Talk:Kalos kagathos

Plagiarism?
I am new to Wikipedia but I have taken the time to familiarize myself with it before jumping into the fray. This is my first 'edit' and 'talk'.

I have reservations about the article "Kalos Kagathos". To me it looks as if the original article was written by someone who took large segements of the article directly from some other source. I do not know how kosher this practice is on Wikipedia but it worries me. The original article included references to page numbers in some edition of the original source but subsequent edits removed those. I fear that this will morph into something approaching plagiarism. --Emeriste 22:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Emeriste

Style Problems
I found this article difficult to read and confusing. I think this is because of the way this article is (apparently) a sequence of quotations lifted from another source. I believe the article should probably be re-written almost entirely. I am new here, however, and so I did not feel at liberty to carry out such a program without discussing it with others.

Problems with the organization of the article include (in my opinion):

(1) It is not clear if kalokagathos is a noun, an adjective, or both. It seems to be used in various places of the article in both ways but it is not clear which.

(2) The frequent comparisons to "Christian England" are not very helpful and out of place. They may have made more sense in the original source that this article was lifted from, but here they lack context and seem forced and superfluous.

(3) The bit at the end about Thersites seems likewise unnecessary, though it might have some place in an improved and revised article about kalokagathos.

--Emeriste 22:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Emeriste

Looks pretty much wrong
καλος και αγαθος (the latter two combined in crasis) was a euphemism (two adjectives used as a substantive) in (at least) Classical Attic Greece for someone who was killed fighting for his πολις or city-state. I'm not 100% certain, but I don't think the phrase even occurs in Homer (υ — — υ x is unmetrical, as is υ — x υ υ x without crasis), let alone it being a Homeric ideal. I think there is some confusion with κλεος, which is most definitely a Homeric pursuit, particularly in the Iliad. To be honest, it doesn't look much of a wikipedia article, since it's basically a one-sided discussion of an abstract (and probably very minor) prinicple in the contexts of two very different ancient Greek societies. --Nema Fakei 14:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC) Ok, other than the specific meaning given above, KKA is really just Greek phrase used by a number of Attic authors: Plato certainly: the 'gentleman' translation is interesting... Looks like someone's been relying too much on the Loeb translation. They're useful, but if you're going to write an encyclopaedia article, you want to be looking at the Greek.--Nema Fakei 21:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Revamp as of 18/04/06
Right. I've tried to remove as many of the anachronistic comparisons and assertions as I can find, and I've split it up so as to explain it better. Naturally, it needs a bit more expansion. For now, if anyone's reading, do comment! --Nema Fakei 11:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It appears to this layman that almost the entire article is focused on breaking the phrase apart and analyzing the meanings of each word. It seems designed for a person who is familiar with the phrase, and wants a deeper understanding of it. For such a person, I suppose it is a good article. But there is no basic explanation! The first paragraph does a great job of telling us that it is an idiomatic phrase, and I do understand that idioms do not lend themselves to easy translation. Nevertheless, the first paragraph must offer a few examples of how the phrase is used and some sort of vague approximation of what the phrase means, when taken as a whole. --Keeves 21:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the Marxization and the sanitation of the word has now deprived it of any color. The article is almost scandalous to read.  It does MORE to tear down the concept as something wicked and awful to be.  The put downs of Aristocratic culture are signs of the Marxist Modern interpretations of the Subject.  It is clear that the authors of this article NEVER read Werner Jaeger's beautiful thorough and rigtheous treatment of the term.  By reading this article, one can sense the hatred toward this concept. I am sure that the editors of this article are MORE precient than Werner Jaeger!
 * They also have sanitized the Talk page of my earlier comments many moons ago. To see what was originally written and to see this article I point to the original article which is now on Wikinfo: . Wikipedia is a Marxist site about slandering and demeaning ancient Greek culture.WHEELER 21:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And where is Jaeger so misguided as to ascribe kalokagathia to Homer? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This Article is in Violation of the GFDL license
Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles[31] without reference to the original article, the author(s)/publisher(s) of the article, and the history and title(s) of the article, including modification history, description and appropriate dates, is a direct violation of at least GFDL version 1.2. Not only that, but the GFDL License states that if the article/document contains Copyright notices, that said notices must be preserved at all times. If those notices are removed, then they are in violation of Copyright Law, as well as the terms of the GFDL license. Furthermore, the question of them removing anything outright at all comes into quite a grey area. If one reads the GFDL License literally, then it implies that once the article document is posted, it is in distribution, and technical measures are not allowed to be taken to prevent the use of the document in question, and that no other conditions whatsoever can be added by you to those of the GFDL license.[32][33]

I started this article. I did many edits on it. The page history has been changed and the talk page as well to delete my stuff off!!! This is in direct violation.WHEELER 01:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Read your edit screen: Close quote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * By submitting content, you agree to release your contributions under the GNU Free Documentation License.
 * If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.
 * Reading Comprehension User:Pmanderson. Reading Comprehension.  I do care that my stuff has been totally deleted from this page but that is NOT the concern here, Mr. Pmanderson.  Please read that above paragraph really really closely---The History and Talk page histories have been EXPUNGED!  I started the article---I ought to go back to the "earliest" and first page to see my created article.  GFDL license REQUIRES the History of the page---That has been altered--AND SO, this article is in violation! of the GFDL licenseUser:Pmanderson, Please read before you comment, Please!WHEELER 23:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Who ever has done it. Thank you for restoring the page history! Thank you. As of today it has been restored.WHEELER 23:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Babylonian Talmud Tractate Sotah Page 33a
Read the context that there that there was a greek king or general named Gaskolgus 24.191.71.193 (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)