Talk:Protagoras (dialogue)

Original research in the "Subtextual Interpretation" section
Aside from its truly hideous title, the "Subtextual Interpretation" section is problematic because it makes interpretive statements without giving any citations to secondary scholarship. I feel quite sure that the interpretation given is the idiosyncratic view of the editor who wrote it, rather than a widely held view in scholarship, but if I am wrong, it should certainly not be difficult to give references, following the example of WP:CITE and WP:FOOTNOTE. I have posted an Original research template on Charmides (dialogue) and Theaetetus (dialogue), which also have sections bizarrely entitled "subtextual interpretation". --Akhilleus (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As I also said on the project page and edit to Theaetetus, there is no place in these articles for this type of section at all. It's an excuse to run wild with original interpretation. What would be nice, though obviously more time consuming to create, would be a section outlining some notable interpretations and debates among scholars about aspects of the dialogue. This sort of thing is notably sparse in philosophy topics on wiki. Zeusnoos 16:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"minor but important" doesn't make sense, since those words pretty much directly contradict each other. I'm going to scrap that from the introduction and just call it a dialogue of Plato.128.8.94.140 (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

When was it written?
When was it written? -- TimNelson (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For those who haven't noticed it, check the "Platonism" sidebar to the article. It gives a consensus chronology of the Dialogues. That consensus ought to be revisited occasionally as it may now be somewhat outdated, but the chronology will always be speculative anyway. The Protagoras is usually considered early, or as the sidebar indicates, transitional from the earlier to the middle period. For more on that subject see the Chronology section of the Plato article where the classification differs from that of the Platonism sidebar specifially with respect to Protagoras.


 * For actual dates corresponding to the periods you may want to look at a Chronological Table prepared by Professor John Paul Adams. He has Early 399-390 BC, Middle 388-367 BC, and Late 360-348/7 BC.—Blanchette (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)