Ancient Greek). The sea and islands are Ιόνια, the region is Ιωνία. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

"Homer's Odyssey"

The hatnote at the top of this page is not there arbitrarily. Homer's Odyssey, as you can see, is a redirect to this page, and is the direct title of this episode. Your claim that "no one will come here looking for a cartoon episode" is a bad assumption: I got here looking for the episode of The Simpsons, and previously there was no way to find it. I had to go to List of The Simpsons episodes and look up the episode manually. The fact that it is a cartoon makes no difference to whether or not the hatnote belongs; the title is a redirect, so unless Homer's Odyssey (The Simpsons) is moved to Homer's Odyssey, the hatnote needs to be there for those who came here looking for the episode. --✶♏✶ 07:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Since your intended use is not the usual sense, it should be added to the disambiguation page Tedickey (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Which dab page? I have to agree with the OP on this one. The redirect leads here, so a hatnote is indicated. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Clarityfiend. As far as I can tell, the consensus hatnotes is that if the exact name of Topic A is a redirect to Topic B, then the page on Topic B must have a hatnote to the page on Topic A, unless there are many things with the same exact name, in which case it goes on a dab page. In this case, the dab page is for things with the exact name Odyssey. Nothing has the exact name Homer's Odyssey except for the episode and this page, so no dab page should be used, and it should not be on the Odyssey dab page, which is counter-intuitive. --✶♏✶ 03:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on hatnote

I believe this page should have a hatnote leading to the article Homer's Odyssey (The Simpsons) because Homer's Odyssey, the exact title of the episode, is a redirect to this page. I further think the episode should not be on the disambiguation page because it is not, nor has it ever been, referred to as "Odyssey", "the Odyssey", or "an Odyssey": it's called "Homer's Odyssey", which redirects to here.

Tedickey disagrees, on the grounds that (in his own words):

• "[N]o one would come to this topic looking for a cartoon episode" (from an edit summary reverting the addition of the hatnote)
• "Since your intended use is not the usual sense, it should be added to the disambiguation page"
• "Looks like you're arguing that simply because it's relatively non-notable, it (the cartoon) needs promotional edits to guide the viewer."

I would appreciate input on this matter. --✶♏✶ 05:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a useful way to proceed would be to eliminate the places that link to Homer's Odyssey which are unrelated to this topic. Then you'd only have the comment that a search result can be confusing. Tedickey (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I found (aside from talk-page links which we shouldn't bother with) 9 topics which were incorrect. I pointed those to the cartoon. Tedickey (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Some people will search for the episode, especially since a lot more people have seen the show than have read the Odyssey. Therefore, since the title redirects here, there should be a hatnote (sort of per WP:HAT#Two articles with similar titles). As the OP has pointed out, that is the de facto standard, used so often it has its own template. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think referring to the episode on the disambig page is sufficient (and indeed, is currently in place). It is perfectly reasonable to use the disambig page as disambiguation for both "The Odyssey" and "Homer's Odyssey" when one redirects to the other. gnfnrf (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed examples for disambiguation pages like that; they're not uncommon. Confusion with search results versus topic names is an ongoing issue that depends partly on the browser. I have to override the browser frequently, to force it to show search results rather than a topic name. Tedickey (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

So currently, we've got two for and two against the hatnote. I'm not seeing much consensus either way. To be honest, I do think policy supports my opinion, and I haven't seen the people who don't want a hatnote give any policy references. If a greater consensus emerges that a hatnote should not be there, or if it can be demonstrated that WP policy supports the link being on the disambiguation page, I will gladly sit down and shut up, but right now it seems there is a deadlock and neither of those things have happened...

The discussion doesn't seem to be attracting a lot of attention. Having already filed an RFC, is there any other way to get more eyes on this page so that a general consensus can be formed? I would like more opinions than just the split vote of four people, but I don't want to appear to be canvassing. --✶♏✶ 11:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The last paragraph of Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Is there a primary topic? appears to apply to this case. Tedickey (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that applies here. No one is disputing that this article is the primary Homer's Odyssey. That's why the redirect comes here.

I want you to consider the Simpsons fan who, knowing the episode title, types it in and gets sent here. How will that fan know where to go? Eventually, he or she may figure out to go to The Simpsons and then to List of The Simpsons episodes, or try going to Odyssey (disambiguation), but why make things difficult? (I'm also a bit dubious about having the other article on the dab page, per WP:DAB#Partial title matches. The episode is not called "Odyssey".) Clarityfiend (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

My take is that since the exact title redirects here then it's only right that a hatnote pointing to the episode title is there for readers to follow. Disambiguating Odyssey is one thing, there are only two things referred to as Homer's Odyssey, one is given priority (fair enough) the other is on the arse-end of a dirty great list of things which aren't called Homer's Odyssey. It seems dismissive to take the redirect without even acknowledging what the other target could have been. Someoneanother 03:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of changing the hatnote, but I though Clarityfiend made a good point above: if I search for the Simpsons episode title, how do I get to the article I want? My solution: don't change the hatnote, change the disambiguation page, so that near the top it says "Homer's Odyssey may also refer to the Simpsons episode." I don't work with disambig pages so I don't know if this meets the style guidelines, but if it doesn't, the guidelines ought to be changed. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This RfC seems to have gone stale but I also agree that a simple redirection hatnote to Homer's Odyssey (The Simpsons) would be the best option and makes the most logical sense. As I interpreted the above commentary, consensus would seem to support this result, so I've gone ahead and done this so that we can close this RfC and move on. -- œ^™ 08:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Really? I don't see any consensus at all in the above discussion. A few people expressed opinions, with rational supporting arguments, on each side. There was a little discussion, and then things died. I still think a link in the disambig page is the better way to do it. On the other hand, I don't think the hatnote is a serious problem or anything; I just don't think we should leave the discussion as if there was consensus for it when I don't think there was. gnfnrf (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Error with Synopsis

"Next Odysseus met the spirit of his own mother, who had died of grief during his long absence; from her, he learned for the first time news of his own household, threatened by the greed of the suitors."

Odysseus learned about the suitors from Tiresias, not his mother. His mother died before the suitors came.

Source: Odyssey Book XI lines 112-152 (Tiresias) and 185-227 (Antikleia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.179.205 (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Odysseus's motivation

As noted in Odysseus#Before the Trojan War, Odysseus did not want to go to the war because he had been warned that he would be away for a long time. But there's no source up front for ten years. Injecting that (ignoring the defective grammar) into the synoposis makes the statement inaccurate. Tedickey (talk) 09:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

What does Odyssey mean in Greek? The article does not say. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I've always assumed it was based on Odysseus' name, and was interpreted as (something like) the story of Odysseus. TEDickey (talk) 11:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite likely, but it would be nice to see the definitive meaning in the article. (I've posted a similar question about at Iliad, which I assumes means something like a "tale of Illium") --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)--Michael C. Price ^talk 11:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Related, googling on the etymology found this tidbit, which hints "wrath" as part of the meaning of his name TEDickey (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

this relates to "scar" (an accident at his birth) TEDickey (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

and here is what appears to be some undergraduate's paper on the topic of his name TEDickey (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

however, it doesn't seem likely that you'll find a definitive answer TEDickey (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It hadn't occured to me that Odysseus itself had a meaning - although that, I can see from the links, is quite an intetesting subject - but rather just how Odyssey related to Odysseus. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"Odyssey" may have some form of meaning around a long distance sea voyage. Recent academic studies published in the Hydrographic Journal have described the navigation techniques of the Pacific Islanders that were rediscovered in the last 15 years or so using Skymap software and details from oral tradition texts recorded in Tahiti by early Western visitors. The navigation by stars instead of by compass was not known to be so accurate until this research. When the navigation technique was applied to the Odyssey it too appeared to be an oral tradition "recorded text" from a far earlier period giving sailing directions and times to the islands in the Atlantic off the African coast. Academics are working on dating for the origin of the text by determining how far back one needs to turn the Skymap clock to simulate exact location descriptions matching the text. This will take some years to complete as translations based on this meaning for the text are required. Applying the techniques to Illiad there are correlations as with Odyssey that "gods" are planets and that various creatures are star patterns. When the text refers to "sleeping with" or "bathed in the ocean" etc... it is referring to watching stars on the setting horizon line. See Dr P Knight et al in the Hydrographic Journal, UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.178.201 (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Not in the third person

The "Themes in the Odyssey" section needs some work.

The second paragraph states "They represent the ideal audience—they sing about the most glorious moment of your life, thus tempting you to stay the hero or warrior they are portraying you as. Your own weakness makes you vulnerable, your greatest weakness comes from inside you.". This section is not in the third person and needs to be fixed.

ICE77 (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Greetings from a stranger

Hello, excellent work here. An interesting article. I just wanted everyone to know, I have been warned not to vandalize here, etc. It is not I who is doing this and I am here to assure you I am not even familiar with the layout of this - it is the 1st time I have visited here. However, this is the 4th time someone has been using my IP.76.195.81.212 (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Jumping back in because I think I see what is occurring. My internet provider fluctuates my IP address - I can check what my IP address presents, but I have no control over it. I see a lot of vandalism has been perpetrated here by a similar IP range to mine, in at least two cases it seems my present IP address caused trouble.

My recommendation is you monitor carefully IP addresses starting with 75. and 76. But as I asked before, do you have no way of checking these out any further? I am not causing any trouble here and think the article is doing well from what little I've read today.76.195.81.212 (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

historical location

Had not the odyssey taken place off the coast of spain? Underwater cities are apparently found there off the coast (usually mistaken for atlantis). As well, persians historically made a prevalent invasion of europe more than a few times via before the roman empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.42.105 (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Reconstructing the voyage

There have been two recent attempts to reconstruct the Odyssey voyage. One such is by the experienced small boat sailor, the late Ernle Bradford in his book "Ulysses Found".

The other was Tim Severin who had a small galley built to test his reconstruction of the voyage.

Although neither can explain every small detail, having lived in and visited several Mediterannean locations, the Bradford version seems the more credible.AT Kunene (talk) 10:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Error in synopsis

There is a mistake in the summary, Telemachus (Odysseus' son) doesn't get beat up in the book, it only happens in a really bad straight to TV movie. Odysseus does get a chair thrown at him thoughSkelllly (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Skellly

Women in the Odyssey

Why are many of the people that Odysseus mets on his travels female? (~~Ric5575~~talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ric5575 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The power of women to control the epic's events is indeed very interesting. It is Athena who moves Zeus to act on behalf of Odysseus to initiate his rescue from Calypso, and to decree peace at the end. Fairly helpless Penelope manages to force the wooers to desist from pestering her for over 4 years. Odysseus is instructed to appeal to Arete for support, not to her husband, the powerful Phaeacian king. Calypso can detain Odysseus for 7 years, and also provide him with the means to leave her. Circe can entrance for one year, and at the end of his detention can give Odysseus crucial aid and information. (Swine are her holy animals, as they are for Demeter and Persephone. Her turning Odysseus comrades into swine is not punishment, but an expression of the power of her bewitchment and how they are beguiled by her; they and Odysseus choose to remain with her for one year.).

Of course, only two of them are mortal; the other three are immortals, and therefore more an expression of the mental processes and emotions of some of the characters, and not "women", so I am not quite sure what is meant by the original question posed by "Ric5575". --Remotelysensed (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

First line/second paragraph

The first line in the second paragraph states: "... his journey home after the fall of Troy." I believe it to be more accurate to state that "... his journey home after the conquest of Troy." Unless this be a variation in the translation, Troy did not "fall" by way of natural disaster or self inflicted demise. It was "conquered".

HENRY9504 (talk) 06:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources generally use "fall" because essentially there was nothing left to be ruled over - the city was gone, the men all killed and the survivors taken away. The dictionary can help TEDickey (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 February 2013

140.247.0.79 (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The link to the wikisource page is incorrect.

Fixed and thanks! Garion96 (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Move?

Odyssey → The Odyssey – This is the most common English translated title. Crazynas ^t 07:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Do you want to include Iliad in this request? --BDD (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

No, Iliad does not appear to have the same problems with disambiguation. Crazynas ^t 20:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. When this poem is mentioned in secondary sources, it's usually called the Odyssey, not The Odyssey. Just take a quick stroll through Google Scholar to convince yourself of this. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
• Question. Is it usually called "Odyssey", or "the Odyssey"? The capitalization in our title is solely because the first letter of every title is capitalized. Apteva (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It's usually called the Odyssey. But "the" is not part of the work's title--that's why you can write "Homer's Odyssey", but not "Homer's The Odyssey". The situation is similar with many ancient works of literature--Euripides' play about Jason's (former) wife is called the Medea, or Euripides' Medea; the Apology, or Plato's Apology, etc. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
    • So it is like the Netherlands, where it is always preceded with the even though the is not a part of the name, but not like The Gambia where the is a part of the name? Apteva (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that's accurate. At least that's how I've always written it. --BDD (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Or like "the Wall Street Journal," "the New York Times," etc. JMatazzoni (WMF) (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Akhilleus.  davidiad { t } 22:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

... and I've unbolded the article in the first sentence. This was changed December 17 and I never noticed, otherwise I would have reverted for the same reasons Akhilleus gives.  davidiad { t } 23:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a note, I support not having it bold in the lead, just that it should be part of the title. Crazynas ^t 20:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

But if the work is referred to as "the Odyssey" in the text of the article, then shouldn't the page title/headword be "Odyssey"?  davidiad { t } 00:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

By the same logic shouldn't Medea (play) start Medea (play) (Ancient Greek: Μήδεια, Mēdeia)? Crazynas ^t 20:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Akhilleus and WP:THE. A similar discussion was once held about the title of the article on the Divine Comedy, with the The-less version getting the nod. Deor (talk) 13:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support (as nom) Per WP:THE

If a word with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same word without the article, the word with article can be used as the name of a page about that meaning, and the word without article can be used as the name of a separate page.

The word odyssey means: "An extended adventurous voyage" (not necessarily the one Odysseus was on). When italicized (witout the article) it can refer to the epic by Homer, however in the vast majority of current English translations the title is 9/10 times The Odyssey. Now, per WP:TITLE

When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles, precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable.

I don't disagree that the title could by our rules be Odyssey however I think that it is more precisely identified with the The in the title. Apology is a disambig page, Medea to the person (not the play). In general my argument is that as an encyclopedia the primary purpose of our titles is to allow readers to find the subject matter they are searching for. 9/10 times when someone searches for "The Odyssey" they are looking for the poem by Homer, when someone types in "Odyssey" there are ~50 things they could be looking for, but needlessly are directed here. Crazynas ^t 20:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Akhilleus. Published translations are often called The Odyssey of Homer too, but that's the publication title of the particular translation, not of the epic itself. You might also find The Aeneid of Vergil or The Medea of Euripides as titles, but surely we're not going to insert a The before all titles of classical works that also refer to something else: The Antigone? I have to reject reasoning that would cause us not to have the same style for both the Odyssey and Iliad. That automatically delegitimates the proposal for me, because it indicates that we're imposing internally generated and arbitrary "rules" instead of serving the subject matter intelligently. Whatever is correct style for one of the two Homeric epics has to be correct style for the other. I don't oppose The as strongly, perhaps, as some of my colleagues, but I find the reasoning specious unless both titles are to be treated the same. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a note that the current pagename of the play by Euripides is Medea (play). Crazynas ^t 20:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That's because Medea is about the mythological character, so the article about Euripides' play needs a different title. There's not a similar situation here; there is no article about the common noun odyssey, nor is there likely to be--this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I know why it is were it is, and there is an article about the common noun odyssey it even has a link to the Wiktionary definition, it provides a place for the many differing proper nouns that odyssey might refer to a space to disambiguate between them, I would have no problem modifying my requested move to Odyssey (epic) if that would suit your preferences better. I suppose if you go by the guideline at WP:DAB my argument is that this article is not the primary topic of the word odyssey, that the DAB page would be a better base page for this word. Crazynas ^t 21:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, we *don't* have a page on the common noun. We have a disambiguation page, but that's not the same thing as an article. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I suppose if you go by the guideline at WP:DAB my argument is that this article is not the primary topic of the word odyssey, that the DAB page would be a better base page for this word. (from above). Crazynas ^t 06:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a misunderstanding of "primary topic", which does not mean "most common word usage". We disambiguate existing article titles. As Akhilleus points out, we don't have an article on the common noun "odyssey": that's a dictionary entry. Besides, I can scarcely think of a better example than the Odyssey to illustrate the guideline that states A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.Cynwolfe (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with accepting the consenus that this page is the primary topic for the word. I was however, concerned that I was being misunderstood (re: question about the Iliad, various arguments about Medea and Divine Comedy etc.) I just thought that moving this page to "The Odyssey" would get rid of the ugly parenthetical on the DAB page, put the epic poem at it's most common translated English title and allow people looking for the other ~50 uses of the word one less click in what they were looking for (at the expense of one more click for the people that both want this page and didn't get it through the current The Odyssey redirect) Kill 3 birds with one stone, so to speak. Crazynas ^t 13:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• In any case, I'm withdrawing the RM as I'm clearly incorrect about my thoughts. Thank you to everyone that participated. Crazynas ^t 13:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The question was worth raising. I'm confused about one thing in your last comment, about people who want this page and don't get it through the current The Odyssey redirect. It looks as if both The odyssey and The Odyssey redirect to the Homeric Odyssey. Just checking what your concern was with that. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, my negative was unclear, I meant (at the expense of one more click for the people that both want this page (about the epic) and came directly to the page by searching for Odyssey not by searching for The Odyssey and arriving at this page through the redirect.) In other words, I was saying the only people my RM would disadvantage are people that search Odyssey not The Odyssey and are looking for the epic poem (since they would have be directed to the DAB page, not this page). Does that clear it up? Crazynas ^t 15:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Akhilleus is right about scholarly usage. You can tell a WP:COMMONNAME more easily by studying how a work is referred to in well-edited publications than by looking on the title pages of translations. Wareh (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Cultural Impact - Addition

Odyssey The Musical (2012) is a musical written by classics undergraduate Khamsina and based on Homer's epic. Staged as a student production at Victoria College, University of Toronto 2013. Due to be staged in the UK 2014 at The Courtyard Theatre, Maidenhead.

Further information at www.odysseythemusical.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.179.243 (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

No objection in principle to mentioning this, but it should cite a review or something from elsewhere than the producers’ own website.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Review from University of Toronto's "The Newspaper" http://www.thenewspaper.ca/the-arts/item/1175-vic-college-presents-musical-take-on-the-odyssey Review from audience members http://www.thumbsuptheatre.com/events/100956972/?eventId=100956972&action=detail — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.179.243 (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The first link is not a third-party source (it's part of the same university); the second link is merely an advertisement TEDickey (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, Khamsina is a classics undergraduate at Royal Holloway University of London, UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.179.243 (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

So you should look for third-party, reliable sources which are relevant to whatever point you're making. So far, the proposed changes appear to promote someone's play, and are not particularly relevant to this topic TEDickey (talk) 08:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The proposed changes were to merely indicate that this musical has been written and subsequently staged. The review from The Newspaper indicating that there was a strong audience reaction and therefore has had some cultural impact. However, if the moderators of this article feel that it is a promotional request then please disregard this proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.179.243 (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no reason to believe the proposal is promotional, but without independent notice it will at least appear so, and anyone who wants to remove it will have the backing of policy. BTW no-one here is a “moderator”: the article has only been protected from anonymous contributions because of frequent vandalism, so can be edited by anyone with a “confirmed” account.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Need to add something about prominence in public buildings, not just it but other Greek Myths... --Fisch1234 (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Synopsis

The synopsis reads unfortunately like a synopsis of the novelisation of a film of the Odyssey. It really needs to be rewritten along the lines of the synopsis in the Iliad article, as a condensation of the poem. --Quadalpha (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Indian Ocean

From an archaeological point of view, the geographical locations of this storee are probablee Egipts Red Sea, the islands of Aden, Sayshells, Deago garcean, and Sri Lanka. Some even suggest that the story may even take in Western Australea and Indonesea. The inscritptian on the wall of the socalled Jerimiahs tomb in Eireann\Ireland suggest that the Emu galaxee was noticed and world mapped in this tomb, and the actual travelers were Irish dwarves\midgets on Egiptian ocean going Fellucas. It is possible that some native greeks were also on this voyage, but it is more probable that it is a handed down storee spanning hundreds of years. This inscriptian is said to date around 600-550BC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.109.44.92 (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

"Western" literature?

Should this sentence be rethought?:

The poem is fundamental to the modern Western canon, and is the second oldest extant work of Western literature, the Iliad being the oldest.

Describing the Homeric poems as the earliest extant works of "Western" literature seems to imply an arbitrary and possibly anachronistic distinction between "Western" and "non-Western" (specifically "Near Eastern"). It suggests that Gilgamesh, to cite the most obvious example, belongs to an entirely unrelated civilizational tradition, even though the article itself cites evidence for the possible influence of Gilgamesh on the Odyssey, and even though the Greek alphabet was clearly derived from "Oriental" models. A possible alternative (although one that may pose issues of its own) is to state that it is the second oldest extant work of "European" literature. 850 C (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

MY RESPONSE

Gilgamesh's relationship to the Odyssey is irrelevant. The Odyssey, whatever tradition it belonged to or was continuing in its own time and place, itself founded a separate and distinct tradition that is Western literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:C100:B9D5:4946:C749:1238:BD05 (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

It's been a while since this was raised, but I don't think this was addressed properly before. I understand your question, but we aren't making an ideological statement here, really, by saying “Western”, because that's just how the criticism/journalism/reliable sources describe it. Imaginestigers (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Western culture is not strictly geographic. Western culture: "Western culture is most strongly influenced by the Greco-Roman and Christian cultures." The Western canon begins with the Homeric stuff because the Homeric stuff is Greek and because it is the oldest extant Greek. Untitled50reg (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Dating?

What on earth is "archaeologically dated" and what is the source for that inexact note? HJJHolm (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Some details can be found here; it seems an appropriate enough statement to me, but I don't think anyone would object to more detail. For the time being, I'll wikilink to the article/section I just referenced here, which should provide some context for those interested. Edit: Woops, it already is linked! Snow talk 23:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Relationships and the Roles of Women

The recent edits don't follow the suggested source, perhaps some other was meant. here is (google cache...) the source TEDickey (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Map of Odisseus' Journey

I've added a map of Odisseus's Journey in the section "Odysseus' account of his adventures". This map describes Odysseus' travel around Mediterraneum, as it is narrated in the chapter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giu.zcc (talk • contribs) 17:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

And I've removed it. No one knows whether the places mentioned in the Odyssey were meant to correspond to real geographical locations, so any map like this would be highly speculative at best. In any case, and more importantly, such a map, not comming from a reliabale source would constitute original reasearch which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Paul August ☎ 18:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok then, I apologize for the inconvenience. There might be a way to improve my work and include it on the page? Maybe a time line without a map would be more appropriate. Obviously still following article Odysseus' account of His adventures. I would appreciate any suggestions. Thanks.--Giu.zcc (talk) 10:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Song

The band Symphony X should get a mention for writing a song based on the Odyssey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.6.153 (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Oral tradition: "most" scholars?

Since the Odyssey predates Greek literacy, are there any scholars who believe it was composed via something other than oral tradition? This line just seems a bit hedged for no good reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:8B01:A543:DC05:A6F4:B771:6493 (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe the qualification (which is actually “many“, if I’m looking at the same passage you are) is intended to apply to all the given details, beyond the mere existence of an oral tradition as substrate, which I think is broadly accepted. There is disagreement about the provenance and transmission of the epics, whether they were anciently coherent or assembled from originally separate elements, stylistic or thematic, and also about the extent of Homer's contributions in terms of creativity or original authorship vs borrowing/adaptation or compilation. See Homeric scholarship for a fuller treatment.—Odysseus1479 21:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Deleted line from header about noteworthy features

It says that noteworthy features of the Odyssey are its non-linear plot, and the influence women and serfs have on the plot.

Noteworthy to whom? No source is cited. This imo was a sneaky PC insertion and nothing more, using the non-linear bit as a battering ram to deliver the rest, and help it seem plausible and non-partisan. Who considers it noteworthy that women and serfs influence the plot? I can guess who - PC liberal activist academics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:C100:B9D5:4946:C749:1238:BD05 (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Polemics aside, I’m inclined to agree with the deletion. The lead is supposed to summarize the body, where I don’t see either theme being addressed at all. And unless it can be properly sourced, having been challenged, the default position should be to remove.—Odysseus1479 03:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Aside from the bit about serfs (there are no serfs in ancient Greece! there are slaves!), this bit is somewhat accurate. It could be a lot better written, though. Non-linear plot--books 9–12 are a flashback, and books 1–4 happen at the same time as books 5-8. Not hard to think about how women influence the plot—Penelope is the prime example, but also Nausicaa, and if goddesses=women, Athena and Circe are others. Slaves who are important are Eumaeus and Eurycleia. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I generally agree, but I don’t think we should be characterizing these features as “noteworthy” (in what context? Greek epics, or all of literature?) without any source, or giving the remark such prominence without a fuller discussion, including adequate citations, in the body. The non-linearity and story-within-story aspects must be pretty well covered in the academic literature. And apart from the major goddesses there are certainly more females here than in the Iliad, often with more depth to them, and likewise lower-class characters, but we need backing from scholarly opinion to avoid WP:OR.—Odysseus1479 02:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Manuscripts

To match the section on editions, surely this article needs a section on the surviving manuscripts. --Pfold (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Major problems with "Dating The Odyssey" section

The "Dating The Odyssey" section seems to quite clearly fall under WP:FRINGE. The whole section seems to treat the events of The Odyssey as though they actually happened historically, which is historically impossible. Although there may be some remote historical basis behind the events described in the poem, that historical basis is impossible for modern scholars to determine; it is buried under centuries of myths and legends. To me, it seems absurd to interpret the events of the poem in such a literalistic manner. The idea of dating the events of The Odyssey on the basis of astronomical observations seems not only patently ludicrous, but downright misguided. I do not know of any mainstream scholars who interpret The Odyssey as a literal, historical account describing actual events. I think that this section should either be deleted entirely or at least significantly reworded to avoid giving the reader the false impression that The Odyssey-as-a-historical-narrative is the prevailing opinion among classical scholars.--Katolophyromai (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I have now gone ahead and deleted the section. I can think of no good reason why it should be kept. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2017

Homer's avoidance of "Meanwhile"

In modern works, we often encounter the usage of the word "meanwhile" to show two parallel happenings. In fact "meanwhile" or "in the mean time" are frequently used by novelists and thriller authors to show simultaneous developments. According to some, Homeric style did not allow for occurrence of simultaneous events. However, near the conclusion of Book 4, we find an usage of "meanwhile'", where while Penelope is witnessing a revelation from an apparition, the Suitors are sailing into the high seas with a plot to murder Telemachus. So, may we assume as a working hypothesis that Homer, for his own narrative convenience, consciously prevented the simultaneous occurrences of major events? Or, is it more convincing to assume that such a form of narration had not yet originated then and probably simultaneous occurrence of crucial events was an alien concept to the Greeks during Homer? The shifting of focus certainly helps Homer build the plot. He returns to Telemachus in Book 15, after leaving him in Book 4. It is also interesting to note that when the focus of narrative shifts, the description of this side always begins at a time after everything of that side has happened. So, essentially, there is no concept of '"meanwhile" here. That is why, only after Athene had safely conducted Telemachus to his destination, does she beg to Zeus to send Hermes for Odysseus's liberation. The question is whether to consider this adjustment or omission of simultaneous occurrences a willful exercise or just an adherence to custom. DAS SOHAM (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2017

Add a Library Widget Above the "External Links" section

Mdanaher (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Done SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 15:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Translations

I don't think it's appropriate that some of the translations are labeled "accurate", especially when the ones designated "accurate" are very debatable, e.g. Rodney Merrill uses the anachronism "sea mile" in line 2 of book 1. Accuracy is fairly subjective... Maybe we could use "foreignizing" or "archaizing" instead. Also we need an addition: Emily wilson's translation is also line-for-line, and that isn't mentioned though that quality of pacing is mentioned for Merrill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilyw2 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Add Tales of Brave Ulysses by Cream 1967 to cultural impacts of the Odyssey

I am not one who has ever been a Wiki editor, but here I note a small omission, Cream's wonderful Tales of Brave Ulysses. "... With tales of brave Ulysses How his naked ears were tortured By the sirens sweetly singing For the sparkling waves are calling you To touch their white laced lips."

Just a suggestion, this small note perhaps belongs in the cultural impacts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.160.219 (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments and questions

1. Sections 6 and 7 are somewhat redundant. Themes and scenes should be combined into single paragraphs.

2. "After a failed piratical raid on Ismaros in the land of the Cicones, Odysseus and his twelve ships were driven off course by storms".

Can somebody explain this excerpt?

3. "he encountered the spirit of Agamemnon, of whose murder he now learned, and Achilles, who told him about the woes of the land of the dead".

What is this about?

4. "Classical scholars, on the other hand, have long realized that the story of the cyclops was originally a Greek folk tale, which existed independently of The Odyssey and which only became embedded in it at a later date."

This statement seems to imply that the Odyssey had an earlier version and it was rewritten into a later one.

Can somebody comment on this?

5. "Later, Agamemnon praises Penelope for not killing Odysseus."

I don't quite follow what this comment is implying.

6. "beings that are close to the gods include the Phaeacians who lived near Cyclopes".

Should the above say "near [the] Cyclopes". As is, it sounds weird (as if Cyclopes is a place).

7. "Some of the other characters that Odysseus encounters are Polyphemus who is the cyclops son of Poseidon; God of Oceans, Circe who is the sorceress daughter of the Sun that turns men into animals, Calypso who is a goddess, and the Laestrygonians who are cannibalistic giants."

It's unclear what "God of Oceans" is doing in the middle of the sentence. Should it be "gods of oceans" or maybe "acquatic gods"? The sentence as a whole should also be reworked.

ICE77 (talk) 22:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggested edit to improve clarity

This statement is likely not written as intended: "But the Odyssey as it exists today was likely not significantly different from the version which exists today." Could someone with edit permissions fix this to say: "But the Odyssey as it exists today was likely not significantly different from the version which was performed in that time," or something similar to fix the redundancy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD87:2A40:D0A0:D077:2104:29F1 (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I cannot refer to the source but I have changed it to "The Odyssey as it exists today is likely not significantly different." Untitled50reg (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

In the second sentence of the section ESCAPE TO THE PHAECIANS, there is some confusing wording. "In the course of his seven years in captivity on Ogygia, the island of Calypso, she has fallen deeply in love with him, even though he has consistently spurned her offer of immortality as her husband and still mourns for home." For someone unacquainted with the Odyssey, this sentence can seem confusing, because it starts out talking about a place and rather abruptly changes to talking about a person (a female). I suggest that the word "home" be added after the word "island" to make it clear that Calypso is a person who lives on the island of Ogygia. Dave McDonald (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

As I see it now, such second sentence says: "In the course of his seven years in captivity of Calypso on the island of Ogygia, she has fallen deeply in love with him, even though he has consistently spurned her offer of immortality as her husband and still mourns for home". I note that that is different, but still terribly written (and misleading, since he does not quite spurn her).

He has been kept by Calypso, on her island, Ogygia. She loves him, and has offered him immortality to stay with her, but he is keen to return home. Untitled50reg (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2018

In the section "Odysseus' account of his adventures," it reads "Odysseus then summoned the spirit of the prophet Tiresias for advice on how to appease Poseidon upon his return home, and wass told that he may return home if he is able to stay himself and his crew from eating the sacred livestock of Helios on the island of Thrinacia and that failure to do so would result in the loss of his ship and his entire crew." Please change "wass" to was because it is a typo. 24.147.162.228 (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

That is also stentorious for some punctuation. Untitled50reg (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

A minor change to Slaying of the Suitors

The beginning of the paragraph speaks of "stringing the bow and shooting it through a dozen axe heads". First of all, 'string' is the wrong word. When we talk about stringing a bow, we mean attaching the string to both ends of the bow. The correct word is 'draw': "The man who can draw the bow..." Also, one does not shoot a bow through the axe heads, but rather the arrow. Regards, An Archer

Eestimees94 (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Eestimees94: I have now revised the wording to make it clear that it is the arrow that is being shot through the axe heads, not the bow itself. "String," however, is exactly the right word here. I have double-checked in my copy of the Odyssey and the aim of the contest is definitely to string the bow, not merely to draw it. If you recall, the bow has been in storage for ten years and has not been in use, so it has been unstrung. As part of the contest, the competitors must re-string the bow so that they can use it. Odysseus, however, is the only one who can string the bow because he is the only one strong enough. The suitors all try to string it, but they fail because they cannot bend the bow and they cannot fit the string over the end. —Katolophyromai (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2020

Under the heading of the character of Odysseus it reads, ..."the most evident flaw is that of arrogance, or hubris" ...which is as shallow a reading as saying Odysseus was a liar because he didn't always tell people who he really was. This actually touches upon, but misses, one of the chief themes of the Odyssey, which is that of "Identity". The whole of the Odyssey can be seen as a series of recognition vignettes, in which Odysseus initially disguises his true identity only to reveal it later. The entire poem constantly swings between the poles of non-identity (I am "Nobody") and identity (I am Odysseus). This pattern is repeated again and again as Odysseus disguises his identity as a homeless beggar, a shipwrecked sailor, a tired veteran, an old merchant, as a ram (hiding under the belly of the ram to escape the cyclops cave) and so on. It is with each struggle to emerge victorious from the dangers that threaten to snuff out his Identity (being devoured by the cyclops, sunk in a storm, captured by the sirens or the lotus eaters, lured by circe and immortality, forgotten by his wife, son, and countrymen) that Odysseus begins to reclaim his Identity, re-forging it piece by piece, until it is finally fully established in the last recognition scene between him and Penelope. The central struggle of Odysseus is not just the return "home" but the return to "Identity". Valsark (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with all this ... but in order for any of this to be included in the article we would need a source that says this. If you can provide any that would be great. As for now, I've toned down that sentence somewhat to read: "One flaw that Odysseus displays is that of arrogance and pride, or hubris." Which, although perhaps is, as you say, "shallow", also seems evidently true and worth saying, don't you think? (Although this should have a source too, so I've added the "citation needed" tag. Paul August ☎ 11:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources to support your additions? Dimadick (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2020

106.71.45.249 (talk) 04:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Your request is empty... RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 04:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Character of Odysseus

"The name Odysseus (Ὀδυσσεύς) means "trouble" in Greek, referring to both the giving and receiving of trouble—as is often the case in his wanderings. An early example of this is the boar hunt that gave Odysseus the scar by which Eurycleia recognizes him; Odysseus is injured by the boar and responds by killing it."

The example in this passage is somewhat problematic. Odysseus was on a visit to his grandfather Autolycus, who had arranged a hunt for sport, complete with beaters and hounds (Bk 19, 390-470 ff.). A boar unexpectedly charged at the men and dogs and wounded Odysseus, who then killed him (verses 435 ff.). it was a normal hunting accident related in an aside to explain the origin of the scar.

If this is meant as an example of receiving trouble, rather than giving it, there are better examples, like his suffering from his comrades' carelessness. They let loose the winds because of their mistaken greed (Bk 10, 30-80), or they kill the kine of Helios, although Odysseus had explicitly warned them of the consequences, (Bk 12,265ff. and 295ff), just as told to him by both Teiresias (Bk 11,100-115) and Circe (Bk 12, 135ff).

The problem is rather that there is nothing to verify such meaning.Untitled50reg (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2020

I'm not sure if I have the correct source for it and I am using this for school work and I do not think Odysseus died from seeing his puppy Terrariawikihow (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The article does not say that "Odysseus died from seeing his puppy", rather it says that Odysseus' dog (who was a puppy when Odysseus left, but is now a very old) died from the excitement of seeing Odysseus. Paul August ☎ 18:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)