User talk:Triton55

Welcome!

Hello, Triton55, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Satyr have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Haploidavey (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Satyr

Hello Triton55. When a change to sourced content is disputed or reverted, the change should not be restored unless it's supported by reliable scholarly source. One of Wikipedia's core editing policies requires that all content must be verifiable; it can't be based personal observations, personal knowledge or unpublished research. Please take this matter to the talk-page for discussion, with reference to sources that support your claims. Please don't restore the disputed content without discussion and consensus at the article talk page, per policy. I see that Katolophyromai has already started a discussion there. Thanks for reading this. Haploidavey (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Persephony

Hi Triton55. Regarding Hades giving Persephone some pomegranate seeds to eat, you removed the assertion that "he tricked her" (this edit) from the article Persephony. However, since the cited source, Gantz, p. 65, uses the word "trick" in describing Hades' actions, I've restored the original language. In your edit summary you wrote that "He did not trick her, in fact in most of the hyms regarding the subject he offers the pomegranate to her freely and she complies, with the implication that both parties are aware of the implications". If you have sources which say this, can you please say what they are? Thanks, Paul August ☎ 17:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is present in the Hym to Demeter, which can be found in the links at the bottom of the page entry itself —Triton55 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 25 April 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

Here's what the Hymn to Demeter says:

[405] Then beautiful Persephone answered her thus: “Mother, I will tell you all without error. When luck-bringing Hermes came, swift messenger from my father the Son of Cronos and the other Sons of Heaven, bidding me come back from Erebus that you might see me with your eyes [410] and so cease from your anger and fearful wrath against the gods, I sprang up at once for joy; but he secretly put in my mouth sweet food, a pomegranate seed, and forced me to taste against my will. (Hymn to Demeter, 370–374)

So according to the Hymn she does not eat the pomegranate "freely" (as you said), but rather was "forced". Paul August ☎ 10:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you read earlier in the hymn Hades presents the seed to her, but not in a forceful way, and it is not impossible to interpret Persephone's claims to Demeter of being "forced" as simply her being deliberately untruthful.—Triton55 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 25 April 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

The other passage says:

But he on his part secretly [λάθρῃ = secretly, by stealth] gave her sweet pomegranate seed to eat, (Hymn to Demeter, 372).

This sounds to me like he tricked her. In any case, it doesn't matter how you or I interpret these lines. The article needs to reflect how reliable sources—like Timothy Gantz—interpret them. (P.S. could you please sign your posts? You can do this by typing four "~" in a row (See WP:SIGN)} Paul August ☎ 00:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC) That could still be interpreted as secretly to another party outside of he and Persephone. And Gantz is ignoring that, even outside of the specific hymns, there are other interpretations and variations where she is not tricked, or there is ambiguity in if Persephone was willing in the act. I do not feel that the article should be that declarative that it was trickery or violent force. At the very least it should reflect the ambiguity or reference the fact that she is not tricked in all traditions. There is also the fact that Gantz is just one perspective on it and there are others, including other scholars who do not share his interpretation of the situation. Triton55 (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Triton55[reply]