Talk:Dionysian Mysteries

Comments
This article needs to be cleaned up. It is poorly written,generally uninformative, and the formatting is bad. Somebody with a better knowledge of Ancient Greece can help? - 9/22/05

So you don't have much knowledge of Ancient Greece yourself, but consider yourself able to judge, hmmm :)


 * Some things are pretty clear from a first look. If the article isn't informative to a non-expert, or if it doesn't provide easily identifiable sources to which interested parties can go for more information, then it's not doing all it could. There seems to be plenty of excellent info here, but the way it's presented is not entirely convincing... (Note: the comment above is not mine) Fuzzypeg ☻ 00:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess...
I dont hold the sharp criticism of the person who left the last comment, but if this page is slated to be cleaned up or re-written, I believe I can help. Please feel free to contact me via email: jxxxxxxx@xxxxx.cxm.


 * I munged your address as an antispam measure; experienced users will know how to find it in the page history. But if you feel you have anything to offer this article in the way of improvements, please Be Bold and just pitch in. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. –Hajor 17:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Outdates sources
Most bibliography in the References section seems to rely on books written on the 60's. Now I think that several advancements have been done in the field of archeology and history in the last 50 years... perhaps having some sources that are closer to the 21st century would not be a bad idea!

The further reading section is at least more up to date.

The image
Can the image be improved upon - rather poor contrast etc.

Clean up and rewrite
The material in this article accords with the research of Karl Kerenyi the leading expert on the topic, with some additions. It has now been rewritten nd cleaned up. Any further clean up is welcome though as is any constructive comments on content.

this aritcle is much too long &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.111.96.78 (talk • contribs).

I don't think the article is too long-- but it desperately needs to broken up into multiple paragraphs. I'm not astute enough with wiki to do this-- but as it is it because unreadable, despite being well written. -demonbox —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demonbox (talk • contribs) 14:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Major policy violations
This article is almost completely unreferenced. wikipedia is an encylcopedia based on verifiable source and information. on subjects where little is known, like mystery cults, basically every sentence should have a reference that points to a source that can back up what it is saying. some of the things stated in this article are obviously impossible to know without some kind of reference to an original greek / roman source saying so, for example the passages where the author has attempted to describe the mindset of the participants in the dionysian rituals. wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a work of "magical reality" or narrative fiction, nor is it a place where interpretation should be confused with fact Decora (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

euoi?
can someone explain "euoi"[the god's name]?
 * As far as I know, euoi is a ritual cry. Euoi, however, would be considered one of his 'epithets'. Disinclination 19:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The public rites
The quote from The New Encyclopedia of Freemasonry probably should refer to "forma arrecta" not "forma errecta". There are other oddities too ("post ejaculation" is "post ejaculationem"). Could the contributor check the quote, and add the book to the references with its dates. Perhaps the quote is from a later version than the one I found on Google books. Myrvin (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphic Mysteries Vs. Orphism
This article reads: "In one of its late forms it [the initiatory cult from which Dionysianism evolved] mutated into what some would call the Orphic Mysteries (not to be confused with the more general trend called Orphism)."

However, both "Orphic Mysteries" and Orphism link to the same article (orphism). Can someone explain this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wawawemn (talk • contribs) 15:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

MISINFORMATION
There is a deliberately desire to hide the truth in your writings - THERE CAN BE NO social / psychological LIBERATION IN ALCOHOL (wine) INTOXICATION! Today, we know that alcohol cause addiction, male potency disorder, lever cirrhose... it's not about spirituality it's all about SATANIC ACTS that were not seen/ indetified as such! Please - CHANGE your tone here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.154.85.42 (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact that you're comparing the mysteries to "SATANIC ACTS" shows your that your viewpoint is rather biased. The mysteries themselves predate Christianity, so you can't really make a fair comparison between the two. Furthermore, many religions use some form of intoxication within specific rituals (be it wine or hallucinogens) and it's not really fair to judge them based on your outsider viewpoint. The change the tone of the article based on a later religion would be a prime example of revisionist history.71.190.228.146 (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No one asked for your opinion 2603:6011:D000:1152:11DB:60E:6E6A:8183 (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

This is article is quite clunky. In each paragraph, it seems to jump from one subject to another. Someone, fix this, please. It is difficult to gain any coherent information from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.58.40 (talk) 04:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Bunk
I believe this article is in essence bunk. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 05:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)