Talk:Sappho/Archive 6

racism
why does this article make her out to be some sort of feminist non privileged hero when she was a white feminist?


 * Because that's presentism anyway. So feminist would not be appropriate. K, thx. Icarus of old (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Considered by many
The New Yorker magazine says that for "many readers and scholars, Sappho has been a feminist heroine or a gay role model, or both. “As far as I knew, there was only me and a woman called Sappho,” the critic Judith Butler once remarked." This idea in the article is supported by two reliable sources including the New Yorker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boinkster (talk • contribs) 18:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * See presentism. Words like "feminist" didn't exist in usage back then. SO to apply them categorically now would be historically inaccurate. Icarus of old (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * To say that Sappho was a feminist would be presentism; to say that moderns have considered her a feminist role model would not be. Many historical figures have been used anachronistically as representations (or proponents) of various ideologies.  Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Possible good article nomination
I will admit that I have not edited this article very much, but, from having read it over and examined it many times, I believe that it is definitely one the best articles I have seen here on Wikipedia. I think it certainly deserves to be a good article and, frankly, I am rather surprised that it has not become a good article already. It appears to have only been nominated once in January of 2007, over ten years ago. It failed the nomination, but was never nominated again. I looked at the good article review page and saw that all of the problems mentioned on it have clearly been more than adequately addressed in the past decade and that the current article is far beyond what it was ten years ago. Furthermore, the reviewer made it sound like the article was already very close to passing the review, even in the state that it was in all those years ago.

I tried to nominate this article to become a good article a few weeks ago myself. I did so, of course, being wholly unaware of the fact that I am not eligible to nominate this article since I have not significantly contributed to it. I thought I would leave this message here to hopefully either encourage someone who has contributed to this article significantly to nominate it or to have that person explain to me why this article is unfit to be nominated. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that the article was judged as close to GA status in January 2007 doesn't mean much; standards for recognised content have gone up massively since then. However, I agree that the article as it stands could probably pass GA. I haven't nominated it, not because I don't think it meets GA standards, but because it doesn't meet my own standards for an article I've been overhauling. Specifically, §Legacy is the major section that could still do with some work, (§Ancient reception and §Modern reception could do with expanding; I don't like §Translations into English at all...) though I'd also like to have a look at the lead.  I'm not at home at the moment, but I have a bunch of notes on my computer there for the article; when I get back I shall have a look and see whether I can get back to work on this. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. Thank you very much for the explanation. I figured there was probably some reason why it had not yet been nominated other than simply not meeting the criteria. --Katolophyromai (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

"Translations into English"
I have been looking suspiciously on the section "Translations into English" for a while now; I am increasingly of the opinion that it should be removed, and that anything which is in it that ought to be in this article would be better placed somewhere else. My objections, in brief, are these: it tends towards cruft of the "mention the latest author to have published a translation of Sappho" form; it largely contains no analysis, just lists of translations of the form "and then X published a translation in 19--"; it is Anglo-centric, ignoring important translations in other languages (e.g. Dacier's in 1681); it is undue, in that works on Sappho do not tend to have a section solely on translations, but usually cover it in discussion of her reception more generally.

If a translation of Sappho's work really is important to her reception, it can be mentioned in the section on reception, as e.g. Catullus 51 and John Hall's translation of Longinus are. If they are not, then I don't see that an article on as big a subject as Sappho need mention them at all. I can't think that Lombardo's translation of Sappho is all that notable in the over 2000-year history of translations, adaptations, and commentaries on her poetry, and the 100+ years of modern scholarship on her life and work.

Other sections of the article, esp. "Modern reception" have some coverage of the more important translations of Sappho's work. Would anyone have any objection if I just pulled the trigger and removed the section on translations? Is there anything in there which is very valuable and worth putting somewhere else? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Palazzo Massimo bust of Sappho
Can anyone shed any light on the bust of Sappho in this picture? The caption added with the picture in this edit says that the bust is Roman era. However, images of the same work at Alamy and Getty Images both say it's a 16th/17th century copy of a Greek original, as does the Ancient History Encyclopedia. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Sorry I was imprecise. The head is a copy from a Greek original, and it came from the collection of Athanasius Kircher, but the date is unsure: some say it is a 16th-17th century copy (most sources), but some say that may be a polished ancient statue. I fixed the caption. --Marco Chemello (BEIC) (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. In any case, it's a beautiful sculpture! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Lost & found in the lead paragraph
I think there is a sentence in the lead section that needs to be looked at for meaning, and it may need to be fixed. The sentence reads: “Most of Sappho's poetry is now lost and survives only in fragmentary form.” But most of her poetry can’t be both:  Lost and surviving. I suggest that this be reworded to say: “Most of Sappho's poetry is now lost, and what is extant has survived only in fragmentary form.”  Gaustaag (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think that this suggested change is a good idea and that it will add greater clarity to the article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Good spot, . Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Only fragments
People can re-edit the lead as they want without any objection from me, but the statement or implication that her poems survive "only in fragments" is just factually wrong and shouldn't stand as it was.The Uncle of History (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I edited what you wrote to make it more concise. The full sentence now reads: "Most of Sappho's poetry is now lost, and what is extant has survived only in fragmentary form, except for one complete poem – the 'Ode to Aphrodite'." If you have any objections to this new wording, I would be happy to discuss them with you. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I modified some of the other material you added to the article. Please feel free to review the changes I have made and make changes of your own. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that all seems ok to me. I still haven't mastered citation style, so I'm glad to have anyone correct it.  I won't quibble about "but" at the beginning of a sentence.  But I note that The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style (2000 ed.) most vigorously defends the practice. The Uncle of History (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have seen plenty of places where people use "but" at the beginning of a sentence, but, in school, our teachers always hammered it into us that that is always wrong. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The first paragraph
As long as the lead is being considered, I think it contains a small “stumble” for the reader, and it might help to reorder the sentences — moving only one sentence, without changing meaning.

The lead paragraph describes what Sappho wrote, what she may have written, and what has been attributed to her. I think it would be good if those three ideas were positioned together. There is one sentence that seems to have a different function: it acts in part as a kind of “overview” — describing all that has been lost and all that has survived. (It begins: Most of Sappho's poetry …) I think it makes sense for that sentence to be at the end of the paragraph. As it is now, it feels like an interruption, and after it the reader needs a moment to get reoriented. My suggestion is that the first paragraph might conclude like this:


 * Sappho wrote lyric poetry and is best known for her poems about love and women. Ancient commentators claimed that Sappho also wrote elegiac and iambic poetry. Three epigrams attributed to Sappho are extant, but these are actually Hellenistic imitations of Sappho's style. Most of Sappho's poetry is now lost, and what is extant has survived only in fragmentary form, except for one complete poem – the "Ode to Aphrodite”. Gaustaag (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I prefer the lead as it is now – it puts all the discussion of things Sappho actually wrote together, with the implausible and spurious attributions at the end. I am not strongly tied to that order, though, if consensus is that something different is better. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , I’m interested in understanding what you’re saying. You mention “implausible and spurious attributions”. I assume that by “spurious” you mean the three epigrams, but could you clarify what you’re referring to when you mention “implausible” attributions”?  Gaustaag (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The three epigrams are certainly spurious; most scholars think it implausible that Sappho wrote elegiac or iambic poetry at all, as I understand it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it’s going to far, or not correct, to say that scholars considered it “implausible” that Sappho ever wrote elegiac or iambic poetry. Partly because so much serious study and thought has gone into exploring the possibility that she may have (and it continues), and many have noted in this context that some of her known verses have qualities in common with those forms. Also, it seems too much to make a definite determination about a large amount of works that have not survived, in order to contradict ancient writers who had more of her poetry than we do. Also you hate to slam a door shut on what might be — even if doesn’t seem hopeful. Plus, Wikipedia requires, or it says it requires, reliable sources, which unfortunately are not in evidence in this case. So where does the “implausible” idea come from? The word doesn’t occur in the article itself, however when the article says in the first paragraph: “ancient commentators claimed”, to me “claimed” sounds a bit sneering — as though the “ancient commentators” were a bunch of lowlifes or something. Maybe that’s where the idea came from — from the sound of the word “claimed”. Maybe instead the article should say “ancient sources indicate”. Gaustaag (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * so much serious study and thought has gone into exploring the possibility that she may have really? I can't find anybody writing about the possibility that Sappho wrote elegy, except for Andre Lardinois who, in his introduction to Rayor's 2014 translation of Sappho, says that the elegiacs the Suda attributes to Sappho is likely to be actually Hellenistic, like the three epigrams we have.  There seems to be more discussion of an iambic Sappho, but e.g. Dale (2012) says that it is "highly improbable" that Sappho composed in iambic metres; Rostein (2010) categorically denies that the archaic Lesbian poets used iambic metres.  There is more acceptance of the idea that Sappho wrote poetry which had aspects of invective (fr. 55 is a famous example), but her invective poetry is still lyric poetry.
 * (As an aside, while wikipedia requires inline citations for claims which are "challenged or likely to be challenged" (WP:V) in articles, they are not required for comments made on talk-pages, and the article itself doesn't go so far as to say that the claims of iambic or elegiac poetry written by Sappho is implausible. It does say that the iambics and elegiacs attributed to Sappho by the Suda are likely to not be actually Sappho's work, which it cites to Rayor/Lardinois 2014.  (As for whether the ancient sources are "a bunch of lowlifes", it's hardly controversial in Sappho scholarship to dismiss the ancient testimonia: Holt Parker calls them "valueless"!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Caeciliusinhorto, I’m afraid you’re missing my point, and you’re arguing against things that you and I seem to agree on. I am not — I swear!  — saying it is “possible” (to use your word) that Sappho wrote iambic or elegiac, and I am not saying it is not “improbable” (your word).  What I said is only that I think it’s going too far to say that most scholars considered it “implausible”.  Forgive me, I hope that’s not too controversial of a stance.  If you can find any scholar that uses the word implausible, I would be surprised, and I’d love to hear about it.  (An equivalent meaning could be substituted.)  And if you find that most scholars use that word — in that case I would be mistaken.  You seem to be surprised at my suggestion that serious study has gone into exploring the possibility that Sappho may have written iambic or elegiacs, but I don’t know what’s surprising about that.  You quote Dale — who has certainly studied the possibility in order to arrive at a “highly improbably” conclusion.  The fact that Dale has seriously studied the possibility, goes along with what I was saying.  So you and I agree on almost all of this, and I don’t know if you still hold the idea that most scholars consider it “implausible”, because you haven't responded to that particular point.  Perhaps you were speaking casually, which is certainly allowed on a talk page.  I think that you do consider that Sappho did not write iambics, and won’t argue with you there.  You and I both could list a large number of scholars who have studied the question of Sappho and iambics as mentioned in the Suda.  I would start my list with Dale and Rostein.  Best wishes and regards.  Gaustaag (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I retract "implausible". But I think that we're getting off track.  Whether you think that the correct evaluation is "implausible" or "improbable" or "unlikely", I maintain that the logical progression of the paragraph as it stands – Sappho's lyric poetry, which we know she definitely wrote because some of it survives; then Sappho's possible iambic and elegiac poetry, the only bits of which survive are certainly spurious – makes at least as much sense as the alternative order you propose.  But, like I say, I am happy to change it if most people prefer your suggestion. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Caeciliusinhorto, I was asking only in order to understand what you were saying, because I’m interested. I’ll promote my idea once more, but I won’t insist on it:  I think the sentence that begins: “Most of Sappho's poetry …” seems to be thrust in between things, especially between the two mentions of “lyric poetry”, and the second mention attempts to reattach itself with a bit of splice-work: (“As well as lyric poetry…”).  The excursion away from “lyric poetry” and then the return seems to yank the reader around, as if the reader were a disobedient Pekingese. It could be easily fixed, and the tug removed, by putting the interrupting sentence at the end, where I think it feels good.  But, maybe I’m crazy.  There’s always that.  All the best.  Gaustaag (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Sappho's name
I made a mistake in my description of my edit on Sappho's name, though the change is ok in the text of the article; apparently there is no way to correct that on the history page, so I will correct it here. My edit description said, "add to citation; these are two fragments where the form Sapphoi (vocative of nominative Sappho) unambiguously appears.) ." That should of course have been "Psapphoi" and "Psappho." The Uncle of History (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

A couple of corrections
This article refers many times to a book by Rayor and Lardinois, and says the title is Sappho: A New Edition of the Complete Works; I believe it’s actually Sappho: A New Translation of the Complete Works. Also at one point the article says the authors of the book are “less critical” regarding the testimonia, and then quotes the book to say that the evidence in the testimonia should be considered "possibly valuable information”. (The section “Life”, 2nd paragraph).  I believe that’s not accurate.  The book’s reference to "possibly valuable information” is not a general comment regarding the testimonia, but instead it refers to the occasions when an ancient source mentions a detail that stems from one of Sappho’s songs. This needs to be corrected so that it’s not used as a general reference to the testimonia, and so it doesn't support the idea that the authors (Rayor and Lardinois) are “less critical” regarding the testimonia. Gaustaag (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed the first problem. I don't have access to the book right now (or indeed to Parker, with whom the view is contrasted), so I can't check the content, but the fact that Lardinois argues that some of the testimonia are drawn from Sappho's songs is, IIRC, a less critical position to take than Parker's. (though possibly still could use clarifying) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The word “critical” is tricky, because it has a couple of meanings: “saying something negative” and also “comparing and contrasting” — and it can be confusing when the negative meaning is intended in a situation where “comparing and contrasting” is actively occurring. Regarding the second author you said you momentarily don’t have access to … um … not many people have access to him right now, since I believe he’s still wearing his horizontal red-and-white-striped pajamas.  (I actually know you meant the book not the person, who I think will be getting out soon.  I was just putting a bit of “English” on things, sorry.)  Gaustaag (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * * Googles*. Ooookay. That is a fun thing to learn on my weekend.
 * On-topic, I made a little change to the paragraph in question: what do you think of it now? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The phrase in this article “by contrast” suggests that Rayor/Lardinois and Parker have contrasting views, but they appear to be in agreement that the testimonia by itself may not have much (or any) biographical value. However Rayor/Lardinois go further and in a different direction, when they say: when the testimonia mentions something that could derive from Sappho’s songs, it should be considered "possibly valuable information”.  Parker may agree with that.  I think the two ideas are not contrasting or balancing.  But they offer two different and interesting comments. Also, Rayor/Lardinois do not refer generally to evidence in the testimonia, though the article makes it seem that they do.  Rayor/Lardinois refer to something more specific (when the testimonia mentions something that could derive from Sappho’s songs)  Gaustaag (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , Also, I think that those two pieces of content about the testimonia don't need to mention the authors' names, because they're already mentioned in the citations. If it were a "debate" between two camps that held different theories, it might make sense to mention the names.  But in this case it seems to clutter the passage.  It might be easier if I just go ahead and make the edit that I think is needed (it's minor and is discussed above), and I'll also remove the names. Gaustaag (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm still not entirely happy with it, but I don't have any better suggestions right now. I'll have a think and may tweak it a bit later, but I can't come up with anything right now, so it'll have to do. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Image
I suggest the current image of Sappho on the Leucadian cliff (buy Chassériau) be replaced by the one at:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1877_Charles_Mengin_-_Sappho.jpg

What is interesting about the latter image is that the artist seems to be aware of the ancient tradition that Sappho was "small and dark." Since this is mentioned in the article, it might be interesting to have an image that reflects it. The Uncle of History (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am fine with either image. I generally prefer the artistic qualities of the current one (by Chassériau), but if you think that the painting by Mengin linked above is more historically or artistically significant, I would be fine with you swapping them out. I definitely think there should be at least one image of a painting of Sappho leaping off the Leukadian cliffs because this was a very popular scene for artists in the mid-to-late 1800s and there are dozens of famous depictions of it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I think The Uncle of History makes a good suggestion. It’d be good to replace the image that’s there now with the painting by Mengin. There’s a book on Sappho by Prins — she uses the Mengin painting for the cover. So does Erica Jong. The image by Chassériau is so specific to the tail end of the romantic style of the 1800s, incl. the notion of Ruskin’s so called “pathetic fallacy”, etc. Too much. There is an image in the Wikimedia commons of the first century stucco work found in a Basilica in Rome that depicts Sappho leaping off the cliff — which is the exact thing that’s mentioned in the text of the article. Gaustaag (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Since there are two approvals and no objections, I changed the picture. If there is anything wrong with it, please correct it. (I didn't put a description in the history because for some reason I can't figure out, sometimes I get the Save prompt without getting the box to explain the change.) The Uncle of History (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Sappho 31
Actually, the phrase I added, (the famous "phainetai moi" [φαίνεταί μοι] portraying Sappho's love for a young woman)", is simply a quote from the Wikipedia Sappho 31 page. I thought there ought to be some brief description of it rather than just a link. The Uncle of History (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The main reason I removed it was because it did not really fit in context and it interrupted the flow of the passage. I also thought that the statement was a bit of an oversimplification, considering that that entire paragraph deals with different historical perspectives on the interpretation of the poem and to interrupt the description of one historical scholar's position with a baldly stated alternative interpretation seemed precarious. Besides, it ultimately does describe the interpretation you gave (which I think is the most common interpretation, especially among current scholars), later in the paragraph, so I do not think that there is any need to mention that interpretation twice. --Katolophyromai (talk) 10:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Date of Page's Sappho and Alcaeus
I have the actual physical book made of paper and board before me, and it says 1959, so my own quote and cite should say 1959. Though my copy is not marked as a 2nd ed it says it is corrected from the first printing (not "first edition,") so maybe there was an earlier issue. If people are citing from both issues, I don't know how to resolve that in the article -- would just two different citations work? The Uncle of History (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not entirely sure. I have only been here for just under one year and I have not yet run across this issue until now. This may be a good question for Caeciliusinhorto. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There are two solutions to this problem that I have seen. The easy one is just to cite both editions, citing claims to the edition you are using. The more time consuming one is to go through all of the claims and try to cite them all to the same edition (which is almost certainly possible in this case, but isn't always; I did this in the case of Women in Classical Athens, which cited claims to both editions of Pomeroy's Goddessess, Wives, Whores, and Slaves).  However, in this specific case we don't actually seem to have any claims in the article currently cited to Page, apart from the ones just now added by, so I just did this... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

References for the first 3 paragraphs
The first three paragraphs (at this moment) don’t have any references to support the content. They contain a lot of varied detail, some of which isn’t repeated in the article. Wikipedia requires content to be sourced and verifiable according to: WP:VERIFY and WP:CITELEAD. The article contains plenty of potential sources listed in the reference section and under further reading.
 * Can you give some examples of claims made in the lead which are not supported with a reference in the body of the article? I can't see anything myself, but I may be missing something.  Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can, but let me ask you, since you passed over the issue of the complete lack of any citations: do you think that if content is supported below in the article that is enough to satisfy any need for citations in the first paragraphs? Gaustaag (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems to be the general consensus to me, yes. Per WP:CITELEAD Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source.  I don't see that Sappho is a particularly controversial subject, or that any of the claims in the lead are particularly likely to be challenged. (See, for instance, discussions here and here; IvanVector's comment here and WhatamIdoing's here for what I believe to be the common interpretation of WP:CITELEAD.) I'm generally in favour of very heavily citing body text (much more than is required by WP:MINREF, but keeping citations in the lead to the absolute minimum. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, as I understand it, the lead is supposed to be an uncited summary of the rest of the article. Usually, there are only two occasions when the lead requires citations. The first instance is if the lead contains content that is not cited later in the article, in which case, either the lead is an inadequate summary or the article is insufficiently cited. The second instance is if the lead contains information that is likely to spawn controversy. I do not think that an article about Sappho is likely to generate very much real controversy and I am not aware of any statements in the lead that are not cited someplace else in the article, which means there is currently no pressing need to add citations to the lead. Obviously, if you want to add more citations, I will not try to stop you from doing so, but I do not think there is any need for more than the ones that are already present. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh my God, what a big reading assignment you gave me! Caeciliusinhorto!  The assignment gets even bigger when not only the talk pages you link to must be read, but also, in order to understand what they are discussing on the talk pages — the articles they refer to must be read.  And on top of that, the sentences tend to be loaded with links, like a lot of rabbit holes to fall into, and they don’t always make sense if you don’t follow the links and read what’s there.  Caeci!  (May I call you that?) And then, of course, in the real world, I’m under the gun and have a deadline to read three fat books, that I can’t skim.  I’ll take the plunge into this assignment, so please be patient.  I hope this is not a wild goose chase.  And this better be good.  I’m concerned not just for my sake, but what about anybody else who might be as interested in what you have to say as I am?  The poor bastards who might think of joining in are going to be scared away by the daunting size of what you expect your fellow editors to read.   Gaustaag (talk) 03:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Firstly: Obviously, you must prioritise your real-world concerns over this. The article can wait. (there's an essay for that too!)
 * Secondly: Really, you don't need to read anything except for the exact comments and threads I refer to. I promise.  A very brief summary of my position, though, is the comment by WhatamIdoing that I referred to.  In particular: Things like direct quotations and contentious matter about BLPs need to be cited in the lead, but for most other things, it's optional (assuming that a citation exists later on the page).  In three years on wikipedia, I have never seen any substantial challenge to this interpretation of WP:CITELEAD, and featured articles routinely have no citations in the lead: to take two recently promoted examples, Astronomica and Emily Davison. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Caeciliusinhorto, if I may, I’d like to check to see if you and I have somewhat the same understanding regarding the idea of consensus. I understand that, generally speaking, the content of articles is understood to represent consensus. And the best place to find out the policy or the guidelines regarding editing is in the Wikipedia “Manual of style” articles. Does that seem reasonable? I ask because the first link you encouraged me to read (here) seems not to be a consensus. Maybe I’m wrong, but could you reconsider that link? The conversation is pretty brief, and it’s not always strictly on one topic (which is fine); but it contains only one suggestion for a change in the article they’re discussing. (The editor, WhatamIdoing, wants a mention of citations to be removed from the lead section of that particular article). That editor does not accomplish that change, because the phrase she wanted removed is still in the article, and that talk was six years ago. I think a brief talk like that one isn't so hot as a source for guidance -- it’s simpler and easier just to follow what the policy is, as it’s stated on the MOS pages, (one of which you helpfully quoted). Thank you for your concerns over my prioritizing, I really didn’t mean to burden you about that, (I mainly wanted to tease you) and of course you can assign all the reading you want. I love reading. And you linked to an essay on deadlines! Thank you! Gaustaag (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Gaustaag: yes, I think your interpretation of consensus is broadly correct (though I would put it slightly differently: the content of articles is decided based on consensus. this is important because Consensus can change.)  I don't claim that any of the discussions I linked to come to a consensus which is binding on this article; I link them only as illustrations of what my position is and that I am not alone in taking it.  Of course, there may be good reasons to cite the lead in this article anyway, above what is required by WP:MINREF; I am so far unconvinced, but I am open to being persuaded... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Caeciliusinhorto, I looked at another page you suggested, Astronomica (Manilius), and I want to say something about it. It doesn’t have any citations at all in the first three paragraphs, which is I think why you suggested it. It’s a good example of a decent article, but there are a few problems. So, I’ll point them out, and ask you to consider them. First, the lead says that the author was a “Roman”. That’s controversial. There’s no primary evidence to support that, and there are sources who argue against it. I think a citation is needed there. Second, the lead claims it’s a “didactic” poem, and again, there’s disagreement among scholars. To simply say that he’s “Roman” or that the poem is “didactic”, and not mention the controversy seems funny, and readers are going to want to know what source supports an interpretation that chooses sides. Third, there are disagreements about the pages missing from the Astronomica. These are points of controversy, that need to have a citation nearby. There is a Wikipedia guideline that says unsourced content can be removed. A citation offers support — a little strength on the page, and sets a good example that shows the idea isn’t just some stupid made-up thing, but it’s been researched. One more: In the lead of Astronomica there is a claim that there is “evidence” that the the Astronomica was read by many other Roman writers. I don’t buy that. If I’m mistaken, how do I verify it? I searched the article to see if it’s repeated — it’s not. So why does the entire lead section have no citations? It looks like the editors are trying to follow a trend or a fashion about the lead, and not really caring about either making the content verifiable, or caring about the poor reader who might want to verify it. Wikipedia is kind of brilliant, and of course it’s very democratic, if that’s the right word, because they let anybody edit. Anybody, at all. Which means that sometimes it can be a wild ride, and sometimes the content needs a little extra support. I better go. Thanks so much for your good words, Caeciliusinhorto. Gaustaag (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, I just checked out the second of the two pages you linked to as examples of articles that don’t have citations in the leads. This one is the one on Emily Davison.  I looked at the lead to see if the lack of citations makes sense.  I don’t want to pick on these articles, because they’re both very good and on important subjects.  But I think there are enough instances where at least one or more citations do belong.  And of course I’d be interested to hear what you think.  I’m hoping we can throw a bone to the idea that citations in the lead are sometimes a good idea, and can be wrongly neglected even in good articles.  In the article on Emily Davison things are said in the lead that are not repeated anywhere in the rest of the article.  This is the kind of thing that, as you’ve indicated, should be sourced: That her funeral was organised by the union, that her family had a plot in Morpeth, Northumberland, and the claim that no theory of her death has ever been proven.  I was also glad to have the opportunity to read both articles.  I was a bit familiar with Davison’s story, but I learned a lot.  And I’d of course heard about the Astronomica, but I’m glad to be more familiar with it and the story around it.  Gaustaag (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

, I continue to chip away at my reading list, and I think I get points for diligence, if I do say so myself. The latest is the page “Featured articles”, which you linked to in the comment you made (above in this discussion), when you said that: “featured articles routinely have no citations in the lead”. That link leads to a list of featured articles. I went to the beginning, and clicked on the first article (7 World Trade Center), it has 9 citations in the lead. Of the first ten articles, eight have citations in the lead. That’s 80%. And of the first 25 articles 18 do. That’s 72%. So it seems that the link you provided shows it may be more routine, and by a healthy margin, for the leads listed there to contain citations.

The twenty-five articles are: 7 World Trade Center, Acra (fortress), After the Deluge (painting), Angkor Wat, Annunciation (Memling), Anthony Roll, Beaune Altarpiece, The Battle of Alexander at Issus, Belton House, Blakeney Chapel,The Blind Leading the Blind, Bodiam Castle, Book of Kells, Borobudur, Boydell Shakespeare Gallery, Bramall Hall, Bramshill House, Britomart Redeems Faire Amoret, Brougham Castle, Bruce Castle, Buckingham Palace, Buildings and architecture of Bristol, Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford, Buildings of Nuffield College, Oxford, Campbell's Soup Cans. Gaustaag (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked the first 25, but of the first 10, I count three (Acra (fortress), The Battle of Alexander at Issus, and Blakeney Chapel) with no citations; two more (Anthony Roll, Annunciation (Memling) have citations only for direct quotes (required by policy). This is skewed by topic, though, and also represents articles which were featured as long ago as 2007: it is by no means representative of what the articles were like when they were featured, nor of today's FA standards.  Looking at the FA log, 30 articles were promoted in September: Looking at every fifth item listed on this log (Battle of Rossbach, Emily Davison, Ice core, Roland TR-808, On the Job (2013 film), and Scarlet myzomela), all are entirely uncited in the lead. In fact, as far as I can see, only one article promoted to featured status in September has any cites in the running prose of the lead, Paradises Lost – and there for direct quotations.
 * To try to drag this back onto the topic of this article: I still don't see anything in the lead which is required to be cited under WP:MINREF, and I don't see anything in the lead which is not supported by a citation later in the article. If you want to point out any claims in either of those categories, I am happy to find citations for them.  If you want to add citations for anything else in the lead, I am not going to object, but nor do I feel any great need to do that myself. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Caeciliusinhorto, I was responding to the comment you made: “featured articles routinely have no citations in the lead”, and to the link in it. You didn’t specify “direct quotes”, or dates, or any of the criteria you want to apply in hindsight to your suggestion. Which is fine, you can do that. But it changes things, and I think I can still stand by what I have said - using the parameters that you established in that sentence, and that I accepted. I’d also like to point out another link you wanted me to consider — your link to Ivanvector’s comment (here). That link turns out to be a wild goose chase. First, Ivanvector is way, way off topic. Ivanvector’s comment is arguing — get this — that pronunciation information should be removed from the lead section. Ivan would remove content that’s now in the first line of the Sappho article. (Sappho (Aeolic Greek Ψάπφω, Psappho ). Ivan would also remove alternate names, and “other language names”, (like Psappho).  But don’t worry!  If you keep reading Ivanvector’s comments (not that I’m trying to recruit anybody to join me on this goose hunt), you can see that Ivan changes his mind, and even he himself eventually doesn’t seem to agree with the comment you linked to, Caeciliusinhorto.  It appears that in your most recent comment you’ve added more links, and more reading for me.  I may need to speed up in order to keep up.  You also made some proposals and things that I don’t have time at the moment to respond to.  I will as soon as I can.  Thanks.   Gaustaag (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , I have to ask you why you sent me on the “wild goose chase” that I mentioned before? Was that intentional, or an accident, or … ?  Are we both here in “good faith”?  Of course, it’s not just “me”, but any editor who takes your comments seriously, and follows the off-topic links, will go chasing “wild geese” as well.  And, similarly, why are you suggesting that the article on Emily Davison be considered an example, when I already troubled to consider it, and I commented on the improper use of unsourced content it contains in the lead — a fault, as I said above, that violates the guidelines that you yourself quoted in this discussion?  You haven’t responded to that.  This new list of articles that you’re suggesting, also contains identically faulty articles, including the Emily Davison article.  It doesn’t make sense, and it would be a waste of time to consider a list of articles that includes at least some bad examples. I’m afraid this is a lot of illogical stuff you’re suggesting, and it’s having the effect of driving this discussion off the rails.  I stand by what I have said: the lead in this Sappho article has no citations to support the content, WP requires all content to be supported, and as the guidelines state: there is no “exception to citation requirements specific to leads”.   Gaustaag (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My point, in extreme brief, in pointing to a number of articles, including Emily Davison, which have been featured, is to suggest that perhaps your interpretation of the guideline isn't universally agreed upon.
 * I have never denied that there is no exception for citation requirements in the lead: you continue to refuse to give a single example of something in the lead which there is a requirement to give a citation for, however! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

No, Caecilius, we can’t go on like this anymore. We’ve stopped making sense. Perhaps we were fools to try, but now with all the falacious things that have been said, and things misheard, and mis-repeated, we’re sounding like a couple of drunks, on a bench, in the rain, drinking cheap wine from paper bags. The way you’re willing to be guided by random talk-page comments, no matter how off-topic, reminds me of Disney’s Pinocchio being led off to Pleasure Island arm-in-arm with your mentors WhatamIdoing and IvanVector as the fox and cat. There is not just one example of content in the lead of Sappho that is unsupported by a source, there are plural examples. Not only that, there is a more ordinary mistake, which if it were a Chihuahua would bite you on the nose. You should be able to find those things on your own, I’ll be glad tell you what they are if you can’t find them. You never answered the queries I put to you in my last post. Gaustaag (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is not just one example of content in the lead of Sappho that is unsupported by a source, there are plural examples. Per this tool, you have made 22 edits to talk:Sappho and have still failed to give a single example – though my first reply to you in this thread contained an explicit request for some.
 * I repeat for at least the third time, I see nothing wrong in the lead. If you can see something which you believe is wrong, either tell me what it is or fix it yourself.
 * I am not going to waste any further time replying to anything you post on this talkpage unless it has an actionable suggestion for correction or improvement. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Gaustaag, you seem to be in a habit of claiming that this article contains errors of some kind, but you continually refuse to specify which alleged errors you are referring to. You did something similar in the conversation we had on my talk page when you claimed that I had made a "usage flub of [my] own", but refused to state what that "flub" was, even when I asked you directly. If you are going to claim that errors exist in the article, you have to be willing to explain what those errors you keep referring to are. I do not mean to be reproachful, but, based on what I have seen, you do not seem to know which errors you are referring to yourself. I could be wrong, but, to me, it looks as though you are simply assuming that there are errors in the article just because this is Wikipedia, and then expecting us to find those errors, even though you cannot find any on your own. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto, you claim that I’ve failed to point out on this page a single example of an error — but that’s not true: On this page, on the 16th of September, I pointed out an error that occurs in the lead. It also occurred in a reference, which means it was being cited about 20 times or so in the article. Later, on that same day, you indicated that you’d made the corrections I’d suggested. Though you appear to have overlooked the occurrence of the error in the lead in “note a”. That was a serious correction — regarding a misrepresentation of the title of the book that is perhaps the primary source for this whole article. It needed to be fixed, and I’m glad I spotted the mistake. And it’s not the only correction I’ve pointed out here.

Katolophyromai, you join with Caeciliusinhorto, to make a similar claim that I had indicated yet another error, but that I again wouldn’t say what it was — that’s not true either. The error, or “flub” you’re referring to was one that you reintroduced into the article with your edit on the 7th of September (the edit summary begins: “The original wording was…”). Then, contrary to what you claim, I not only pointed it out, but indeed that error was then corrected on the 13th of September by none other than you yourself. Not only that, but in your edit summary you were good enough to credit me for pointing it out — which refutes your claim that I didn’t point it out. The error in question was a sentence in the lead section, that was confusing and seemed be claiming that “most of Sappho’s poetry” was both lost and also found. This has already been discussed. But this was a significant error also. It occurred in the lead, and was also an example of content that was completely unsourced. Gaustaag (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case, I would like to offer my most sincere apologies. I did not realize that the "Lost & found in the lead paragraph" discussion was pertaining to the same "flub" you mentioned on my talk page. I assumed that they were unrelated. In any case, you still have not told us what the statements are in the lead that are not supported by the rest of the article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I’ll give you the example that you’re requesting. And I appreciate the good words in your last post. I assume we’re all here in good faith, and I appreciate all who are interested in this topic, and take the trouble to discuss it, no matter what.

May I point out that the topic that began this particular discussion is: the first three paragraphs don’t have any citations to support the content. Which seems weird because the rest of the article is loaded with citations, and because the Wikipedia guidelines say that the lead section should not be given special treatment in terms of citations. My suggestion is that it’d be simple to add a couple of citations to the lead section. This would do several good things: It would keep the article in line with the guidelines, it would, of course, help anyone who wanted to verify the content, and it would also help protect the content that is there by indicating that research exists behind the content, and that the content can be verified.

I realize that there is a “fashion” among some editors, in some articles, to ignore the guidelines and to allow the lead to be empty of citations. That’s not a surprising trend. I suspect it may be the democratic nature of Wikipedia, which allows absolutely anybody to edit, combined with the possibility that the average person is not in love with footnotes, at least not the way scholars are.

But I think that people who are interested in classical studies often have an appreciation for citing sources, for wanting to know and to show where ideas come from, and also an appreciation for the quality of the sources. It’s an appreciation or a quality that may not be common, and it’s certainly quite different from eagerly chasing after new fashions without examining the reasons.

It’s also being said that the quality of Wikipedia is eroding, partly because it isn’t attracting editors the way it should, according to people who have studied the numbers. I think editors who are still here, and who care about classical studies should not “follow”, but should set an example and lead.

I have to confess — I confess! — that I do feel resistance to pointing out the examples that you requested Katolophyromai, mainly because the topic that began this particular discussion isn’t: “All content must be sourced.” That’s a different topic. And it seems to me that finding examples that would satisfy the “different topic”, might miss the actual point. (Of course I suppose I was the one that brought up the idea of unsourced content — it does pertain to both my topic and different topics.) So, what the heck, I will do as you suggest, Katolophyromai, even if I seem to be caving due to “peer pressure.”

Here goes. To find an example of content in the lead that isn’t sourced requires a bit of research: It requires reading the lead and then reading article. I’ll offer four examples. Let’s start with the first sentence: “Sappho (Aeolic Greek Ψάπφω, Psappho [psápːʰɔː]; c. 630 – c. 570 BC) was an …”  Hold on! Stop the presses! Hit the brakes!

First: Aeolic. Aeolic Greek is, as you know, a very particular thing, it is not found everywhere, and it is hugely important to the poet. Not only that, but an understanding of what Aeolic actually is can reveal a lot about the topic of this article. Would Sappho have both spoken and written in Aeolic Greek? Is it accurate to assume that Aeolic Greek pertains to Sappho? If it’s important — then why is it not found, let alone discussed, anywhere in the article? It is natural that someone might want to verify this content. Is verification possible by looking at a citation? No, because there’s no citation anywhere to support it. Then (still in the first sentence) there is second example that suggests that the word Sappho sometimes has a “P” in front of it, and not only that — the “P” is not a “silent P”. That’s surprising. Who pronounces it that way? Is it true? Can it be verified? Nope. Then there is a third example. It suggests that the name Sappho is sometimes spelled: Ψάπφω. Again, where is the citation to verify that? Nowhere. And a fourth example, suggests that Sappho died about 570 BC. Did she? That’s interesting that we know that. Can it be verified. No. If you move on to the second sentence, and so on — more examples can be found. Gaustaag (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, Gaustaag.
 * You have a point with the dates: dating Sappho is a hell of a mess. Looking back into the article history, it appears that the "570" was added in this edit, whose edit summary points us to the Greek wikipedia.  At the time (and indeed now), el.wiki had no reference for the claim, so that's unhelpful.  I am sure I have seen the year 570 given by reputable scholars as an approximate date of Sappho's death, though; I am trying to track down where, but I have read so much on Sappho that it is difficult to pinpoint it. It's not obviously widely repeated, though, so possibly the solution would be to write up something on Sappho's dates more broadly for inclusion within the body of the article, and change the dates in the lead to "fl. c. 600 BC", which is supported by Rayor/Lardinois and Brill's New Pauly.
 * As for the spelling of Sappho's name, the fact that she spelled it Ψαπφω is, in fact, cited in the body of the article: both to some of the fragments in which it appears, and to a modern scholar. That she composed in Aeolic is perhaps something to add to the body of the article, though it's hard for me to tell how hyperbolic you are beng when you say that an understanding of what Aeolic actually is can reveal a lot about the topic of this article: I really don't see that it makes a great deal of difference which dialect of Greek was used by Sappho in the grand scheme of things. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that she wrote in Aeolic is probably worth mentioning in the article, but I am pretty sure I remember it being there already. It may also be worth noting that a significant part of the reason why so little of Sappho's poetry has survived is precisely because she wrote in Aeolic, which, by the Hellenistic Period (when most people spoke Koine), was considered to be extremely archaic and difficult to understand. As a result of this, people did not transmit Sappho's writings simply because they could hardly read them. I cannot recall if this information is already in the article, and I do not think we need to devote very much attention to the dialect she used, but perhaps a little more information may be useful. --Katolophyromai (talk) 10:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a good point, and though it's not in the article currently, I am sure that's sourceable to something I have read recently. Williamson, I think, though all of my books are in storage at the moment and I only have a physical copy of her work. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless I am mistaken, I think that Grafton, Most, and Settis also mention it in their book The Classical Tradition, which I have at home, but I cannot remember exactly. I will have to check later when I get back. --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I was right. Halfway through the second column on page 858 of The Classical Tradition, it says, "Sappho's poetry is largely lost. Like most other early lyric, her texts did not survive in a direct manuscript tradition, probably because of factors such as the perceived obscurity of her dialect rather than, as some sources claim, because of censorship by Christian emperors." --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Katolophyromai, your quote mentions a “perceived obscurity of her dialect” rather than simply “obscurity of her dialect” — which I think may be saying more about the “perceiver”, who I guess would be one of a chain of anonymous scribes. I’m not yet finding any support for obscurity. I’m looking at The Oxford Companion to Classical Civilization, and it says that when Sappho lived there wasn’t a standard Greek language yet — but still the Greeks, with all their dialects, thought of themselves as speaking a common language and could understand each other. It’s modern scholarship that has divided things into dialect groups based on certain features. One feature of Aeolic Greek is said to be it’s melodious quality. As for written Aeolic — literature was written in a variety of dialects — depending not on where the author was born, but instead on the literary genre they were writing in: Aeolic Greek was widely used for lyric poetry. Some people (like Hesiod) spoke Aeolic, but they would write in something else. And (the other way around) some wrote in Aeolic, but didn’t speak it. One more thing is that Homer’s epics, it is thought, were written in the Aeolic language — before they passed on to Ionic. There’s a lot of great work being done by linguists to recover the Aeolic dialect. A proficiency in Greek would probably help to keep up with that field. But it’s amazing what they can find. To know the sound of her words, and how her lips and tongue, and breath, created the sounds can be meaningful to understanding the verse. Sappho is admired for her rhythm, and the way she uses vowels and consonants, which no translation can duplicate, of course. But even if one doesn’t know the language, it can still be followed while holding a translation. On Youtube, by the way, there are some beautiful songs by Sappho sung in Aeolic to a guitar or a lyre. The melody would have to be invented by the composer, but not the sound of the words. Gaustaag (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The quote is not talking about how Sappho's contemporaries perceived the Aeolic dialect; it is talking about how people living in later times perceived it, particularly during the Hellenistic, Roman, and early medieval eras. During those time periods, most people spoke the Koine dialect, but authors with literary aspirations wrote in the Attic dialect in imitation of the earlier Athenian writers. The dialect in which a work was written had considerable bearing on whether or not it was transmitted. For instance, one of the main reasons why eleven of the comedies of Aristophanes have survived is because the literary elites during the Roman and early Byzantine periods regarded Aristophanes's plays as prime examples of the vernacular Attic dialect. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I think we agree — the quote is not about Sappho’s contemporaries perception, or our contemporaries perception for that matter, but, as you said, how people living in later times perceived it. Also — interesting what you said about Aristophanes's plays.   Thanks.   Gaustaag (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you to those who participated in this talk. This topic hasn’t attracted too many editors -- the three of us. But we have had a variety of ideas and opinions. We three haven't all agreed, but I sense that it might be tolerated if a citation is added in the lead. Gaustaag (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Changes October 2017
This looks ok to me so far. I'm wondering though if the lead picture (Head of a woman from the Glyptothek in Munich) should be on the left, since the head is facing a bit to the right, and likewise the Raphael picture might be on the right, since it is looking to the left. It seems subtly wrong to have the images looking off the page. But if no one else agrees I won't pursue it.The Uncle of History (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with moving the image of Sappho from The Parnassus to the right, but I am strongly opposed to moving the Glyptothek head to the left. When the main image is on the left, it messes up the flow of the lead section and sometimes interferes with the table of contents. All of the fully-fleshed articles I have seen always have the lead image on the right and the only ones I have seen where it is on the left are ones like Nabu, where the article is extremely short with lots of pictures and there is no other space whatsoever for the picture anywhere in the rest of the article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Simplifying the section heading "Sexuality and community"
Considering the section "Sexuality and community", I suggest, for a couple of reasons, that the section simply be titled “Sexuality”. First, that’s the theme, and the section does keep to that subject. Second, the article mentions a few communities, but doesn’t make it clear which one is referred to, so the reader is tasked with keeping an eye out, and also with making a judgement regarding which community it will end up being. The candidates include the “community” of “fellow authors”, comic playwrights like Menander, and those who wrote the testimonia and the biographers. Then other communities are mentioned — the women that Sappho is “accused by some” of having loved, or her male lovers, (perhaps the heading is referring to both groups of lovers), or her pupils, or the choruses she trained, or the group of female friends she performed for, or those at the banquets that Sappho attended. Ultimately I think the reader can’t be certain and ends up not knowing what the heading is referring to. Also the heading "Sexuality and community” may suggest to the reader that it will discuss how Sappho’s sexuality affected those who knew her — which would be interesting, but it doesn’t really go there.  Gaustaag (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Life section
I think this section needs a lot of work.

''The only biographical source that is contemporary to Sappho is her own writings, and scholars are cautious of reading her poetry biographically."

Contemporary to Sappho sounds awkward, so does the switch from source ..is to is ...writings, the mention of both writings and poetry may mislead some people into believing that Sappho's poetry is a subset of an overall body of writings which includea things that aren't poetry, and the logic of the sentence as a whole seems to be, "The only biographical source is her poetry, which isn't really a biographical source."

The other ancient sources on Sappho (known as testimonia) do not date from Sappho's lifetime

I think it would be better to call the testimonia "statements," "source" implies a whole literary work. Also, I don't know what Wikipedia rules are, but in common publishing practice testimonia would be in italics without quotes the first time it is used and then in regular type without quotes afterwards.

However, they were written by people who had much better access to Sappho's poetry than we do today, and so would have been better placed to use it to write her biography.

The subject of "placed" seems to be a little confusing; maybe something like "and who would therefore have been better placed." Also, they didn't really have better access to Sappho's poetry, they had access to more of it.

Despite this, though they are a valuable source on the reception of Sappho in antiquity,[8] it is difficult to assess how accurate a picture they paint of Sappho's life.[

Again, rather confused antecedents: is "they" the previous sentence's "people" or the "testimonia?"

The testimonia are almost entirely derived from Sappho's poetry,

This is simply not true: many of the testimonia don't quote or directly paraphrase her verses. I suppose one could get away with something like "are connected with," but then it would be stating the obvious.

I won't change it now to allow for comments. If anyone else wants to change some of these things, go ahead.The Uncle of History (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I reworded that first sentence you mentioned ("The only biographical source ..."), Uncle, as well as the other bit about testimonia. I left one sentence alone ("The testimonia are almost entirely derived from...") because I don't have access at the moment to the source in the citation.  Gaustaag (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I made some additional edits regarding the testimonia, (correcting the line "The testimonia are almost entirely derived from Sappho's poetry") and removed some repetition, without touching the citations. Gaustaag (talk) 12:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Delete current main picture?
I'm wondering if the current main picture should be deleted and some other one substituted. Though often labelled Sappho, the current picture is also often labelled "so-called Sappho," and the prominent 19th century art historian E. Q. Visconti judges that this is definitely not supposed to be Sappho (Iconografia greca v. 1 p. 87.) The fact that the base is inscribed "Sappho" means little; that could have been put there in modern times. Maybe the space could be used instead for one of the several extant coin images of Sappho. The Uncle of History (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Without any comment of the merits of one image over another, no images of ancient coins depicting Sappho are currently available on Commons as far as I can see. If a PD or freely licensed image of one of these coins were available, I would definitely be in favour of its inclusion in the article in general, whether to replace an existing image or in addition. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to the removal of the current main image, at least until we have more sources. I would like to know what E. Q. Visconti's reasoning is for why he thinks the bust is not intended to represent Sappho, and if any more recent scholars agree with him. If there are any scholars who do think the bust is supposed to represent Sappho, I think that the image should be kept. It is a good sculpture and the quality of images on ancient coins is usually quite poor. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been able to track down references to Visconti's opinion in scholarly sources but haven't been able to get the text of the book where he actually discusses this. If I do, I'll report.  The advantage of coins is that at least they show how the Greeks imagined Sappho in an image honoring her.  As for the current image, its artistic quality is a matter of opinion: mine is that it is an outstandingly ugly piece of kitsch. The Uncle of History (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I was not saying it was necessarily the best sculpture in the world, but it is certainly better than anything we are likely to find on a coin. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

We could probably use a better source. "E. Q. Visconti" seems to be antiquarian Ennio Quirino Visconti (1751-1818). He has been dead for 199 years, and some of his ideas are a bit controversial. He believed that the Romans did not only copy Greek artwork and literature, but improved and perfected them. This translated to his belief that the Roman copies were always better than the Greek originals, and that Virgil's works were superior to those of Homer (who Virgil tried to copy). Dimadick (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've tracked down a French version of Visconti's Iconographie grecque (J. P. Giegler, 1824), and he says (advisory: translating with my very imperfect French): "A bust, said to be of Sappho, in the Capitoline Museum, is certainly not of that famous Mytilenian; the inscription which says it is her is not ancient; moreover, since the town of Eressos is given as Sappho's origin, the bust must be of the courtesan of that name." The claim derived from Aelian that there was another Sappho who was a courtesan is, I think, pretty much discredited, but still it's significant that Visconti says that the inscription is not ancient.  If this is true, then the attribution of the bust as originally intended to be of Sappho would clearly be in doubt.The Uncle of History (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your translation looks accurate to me (p.96 of the book in question, available on archive.org, for those following along at home). The two Sappho's thing is clearly bunk, but I can't find any more recent scholarship on the authenticity of the inscription.  Interestingly, though the inscription is described on commons as being "IG XIV,253*", I can't find it on Greek inscriptions online under that number or any other.  The other idea I had to see if we can dig up any further information was to write to the Capitoline Museums and see if they could tell us anything more, though I don't speak Italian.  Perhaps someone in category:User it could be prevailed upon? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

A possible candidate to replace the main picture might be Yes, it's modern, but at least we know it is supposed to be Sappho, and it is a nice image. The Uncle of History (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I will agree that it is undoubtedly a very beautiful sculpture and that it is certainly much more aesthetically appealing than the one we have right now, but we should give preference to ancient Greek depictions of Sappho over modern ones, since it is more encyclopedically useful to know how the ancient Greeks imagined Sappho than how modern westerners have imagined her. If the Capitoline bust turns out to be misattributed, we may consider the other bust of Sappho that is used later in the article (the one from the Palazzo Massimo alle Terme), but we may want to confirm that that one is really Sappho before we do anything with it, since the commons page for it does not even mention Sappho at all. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would also prefer an ancient depiction of Sappho for the lead image. Unfortunately, we don't have a really good image of any of the red-figure vases which are undoubtedly both ancient and intended to depict Sappho.  Other ancient sculptures on commons are this bust, which the museum says is definitely intended to be a poetess, and possibly is a copy of Silanion's Sappho; this terracotta, which has a woman playing the lyre and the British Museum says may be of Sappho and Alcaeus; this head from the Glyptothek, which is listed on commons as "probably" a copy of Silanion's Sappho, and this head. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll do some more research on this, since I am interested in the subject, but here are a few immediate thoughts. I think one must be wary of uncritically accepting a museum's attribution of whom a statue represents, unsupported by the published judgement of a competent scholar. Museums have a vested interest in saying their statues represent famous people -- would you be more likely to buy a ticket to a museum to see a bust of Sappho or one of an "unknown Greek woman?"  I'm pretty sure I've read at some point in reliable sources that the attribution of the Melian plaque and the Istanbul head as Sappho is discredited, but I can't remember now where; I'll report here if I can track down the references.  I'd tend to accept the attribution of the Glyptothek Munich of their statue as Sappho; they are such a respected institution that I think they deserve more credibility than some museums. And finally, my own opinion is that there's no advantage at all in using an image of Sappho which is ancient unless we know it was actually originally supposed to be of Sappho; I also think it is entirely legitimate to include images down to the present day to show how Sappho was envisaged at various times. The Uncle of History (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that modern representations of Sappho should definitely be included in the article, since this will illustrate how people have imagined her throughout history, but, for the main image, we should try to find an ancient representation of her, if possible. If there are no genuine ancient representations of Sappho available, then we should use a modern representation, but only as a last resort. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the bust of Sappho: in the book, The Rediscovery of Antiquity: The Role of the Artist, Beatrice Palma Venetucci has an essay, “Pirro Ligorio and the Rediscover of Antiquity”. In it (page 72-73), she indicates that the Renaissance artist, Pirro Ligorio, may have been the one that forged the inscription on the bust. Ligorio was a major figure — artist, architect, etc — who had both a great reputation in some things, but also a bad reputation for forging. He was in charge of decorating the Belvedere Theatre in the Vatican, and for that project he found and restored some statues, and “Ligorio even went to the trouble of forging inscribed names on some portrait-herms in order to have a complete collection of literati: the herms of Sappho, Socrates and Alcibiades bear inscriptions which were probably concocted by Ligorio from ancient models.” The Venetucci book includes a sketch by Ligorio of the Sappho bust. At least the caption in this article needs to be corrected, because it indicates the bust is definitely of Sappho, but it appears that is not known, and in fact, especially without a lyre, it could be of a god or of a number of other women. I think the current main picture should be deleted. If it were truly Sappho, that would be tremendous. (It would also provide a lot of history. Was Sappho ever portrayed as a herm?  Would she be?)  We should be so lucky. But if there’s no reason to believe it’s her, then presenting the image wrongly seems wrong in a big way. Gaustaag (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you joined this conversation late, I thought I should clarify that we are not debating whether or not the bust is an accurate portrait of what Sappho historically looked like, but rather whether or not it was intended an imaginative portrayal of her. If what you say is true and the inscription on the bust is a sixteenth-century forgery, then I agree the image should probably be removed and replaced with a different one, unless someone can present a source arguing that the bust really is intended to represent Sappho. I would be in favor of either the bust from the Naples Archaeological Museum or the Glyptothek head. If both of those turn out to be misattributed also, then we can use the image The Uncle of History has suggested showing the sculpture by Vinnie Ream. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Cornell University Digital Collections website says this about the bust of Sappho from the Naples Archaeological Museum: "Owing to the uniqueness of the drapery for a female figure and to the Classical or Classicizing features, the figure has been hypothesized to represent Sappho. In addition, the bust's full-width shoulders might suggest that the reproduction was made from a full-size statue and, even more hypothetically, the "portrait" statue of Sappho produced by the Greek sculptor Silanion in the mid 4th c. BCE. The identity of the figure and the attribution to the sculptor are highly speculative." --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

This “talk section”, which is to consider deleting the current main picture, appears to have reached a consensus that it should be deleted. The next image down, the red vase, could be moved up to the top. If that is done, and there occur any different ideas based on reliable sources — then the article can be edited in any way and at any time in the future.

Katolo, regarding what you refer to as a “bust of Sappho”, your source, the Cornell University Digital Collections website doesn’t seem to go that far, it refers to it as a “so-called Sappho” and then as “bust of a woman”. It also apparently says it “has been hypothesized to represent Sappho”. Katolo, I say this assuming that you’re interested in having other editors consider it. The website also shows no sign of any editorial imprimatur, and doesn’t refer to any sources. It also doesn’t say who has “hypothesized” this bust of a woman, or to what purpose. The word “hypothesized” doesn’t make any claim for anything, except that some unknown person is perhaps suggesting a hypothesis of some undisclosed context or quality. Gaustaag (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I was quoting that passage because it states that the identification of the bust as Sappho is "highly speculative." In other words, it is saying that some people think it may be Sappho, but that it probably is not. The reason I called it "a bust of Sappho" is because that is what we had previously been referring to it as. If I was being really pedantic, I should have called it "the alleged bust of Sappho," but I did not think anyone was going to make such a big deal over the semantics. Right now, our best options for a replacement image seem to be the Glypothek head or the sculpture by Vinnie Ream. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I personally don't think the current lead image is very attractive, and if its attribution as Sappho is suspect, I wouldn't object to seeing it deleted. Arguments for making the current first vase image (Alkaios Sappho Staatliche Antikensammlungen 2416 n2.jpg) the main one is that it's very well known, is undoubtedly supposed to be Sappho (the names Sappho and Alcaeus are inscribed on it by the painter, though you can't see them in that image,) is early, and is from the peak period of Attic vase painting by one of the best vase painters of that period, the Brygos Painter.  Maybe we could find an image which focuses more closely on the figure of Sappho in this vase painting. But I wouldn't object to the other two suggestions above (Glypothek head or Ream. ) The bronze  Palazzo Massimo alle Terme is problematic: the only significant text on it I can find is at the New Zealand Getty Images site, which says: "Bust of Sappho (Ereso, ca 640 BC - Lefkada, ca 570 BC), Greek poet. Black basalt sculpture from 6th century BC, probably reworked between 16th-18th century. Roma, Museo Nazionale Romano Palazzo Massimo Alle Terme." If this is true, it is, on the one hand very old, but on the other, partly modern. And I haven't seen any explanation of why it is supposed to be Sappho.  This image might be a candidate for deletion.  Also, most of the images are on the left; I wonder if they should be spread out more.The Uncle of History (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I do not think we should delete any of the images off the commons; I think they should just be renamed so that it is clear they are not really intended as depictions of Sappho. I do not think there is any problem with the current organization of the images in the article, and I thought I would point out that, contrary to The Uncle of History's last comment, most of the images are on the right, not the left.
 * On a side note, it occurred to me since I wrote my last comment that a figure certainly identified as Sappho appears in Raphael's Parnassus. (She is even holding a scroll with her name written on it.) Instead of using the sculpture by Vinnie Ream, we could possibly use the cropped image of Sappho from the Parnassus at right since Raphael is a far more famous artist than Ream. I do not have problem with the Ream sculpture, though, and I am only offering this up as another possibility. The biggest problem with the figure of Sappho in The Parnassus is that she has her head partially turned away, which would make it slightly awkward as a main image. If we can find a better image of the vase painting that is currently used as the first image in the body of the article, I would not object to using that either. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

That’s brilliant, Katolophyromai. A stunning, not to mention extremely worthy (of Sappho) image from the great painter. A correlation of the ages. Super find on your part. I think it should be the main image. Absolutely. Do it. By the way, beg pardon — I didn’t mean to strike the wrong tone in my previous comment, I only meant to respond to you. Gaustaag (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm rather irritated that you all seem to have so ably demonstrated that the inscription on the current main image is suspect; I would have liked to be able to keep it as good enough, but if the attribution as being of Sappho is based on a later forged inscription...
 * Like, I am suspicious of the basalt head in the article.  makes a good point that Sappho appears in Raphael's Parnassus; that's certainly a good candidate for an image to be added to the article.  In the interests of variety, if we lose an image of a sculpture, I would like to add one back, and given the problematic nature of most of the ancient sculptures, a modern one is a possibility (though I think either the BM terracotta or the Glyptothek bust, with appropriate caveats in the caption, would be fine).  Again for variety, if we can get a coin image that would also be good.  I can't find a freely-licensed one, however.  We have a wonderful photo of the Niobid painter's amphora with a woman playing a barbitos, but Yatromanolakis dismisses the attempts to identify all of these types of vase painting as Sappho. TBH, at this point I think someone should just be bold and rearrange all of the images however they think is best; we can always quibble about the placement later... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, images are of course on the right, not left. Personally I prefer the Ream image to the Raphael, but I won't argue strongly about it.  I disagree though that we should keep the Commons images but "they should just be renamed so that it is clear they are not really intended as depictions of Sappho."  Why should the page have any portrait images that are not really supposed to be Sappho?  By that criterion, we might as well use images of Lady Gaga. The Uncle of History (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we may have both misunderstood each other's meaning. It sounded like you were saying that we should totally delete all the images we have been discussing off the commons completely so that they are gone forever, but, from your more recent comment, it sounds like you were really trying to say that we should remove them from the "Sappho" commons page. What I was trying to say was that we should rename the images, changes the descriptions, remove them from the "Sappho" category, and otherwise remove all implication that the images might be intended to represent Sappho, but not delete them entirely. They are still ancient sculptures and deleting them entirely would be a shameful waste. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually I wasn't trying to say anything about Commons; I was expressing my opinion that images of statues, paintings, etc. shouldn't be on the WP Sappho page at all unless it was fairly certain that the artist who created the original intended it to be Sappho. For instance even if a bust was labelled Sappho by its museum, if art historians doubt that the original sculptor meant it to be Sappho, it shouldn't be on the WP Sappho page, even as an imaginary example of what people think Sappho looked like. What's on Commons is something I have no opinion about. The Uncle of History (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. I suppose we must have really misunderstood each other. I think we actually agree on everything; I do not think that misattributed sculptures should be used in the Wikipedia article either. I have gone ahead and removed the Capitoline bust from the article. I replaced it with the Glyptothek head, but, if we find any indications that that one is misattributed, I think we should replace it with the Reams sculpture. I have also attempted to address your concern about the majority of the images being on the right by moving several of them to the left. As for, I have also added the image of Sappho from The Parnassus to the "Modern reception" section; I did not make it the lead image because I think it is better to use a Greek sculpture of Sappho as the main image. All of you may feel free to review the changes I have made and possibly implement further changes of your own. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is a tentative reorganization plan for this article: We will replace the current main image with the image of either the Glyptothek head or the Reams sculpture. We can move the Mengin portrait to the left so that not all of the images in the "Life" section are on the right. We will remove the image of the basalt bust from the Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, which I think everyone here agrees is extremely suspect. Then, we can add the cropped image of Sappho from The Parnassus to the "Modern reception" section, possibly as an additional image, or perhaps as a replacement for the medieval woodcut that is there right now.

I have been reading about the Naples Archaeological Museum bust and everything I am reading seems to be indicating that the bust is misattributed. It comes from the Villa of the Papyri, which Grafton, Most, and Settis describe on page 774 of the Classical Tradition as being the source of several notorious misattributions. On the commons, we will remove the Capitoline bust of "Sappho" and the Naples Archaeological Museum bust from the "Sappho" category and change the names and descriptions to avoid implying that they are of Sappho. We need more sources before we can fully discredit the British Museum plaque and the Istanbul head, but, if they turn out to be misattributed also, we can implement the same procedure on them as well. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * According to Gisela M. A. Richter Greek Portraits v. 1 p. page 71, and citing earlier work, the Melian plaque "is now thought to reoresent an everyday scene," not Sappho and Alcaeus. The Uncle of History (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Another image
I've come across a statement by the prominent Greek vase scholar Sir John Beazley that the earliest extant representation of Sappho is on a Hydria in The National Museum, Warsaw. But I can't find an image of it that is clearly public domain, and I don't have any experience at uploading images to WP or Commons, and I don't understand the copyright rules of what is allowed. If anyone can solve these problems and upload it for this article, it might be interesting to include it, just because it's the earliest. The Uncle of History (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I notice there is a reproduction in the Commons of the image on the the Warsaw Hydria. It's labeled "Sappho playing lyre". Gaustaag (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I somehow missed that one. Any discussion on adding it, if necessary deleting another image? Granted it's not a great image, being a rather rough drawing of the original. But as I said, people might be interested in seeing it as the oldest extant image of her. The Uncle of History (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , I apologize if this sounds a little OCD, but you might want to say "remove" instead of "delete" when referring to removing images or text from an article. I think this may have been the source of our confusion earlier where I thought you wanted to permanently delete all the images off the commons. Technically, when you take something out of the article, it has not been "deleted" because it is still there in the edit history; it has only been removed. Usually when we say "delete" in reference to something in the article, we mean "delete the revision so no one can go back and see it," and, when we say it in reference to an image, it usually means "delete the image off the commons so that it is gone from every article where it was ever used and only shows up as a redlink in the edit history."--Katolophyromai (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. The Uncle of History (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Known for … ?
In the lead section there is the sentence: “Sappho wrote lyric poetry and is best known for her poems about love and women.” That sentence is unsourced. Of course she’s known for her poetry, but she mentions male figures very often in her poems. And her her brothers poem is major. It seems not accurate to particularize so much and say she’s known for poems about women. It also seems to limit the scope of her work for no good reason. I think it needs to be fixed. If anyone wants to keep that line as it is — it still needs a source. Gaustaag (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I’ve reworded the passage and added a citation to support it. Gaustaag (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Considering an edit to the section “Surviving poetry”
, I respectfully disagree with your recent edit. The source says that the loss of Sappho’s work was “probably because of factors” such as the perceived obscurity of her dialect. It’s clear that the source (The Classical Tradition) is proposing an hypothesis that might explain in part a very crucial question. A hypothesis needs and encourages facts and ideas that can give it support. Your edit removes the “probably”, and thereby removes the hypothesis. By doing that you make a conclusion that the source does not. The fact is: the source indicates that the reason for the loss of Sappho’s work is not yet known, and “not knowing” invites the research and scholarship that needs to be done in order to arrive at a conclusion. If instead Wikipedia were to claim that it is now known for certain what happened, that would represent one of the great “scoops” of Sappho scholarship. If it were true. If it were true it seems that credit and congratulations would have to go to you, Kato. I think I’ll revert your last edit, but of course it can be discussed. Gaustaag (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Aeolic dialect
We do not need a whole section talking about the Aeolic dialect; if people want to learn about it, they can read the article Aeolic dialect, which is entirely devoted to it. All we need is a brief mention of the fact that Sappho wrote in the Aeolic dialect and how this was significant to her poetry and its later reception. The new section added by barely mentions Sappho, but rambles on and on about the dialect, which is off-topic and of tangential relevance. Furthermore, the quality of the new section is not consistent with the rest of the article; the section flows poorly and is broken up into a large number of short paragraphs consisting of only a few sentences. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I won’t object to the insults, not on my own behalf. Only because I’m not at all sensitive — in fact, I say, let it rain.  The section I added, “Sappho’s Aeolian dialect”, did not “ramble on and on”.  How could it — it was only six sentences long?  It’s also another mischaracterization to say it consisted of a large number of paragraphs — it contain three paragraphs.  I’m not going to defend against the additional derogatory remarks regarding the quality of the writing — you’re entitled to your opinion, Katolophyromai.  I think it is a mistake to say that the Aeolian dialect is at all off-topic.  Many scholars and many excellent books on Sappho discuss it.  In fact, before I added the section on Sappho’s dialect, the topic was (and still is) sorely neglected and barely mentioned.  Which makes me think that the creators and the caretakers of this article perhaps have not studied linguistics and may not appreciate how extremely important the contribution of the field has been (and will be) to our understanding of Sappho and what she has written.  Linguistics was certain important to writers like Monique Wittig, and Angus Bowie.  (The only Bowie mentioned in the references of this article is David Bowie.)  Content from four of my six sentences have been absorbed into the article anyway -- this absorption was done by the very same editor who was so petulantly deprecating about how the section was “off topic”!  (I’m looking at you, Kato.)  Which may seem a bit irrational of that editor.  Emotion can do that to a person.  But as I said, I won’t object to the insults, on my own behalf.  In fact, I encourage it, not just if it helps to vent these feelings, and get them out of your system, but also if you can express this impulse to bully towards someone (like me) who can take it, perhaps you will spare some other poor young editor who might be easily discouraged.  Kato, when you’ve cooled off, and you will, I want you to understand that I know you mean well.  Gaustaag (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I was not trying to "insult" you; I was just explaining my reasoning for why I reverted your edit. I apologize if you thought my explanation was insulting, because that is not at all how I meant it. I certainly was not in any way trying to "bully" you and, if that is how my words sounded, that is simply because writing can often come across with drastically different emotional connotations than verbal speech due to the lack of inflection and facial expression. I was not angry when I wrote the text above; I was merely trying to be explanatory. I do not mind the article mentioning the Aeolic dialect, but it has to be the Aeolic dialect as it pertains to Sappho; the first three paragraphs of the section you wrote did not even mention Sappho at all and were just talking about the Aeolic dialect. It was not until the fourth paragraph that you mentioned Apuleius's comment about Sappho's dialect being "strange." That is what I was referring to when I said that it was "rambling on and on about the dialect." Once again, I would like to clarify that my criticism of what you wrote is in no way intended as an assault on you as a person. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I’m so pleased that you said that you didn’t intend to insult, it's very good of you to say so. I wasn’t really bothered it at all, please feel free to say whatever you want. However, you continue to misrepresent the section you deleted, so I thought it would be best to reproduce the section in it’s entirety. That way it doesn’t need to be mischaracterized. I removed the citations and the block-quote formatting. Here it is:

Sappho’s Aeolian dialect

The ancient Greek language was divided into several dialects, most are known from inscriptions found on on stone slabs, pottery and bronze plaques; but some dialects — Aeolic, Doric, and Ionic — have survived in literature. Eventually, a common form of Greek, the κοινή (koiné), became dominant displacing the various dialects. Compared to the other Ancient Greek dialects, Aeolic contains many archaisms and also innovations.

In Plato’s Protagoras, the character Prodicus refers to the Aeolic dialect of Pittacus of Mytilene as “barbarian” (barbaros), because it is different from Attic Greek: “… he doesn’t know how to distinguish the words since he’s from Lesbos and was brought up in a barbarian language …” The Roman author Apuleius remarks on the strangeness of Sappho’s dialect.

Aeolic is the dialect that Sappho primarily used for her poetry; it is also known as the Lesbian dialect. In poetry this dialect takes the form of various classical meters, one of which is the Sapphic Stanza, which Sappho used most often. [end of section] Gaustaag (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)