Talk:The Greek Myths

Removal of bias
The so-called criticism added to this article is tanatamount to bias and I am removing it. If it is added back I will continue to remove it.

Graves was a classical scholar, therefore to quote other classical scholars as somehow refuting him is an error known as the "appeal to authority". In such a case, where authorities differ, the appeal to authority is not valid.

I am aware that many people find the author's works challenging, if you don't like what he says I suggest you write your own books, rather than try to poison the well on his writings.Tashkop 20:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you have misunderstood Wikipedia's concept of WP:Neutral point of view. Wikipedia doesn't exclude differences of opinion, it reports on them. The WP approach to different evaluations of Graves' work is not to remove one opinion of it, but to reflect the range of opinions. When multiple authorities disagree, we report on the disagreement.


 * If we can find a modern classical scholar who praises Graves' Greek Myths, by all means, let's include the praise along with the criticism. For that matter, I'd be interested to find a classicist who calls Graves a "classical scholar"; after all, he was a professor of poetry and he himself said "I am not a Greek scholar..." (quoted in Michel Pharand, in his generally sympathetic "Greek Myths, White Goddess", in Graves and the Goddess).


 * Here are some other criticisms of The Greek Myths (some refs improved --Macrakis 19:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)):


 * Robert Graves' Penguin guide, The Greek Myths... makes attractive reading and conveys much solid information, but should be approached with extreme caution nonetheless. Although Graves was certainly well acquainted with the relevant ancient sources, he tended to run together material of diverse origin and value when constructing his summaries of the various bodies of myth, and the resulting narratives are by no means free of eccentric errors and arbitrary fancies.  As for the explanatory notes, they are either the greatest single contribution that has ever been made to the interpretation of Greek myth or else a farrago of cranky nonsense; I fear that it would be impossible to find any classical scholar who would agree with the former diagnosis.
 * --- Robin Hard, bibliographical notes to his edition of H.J. Rose, The Routledge Handbook of Greek Mythology, p. 690, ISBN 0415186366


 * the brilliant but in this field totally misguided Robert Graves
 * --- G.S. Kirk, Myth: its meaning and functions in ancient and other cultures, Cambridge University Press, 1970, p. 5. ISBN 0520023897


 * Graves's ludicrous etymologies and general unreliability
 * --- Yale Review, 1985, p. 373 (quoted in Pharand)


 * [Rose's Handbook and Graves' The Greek Myths] can give a startlingly distorted view of the sort of interpretation which would be considered persuasive by contemporary scholars working on the tales.... his distinction between 'true myth' and twelve other sorts of tale simply cannot be justified from ancient texts
 * --- Richard G. A. Buxton, Imaginary Greece: The Contexts of Mythology, Cambridge University Press, 1994, p. 5. ISBN 0521338654


 * ...Graves takes the myths out of their ancient contexts...
 * ---Mary Lefkowitz, Greek Gods, Human Lives


 * Do you still think these positions should not be reported? --Macrakis 23:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I do - has it escaped your notice that these are simply ad-hominem attacks? Where is the scholarship in them?  By all means report the disagreement, but adding a whole bunch of unsupported assertions is exactly the kind of distortion that you accuse Graves of.Tashkop 01:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * They may or may not be reasonable attacks, but only one (Kirk) is even arguably ad hominem. One criticizes the etymologies, another criticizes the lack of context, and all criticize the interpretations. Have you found other scholars who support Graves' interpretations, etymologies, etc.? --Macrakis 01:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

They offer no supporting (proof) statements and are therefore simply opinions.
 * 'Brilliant but misguided' - yes I would call that ad hominem (Translation - I can't call him an idiot - he's too clearly smart - but I dont agree with him so I'll call him misguided.)
 * 'Startlingly distorted' - Yes I would call that ad hominem - translation - His opinion is very different from mine and I know I'm right.
 * 'Ludicrous etymologies and general unreliability' - Do you really propose that this statement is anything but ad hominem?
 * 'Takes myths out of their ancient contexts' - This is not ad hominem and is correct. What Graves sets out to do is to devine the original meaning of the mthys BEFORE the ancients redacted them to their own world view.
 * Hard's comment is also perfectly factual. What Hard is describing - the running together of information from many sources to inform a view - is actually a pretty good description of what scholarship is meant to be all about isn't it?  In comparison, the people that criticised Graves during his lifetime, and who do so still, were defined by Graves as being of a narrow and barbaric mind, incapable of independent thought, and psychologically incapable of interpreting ancient myth.  He describes his view of them on p224 of the white goddess and in other places throughout his works.Tashkop 02:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agreed that Kirk was marginally ad hominem; but a true ad hominem argument would take some irrelevant personal characteristic to undermine the author, e.g. "he is a communist/ physicist/ Nazi/ homosexual/ Hungarian/ poet/ libertine therefore what he says is wrong". In this case, he is being characterized as "misguided" based on the content of what he is saying.  It is certainly a somewhat snarky way to criticize something, but hey, it's a criticism.


 * Your other examples don't fit the definition of ad hominem in any way. "Ludicrous etymologies" criticizes the etymologies, not the writer; "general unreliability" again says you can't count on the content.  If I wrote that "Connecticut" comes from "connect-I-cut" and that proves that Connecticut wanted to cut its colonial bonds to England (example borrowed from Lefkowitz, if I remember correctly), a critic would be justified in talking about "ludicrous etymologies".  If you want a specific example of a ludicrous etymology, take a look at the TLS review re Telemachus. I don't see how that can possibly be interpreted as an ad hominem attack.


 * As for Hard and Lefkowitz, as I've said before, we're not here to debate the correctness of the criticism, but to report on it. Hard's report that most classical scholars consider the interpretations to be a "farrago of cranky nonsense" is worth reporting, whether you agree with it or not.  (Of course, if you have evidence that most classical scholars do not consider it that, you should add that evidence.)


 * Now, with "devine the original meaning of the mthys BEFORE the ancients redacted them to their own world view", that's a great one. If you can find chapter and verse in Graves, let's include it. His devotees will appreciate it, and his critics will snicker....     --Macrakis 18:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * agree, the criticism is well-sourced and notable, there can be no question of removing it. Care must be taken to avoid Wikipedia's voice taking Lowe's position, maybe rephrasing towards less interspersed quoting. dab (𒁳) 18:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Mac - I am beginning to wonder if you have actually read [much of] Graves. He possibly coined and at least popularised the word 'iconotrophy' to describe the redaction of existing myth by the indo-europeans in their domination of the mediterrean and their subsumption of the existing cultures.  Snicker all you like at his conclusions, it is a matter of record that he made the statements.  It also just makes common sense that a new dominating culture would adapt existing symbols to their own purposes.  I presume that you do know the original purpose of the church steeple?  The yule-tide log?  The Christmas Tree?


 * You are once again missing the point on the criticism. To use an example - In a page on Nazi Germany attitude towards Jews, if you wanted to report that they had a low opinion of the Jews and thought them worthy of extinction that would be appropriate.  If however you wrote a one paragraph article on the fact, and then wrote several more paragraphs containing ad-hominem attacks on Jews by Nazis, with no comments from Jews defending their position - it then becomes propaganda.  If you want to include these statements by 'classical scholars' against Graves then you should also include Grave's statements of opinon of those very same scholars as barbaric, narrow minded. and psychologically incapable of decoding myth.  Failure to do so presents these people as objective critics when in fact they are not, they are the antongonists to Graves in an intellectual argument.  Without that context in place the criticism is inappropriate - That is why I have removed the words (again).


 * Your defienition of ad honinem is very narrow and incorrect. If I call your argument a stupid argument - is that an ad hominem attack?  Of course it is, just cleverly dressed up to give the appearance that it is not.  It is sophistry to pretend that someone using the terms 'ludricrous' is not making an ad hominem attack.Tashkop 20:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Re iconotrophy. First of all, it is "iconotropy" 'image turning', not "iconotrophy" 'image eating', and the poor word has not had much success outside of Graves' oeuvre.


 * As for ad hominem attacks, I think you are mistaken about the meaning of ad hominem. But let's let that pass for now.  More seriously, you seem to think that WP should report only on Graves' position, and not that of "the antongonists to Graves in an intellectual argument".  NPOV says we report on both.  Indeed, it says that we should even report on ad hominem attacks.


 * Graves' criticisms of mainstream scholarship are certainly worth reporting in an article about Graves. You will note that I left them in in my edits on the Robert Graves article (with some rephrasing on your text).  But please stop removing well-sourced, relevant sections reporting criticisms of Graves' work. They are just as valid. --Macrakis 22:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Mac - Iconotropy/Iconotrophy. Whatever - I submit to your greater semantic knowledge. The concept is regardless a clear one and a quick google will inform you that both terms are out there and are being used in exactly the manner that Graves employed it.  I note that you do not argue about the reality of iconotropy and neither do you address the reason that I mentioned it, i.e. your stated disbelief that Graves was making the accusation.
 * I take issue with your statement that you left in Grave's criticisms in the 'Robert Graves' article. You removed Graves criticisms and left in a allusion to them.  By all means if you want to allude to criticism in this article then do so.  But if you are going to include actual damning statements (which you have removed from the Grave's article when it is he who is making them) then it needs to be placed in context.  I think that I have gone into enough length about that above which I note that you have forborne to comment on.
 * Can I suggest that you take a look at the article on Black Athena? That is certainly a publication that has engendered as much or more opposition from classical scholars than has Grave's work, but that article is not filled up with a catalogue of scholarly vituperation.  It is in the main an article on the book, and also reports the disagreement and refers to the source documents.  You are mistaken when you say that I don't think that the criticism should be reported.  I just feel that if it is in there - it should be placed in context, otherwise it runs the risk of being given an emphasis that it should not receive.  I don't know what else I can add to make that more clear to you as I think that I have stated it several times.Tashkop 22:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Mac - give me half and hour and I will try and add somethign that we might all be happy with.Tashkop 22:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you please cut out this "Mac" attack? It may not be ad hominem argument, but it is bizarre; is it intended as familiar or offensive? Either way, it is not welcome. --Macrakis 23:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Have a look at it now. The reference to the Times article is a free link so anyone can read it.  IMO - This article lacks meat in the actual description of the book as opposed to what people think about it.Tashkop 23:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I probably won't get to this today. Probably tomorrow. --Macrakis 23:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Macrakis - It was not my intention to cause offence with your name. Shortening of names is not considered bizarre within my cultural context and I apologise if I have caused offence or behaved in a manner that your own cultural context considers to be overly familiar.Tashkop 23:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Continuation of the Mac attack / Scotch discussion is found in Talk:The Greek Myths/Mac attack. I have moved it from this talk page to there as it is completely irrelevant to the main issue.  Tashkop, thanks for the apology.  PMA, thanks for the support.  Now let's get on with The Greek Myths. --Macrakis 20:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Classical scholar?
First of all, Robert Graves was not a classical scholar. He was a historical novelist who had had a classical education, and did extensive and thorough research; but his Greek is at best shaky. For example, the assertion that pterseus does or can mean "destroyer", which he makes in the introduction to The Greek Myths, and IIRC repeats elsewhere, is nonsense; probably a half-remembered version of the perfectly accurate statements that perseus does mean "destroyer" - the same root is found in Iliou persis, the conventional Greek term for the Sack of Troy; and that initial p- and pt- are often interchangeable.

Even if he were the equivalent of Wilamowitz or Rohde, and there were wide-spread criticism of his scholarship, we should include it; we are bound to do so by WP:NPOV.

TGM is a curious book; the numbered paragraphs are an eloquent and comprehensive summary of the Greek myths, the best I know of; Wikipedia should use it much more widely than it does. (I recall from Seymour-Smith's biograhy that he had a research assistant, as any other mythographer might have done; but the writing is his own.) The lettered paragraphs are his private theory, which has not, to my knowledge, ever been accepted by anyone competent to judge; and which is an unfalsifiable collage of 1890's conjecture.

And I do mean unfalsifiable. Once violence can be read into a narrative, it is difficult to imagine a plot that would not fall into one of Graves' categories: matrilineal succession myth, Achaean compromise, patriarchal reworking, historical incident of the (entirely unattested) wars between the priestesses and the kings; and if one does appear, it can always be declared iconotropy, despite the absence of any evidence that the Greeks of the sixth and fifth centuries knew Mycenaean art. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Septentrionalis - I am not going to reprise the long dioscussion thatr I have already had with Macrakis. For the reasons that I have already provided I have reverted your changes. Tashkop 01:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Tashkop, when there is a dispute, it is far better to resolve it on the Talk page first than to remove content which a) has clearly been added in good faith (not vandalism), b) is well-sourced, c) is added by an editor with good knowledge of the subject matter, d) contains additional information which is undisputed, and e) is supported by multiple other editors. As a gesture of good faith and cooperation, I strongly suggest you restore PMAnderson's edits and work with us here on the Talk page to decide how to move forward.  As for "reprise the long discussion", first of all, if you think this is a long discussion, "you ain't seen nothin' yet"; secondly, PMA is bringing up new points which you have never addressed. --Macrakis 12:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have been less patient. We will of course consider modifications; my own edits are themselves a compromise text. But reverting against more numerous editors is both uncollegial and ultimately futile; please discuss and attempt compromise. (And Macrakis is right; the discussion of Graves' theories is a very long one, and only in part belongs in this article.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "reverting against more numerous editors is both uncollegial and ultimately futile"
 * What this says is that if enough people gather together to bully their way through then their view prevails. Why do you not describe it as uncollegial to revery ANY author without discussion?
 * Ultimately, the choice must come down to allowing multiple editors to bully their way through, or allowing one isolated editor with a cause to bully his way through. The protections given a minority are discussed in WP:Consensus; so is the thought that those who find their viewpoint being rejected by a large number of editors should consider that they may be mistaken.


 * But the suggestion that Tashkop's edits have been reverted without discussion is a flat lie; a personal attack. It is Tashkop who has declined to discuss; Tashkop's points have been discussed at some length. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the number of responses that I have added to this page give the lie to Septentrionalis' statement that I refuse to discuss.
 * As to Septentrionalis' claim that the points I raise have been discussed - i continue to dispute that. Here once again is the relevant point  - once Septentrionalis has ignored and which has never been discussed.  The article is about the BOOK.  In a larger or well balanced artcile a stream of invective would be balanced, but at its current state adding it vebatim in the way that it has been added is in my view NPOV.  Here again the is Wiki statement on it Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."Tashkop 19:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The article, as it now stands, is about the book. To quote the book itself for Graves' system would be citing a primary source, always a dangerous thing to do: WP:ATT discourages this, except for non-controversial assertions, which would be difficult to come by. It is very hard to boil Graves' system down to a couple indisputable paragraphs; he never managed to do so. If someone can do so, great.


 * We are reasonably closely representing the consensus of secondary sources on Graves' work, which is what WP:UNDUE requires us to do. I looked for favorable comment on TGM and Macpherson was the best and longest I found; it is a quotation from a review on balance quite unfavorable. Again, if other citations can be found, so much the better; but Hard gives me little prospect of doing so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is the section from NPOV that I am applying here:
 * "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."


 * This article is meant to be about the BOOK. Having a tiny paragraph on the book itself, and then a barrage of invective against the author is NOT NPOV - no matter how well sourced you claim it to be.
 * Lowe's criticism is NOT well sourced of course. It is pure hypebole, with no citattion or proof statements, generated in a book review that is meant to be about another book entirely and aimed at a person that is safely dead and cannot sue.  Nonetheless I have left a link in for it, so that if people want to read it then they are able to.;
 * It doesn't have to be; it's not a Wikipedia contribution - although in fact, it is quite similar to, and doubtless largely derived from Rose's review of TGM, which was in a peer-reviewed journal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And the link to it is still there - anyone can read it who wants to - what's the problem?Tashkop 19:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As for you - Macrakis - finally showing your face again - You have no credibility to complain. The approach that I am taking here is exactly the approach that you took when you removed Grave's criticism of classical scholars on the grounds that the language was not neutral.  A little consistency from your corner would be nice.
 * It would also be nice if in your responses you actually addressed the questions that I raise instead of simply heading off onto tangents or ignoring them.Tashkop 19:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I see; Tashkop's edits are a violation of WP:POINT. I do not see, however, which of Tashkop's questions have been ignored. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV of course demands that well-sourced criticism belongs in the article, and there is no shortage of criticism of Graves' work. But NPOV also demands well-sourced praise, doesn't it? After all, Graves is still popular (even his interpretation of myth remains popular with some readers), for the reasons that PMAnderson has explained. If we could find a nice quote saying Graves' retellings of the myths are eloquent and compelling, that would help balance the richly-deserved criticism. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely, and have encouraged Tashkop to find such praise. This will be easiest for the narrative summaries. After all, even Hard says, "makes attractive reading and conveys much solid information", though he qualifies this immediately: "the resulting narratives are by no means free of eccentric errors and arbitrary fancies". PMAnderson's current text does praise the tellings of the myths.  Perhaps part of the issue here is to distinguish between story-telling (which everyone agrees Graves does a superb job of) and documentation of ancient mythology (which all synoptic mythographers tend to distort).


 * It will be harder to find praise for his interpretations, which come in for the really scathing criticism. But I have myself cited one source above: "Michel Pharand, in his generally sympathetic "Greek Myths, White Goddess", in Graves and the Goddess"; I used it to show that even his supporters acknowledged that his interpretations have been strongly criticized, but it could also be used to characterize his support. --Macrakis 17:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at it. Praise for TGM is harder to find than I would have expected; Rose's review is absolutely scathing, even of the retellings: he concludes that Graves "has not heard of" the OCD - or of anything published since 1844. (The Classical Review, New Ser., Vol. 5, No. 2. (Jun., 1955), pp. 208-209. JSTOR link; I do not recommend this go in the article.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * However, as a substitute for Lowe, from a peer-reviewed publication, it is a reasonable effort at compromise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

=NPOV Tag= The NPOV tag added by Septentrionalis is a joke. What he or she means is that it is not POV enough in his/her POV. I am at a loss to understand how citing 5 critics and only one response from the author offends NPOV, at least in the seense that Septentrionalis is taking.Tashkop 19:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Tashkop, Wikipedia is built on collaborative editing, a process of give-and-take where we're all supposed to be flexible and reasonable. You have deleted a large chunk of well-sourced content which PMA and I consider of good quality. Instead of trying to balance the presentation by finding sources for other points of view, and Akhilleus and I have encouraged you to do, you have categorically rejected others' contributions. This is not a productive way forward. --Macrakis 19:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again you simply complain. I have explained at length how I am implementing NPOV. You consistently fail to answer it. I reject your statement that I have rejected other people's contributions - The current text was an attempt at compromise - which once again you have failed to answer. Compromise does not mean macrakis that you simply get your own way.Tashkop 19:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW - Macrakis - I hope that you have Septentrionalis' permission to refer to him/her as PMA. Some people around here can get fussy about people using shortcuts to identify others.Tashkop 19:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly he does; nor does he use it like a drumroll. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In my cultural context Septentrionalis, it is offensive not to identify the person who is being addressed. To you it's a drumroll.  As I have already stated - it is different cultural contexts at work. I don't make the mistake of thinking that thety are all the same Tashkop 20:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Tashkop, I think you may be misunderstanding the NPOV policy. One of the most important parts of the policy is the section on undue weight, which tells us that articles "should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." It's clear that the majority of classical scholars have a low opinion of Graves' interpretations of the Greek myths, and the article should reflect this. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Akhilleus - My version of the text does reflect that. It states that there is criticsm and makes references to the source, including a full length and extremely disparaging article from Lowe.  I believe that I am applying the undue weight section of the NPOV - this piece.


 * Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."


 * In the context of an article about the book - having the majority of it consist of verbatim criticism is in my view undue weight. Tashkop 20:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Tashkop, as I've said several times before, the way to improve the balance here is to find some sources that support Graves. My guess is that there are some writers on literature (as opposed to classics or anthropology) who praise him highly, but frankly I haven't found them.  It would, in fact, be very interesting to find an article comparing his reception in different fields. (Remember, no original research, so it would be out of place here.)


 * As for Graves's opinions of his critics, I don't think we should be spending much room on them, especially if they are all as ad hominem as your paraphrase suggests: "defined by Graves as being of a narrow and barbaric mind, incapable of independent thought, and psychologically incapable of interpreting ancient myth". If, on the other hand, he has cogent rebuttals of the criticisms, showing that his etymologies are correct or whatever, that could be interesting. --Macrakis 20:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

JSTOR links
Is there a policy about something like JSTOR links, of which there are several in this article? The information on that site is available by paid subscription only. It seems to me inappropriate for there to be Wikipedia links to such a site, because 1) they are unverifiable by people who aren't paid subscribers, surely a tiny minority of users, and 2) such links could be construed as advertising for a pay site. I think they shouldn't be allowed, but I don't know if there's a policy about this. (I'm not suggesting deleting the citation to the actual article, which should still be available in print in academic and some large public libraries, just the links to JSTOR.) Strawberryjampot (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, they shouldn't be deleted. JSTOR is subscription-only, but it is accessible to many users, because most colleges and universities have subscriptions, as do many libraries. The links are useful for many people who read Wikipedia articles, and are not a great inconvenience for those users who don't have access. BTW, JSTOR is non-profit, if I recall correctly... --Akhilleus (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the above really addresses the question I was raising, which is whether these JSTOR links are within policy, not whether they should be. The relevant policies, from the Wikipedia help pages on Citations and External Links, include the following statements:


 * The purpose of citing sources is to ensure that the content of articles can be checked by any reader or editor. ... one should avoid ... links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation. ... Sites that require registration or a paid subscription should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers. ... A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article or is being used as an inline reference.


 * It seems to me pretty clear that the above policies prohibit JSTOR links. I'm willing to listen to arguements that they don't before deleting them.  Please note again that the question I'm raising here is are JSTOR links permitted by current policy?  Whether they ought to be permitted is a legitimate but separate question; if people want to discuss that, I think it would be more productive to put it in its own section of this talk page.  If there's a better place to discuss this general policy, someone please recommend it here.  Thanks.  Strawberryjampot (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, they're permitted by policy. If you have doubts about this, the talk page of WP:EL might be a good place to get more input. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, what is being cited is the print source; the links are for the convenience of those readers who are able to use them. Those who can't are no worse for their presence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

In Our Time
Rich Farmbrough, 03:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Addition of the Olympian Creation Myth
Hello! I would like to add to this page a brief discussion of Robert Graves' version of the Olympian Creation Myth.--Aalvanos (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)