Talk:Ion (dialogue)

Socrates Gets Beaten up by Thespians
Please forgive my foolish ignorance, but isn't Ion talking about information entropy? Has anyone else thought this? ttiizen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.119.92.56 (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I question the point of view on this article. Perhaps it's all edits, but it seems like the author was more interested in defending Ion than examining Plato's Dialogue. If there is traditional animosity felt toward this dialogue from the theartrical community it's more than I know, but I'm sure some people would at least like to look at the broader purpose of the argument. Just a suggestion. Stephen Kinch 20:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thespians
Stephen, you don't need to be a thespian to find Socrates' point of view disparaging of human effort. Any artist or craftsman who reaches the top of his game has worked his ass off, and is unlikely agree that his achievements are attributable to divine intervention. Brenda maverick 02:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So you think that Socrates disparages the hard work of artists/craftsmen, and you think this is wrong. But why should your opinion be in the article? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but people who want to learn about Ion need not be led along by opinionated language to see your point. As hard as objective criticism can be, a reference source must try to approximate this so the readers can feel trusted to reach their own conclusions.Stephen Kinch 04:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to toss my hat in the ring: What counts as "opinionated language" ? Words are not neutral counters. All words have connotations, all descriptions some degree of implicit POV. ?? Is it POV to say that any successful person is likely to have toiled and sweated in order to reach is achievements? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.60.233.2 (talk • contribs).


 * The point is that all statements in the article need to reflect the opinions of mainstream scholarship, found in reliable sources. I doubt that the scholars who have written about the Ion spend very much time complaining that Plato is unfair to actors. This appears to be another of User:Brenda maverick's rather idiosyncratic views of Plato, but the personal opinions of editors have no place in Wikipedia articles--unless they are widely held by experts on the subject. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My 2 cents is that Plato never mentions Thespians in the Ion. A simple search on the text should prove this point. He does mention poets and rhapsodes. The dialogue is focused on the rhapsodic skill and the question of how poets create. --Barce (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 01:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC).

RFC
I'm coming to this article for the first time from a Request for Comment. The interpretation section of this article appears to me to be strongly opinionated, especially the first couple of sentences, which basically state that Plato was flat-out undeniably wrong. A critical interpretation of Plato ought to be in this article, but must be attributed to a verifiable source, rather than speaking with the voice of Wikipedia. PubliusFL 17:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the last section, it has no citations and wreaks of OR. I am very willing to be proven wrong by anyone providing citations for it.Sethie 19:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Links
The final links do not lead to dialogues (the Republic, laws, Symposium etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.32.199 (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Thanks! — the cardiff chestnut  &#124; talk  —  19:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The links to the various editions and translations of the text here should be integrating into the External links section. JKeck (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)