# Talk:Odyssey

Hi there. I'm going to be making some changes to the article over the next few days in order to try and raise it out of being a C-class article, given its importance to literature generally. I'll be updating this section regularly with what is being changed. If anyone has any questions or concerns, let me know. Foremost, I'm going to try and improve the article's lead by reducing it in size, and increasing clarity and conciseness. Imaginestigers (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, the lead. I've simplified the first paragraph, and drawn in information from elsewhere, to provide only details on composition and authorship. The second paragraph has become the refuge of plot details and an allusion to its structure. The latter two paragraphs mirror the first two: The third elaborates on composition, and the fourth highlighting the themes (as it relates to the plot) and significance as a text. Imaginestigers (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Next up, I'm going to tackle the Character of Odysseus section. It’s largely unsourced and reads like something that one might write down from a blackboard. Imaginestigers (talk) 11:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I haven't read the article, but I've read the lead. Noticing that it says that the poem is still read in the Homeric Greek, I would like to encourage expansion on this point, if there is not already something (a cursory look didn't spot anything). For example, I'm not a reliable source, but Homeric Greek is extremely delightful. Untitled50reg (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Untitled50reg, I'll see what I can find! A section about the original language might be more generally useful (as this is ultimately a page about a historical literary work, not written in English) than a bunch of stuff which is currently there. The article has a lot of simplified bloat. Imaginestigers (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I've overhauled the Character of Odysseus. I didn't want to delete too much of what someone else wrote, so I've re-written it, with more robust referencing. My next focus will be on pruning unnecessary, unsourced information from the rest of the article. Then I'll try and determine what kind of structural changes the rest of it needs. I'll update here as I go. Imaginestigers (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I've made a bunch of minor changes to In pop culture. Firstly, it was standardising the format of "Author's Book (Year)" or "Film (Year) is a (Country)" then it was deciding what would stay and what would go. Anything that had a good source stayed, and anything where a source was easily retrievable, I retrieved a source. As for the section on opera, only one of them was sourced. I've added CN's to each of them, because opera isn't really my area, so I don't want to remove them too harshly. I removed a reference to Rick Riordan's Heroes of Olympus books, because to my knowledge they most include larger mythology, not the Odyssey itself, and the reference was eNotes Homework Help.
I'm not convinced "In popular culture" is the right title for something that includes obscure opera pieces, I think I'm going to rename it to "Cultural impact" or "Cultural influence", something along those lines. I've also deleted the blank section which provides a main article link to English translations of Homer. But I think a section on the evolution of the Odyssey's translation is absolutely worthwhile, so consider that a placeholder removal until I fix it up! It’s included in See also until then. Imaginestigers (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
A new challenge for you: When I initially glanced at the article, a few days ago, I changed Ulysses to Ulixes, noting that, to the Romans, he was Ulixes, not Ulysses. I added a handful of references. I look now, and Ulysses has inserted himself with my references demonstrating that he was not Ulysses. Appropriately sneaky, perhaps, but, unless you can find Ulysses his own references, I am going to continually snatch him out, considering him a Demogorgon.Untitled50reg (talk) 11:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
For clarity: what I mean is that Odysseus is just a change of alphabet. Such was the Greek name. The Romans knew him as Ulixes. We don't change the alphabet there because we use the same alphabet. I repeat that I am not a reliable source, but I personally have only encountered Ulysses in English. Untitled50reg (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Though that is not entirely clear. I have not encountered Ulysses in Latin. I did not mean to imply that he is not so in Latin. He is probably medieval. Untitled50reg (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, @Untitled50reg:. The problem with those citations is that they link primary sources, which we aren't allowed to do. You have to link to a secondary source. I won't be tackling the Lede of the article for a little while, but if you aren't able to track down any secondary sources (articles on the reliable source list, scholarly articles), I'll probably have to end up removing it before I submit it for good article approval. I agree that both should probably be there, and I'll do what I can. But right now I need to fix the rest of the article before I go back and re-write the Lede (to suit the article that now exists). Imaginestigers (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Edited down the plot. It probably still needs more pruning. Imaginestigers (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Added a section on the problems with translating the book into English. Imaginestigers (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. "(Ὀδυσσεύς, Latin Ulixes from one of several Greek variants; hence English Ulysses), king of Ithaca; son of Laertes and Anticlea; husband of Penelope; hero of *Homer's Odyssey." "Virgil's references to Ulixes in Aeneid 2 follow the Euripidean conception [...] as does Seneca [...]".
 –  "Odysseus", The Oxford Classical Dictionary (4 ed.) Edited by Simon Hornblower, Antony Spawforth, and Esther Eidinow Publisher: Oxford University Press Print Publication Date: 2012 Print ISBN-13: 9780199545568 Published online: 2012 Current Online Version: 2012 eISBN: 9780191735257 – 
nb English Ulysses.  Untitled50reg (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Good job, @Untitled50reg:, very much appreciated! Article leads aren't meant to have any references in them (and everything there should be cited elsewhere in the article), so what I'll do is shove them both into the Character of Odysseus section with that reference. They both need to go there, anyway, because Ulysses is the English name. Imaginestigers (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
@Untitled50reg:: Added to Character of Odysseus! Imaginestigers (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't know the rules, so I will let you do whatever you are doing. For myself, I am just stood Janusly on Wikipedia between "Throw physic to the dogs" and "Zarathustra is no longer a scholar". Untitled50reg (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Added a section about the Date of composition. Imaginestigers (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I see this article is up for "Good Article" review. As someone who has helped bring over two dozen Wikipedia articles up to "Good Article" status and who is currently on my third year into a degree in classical studies, I am glad to see this, so I thought I would pitch in and add a little help. I've made some changes to the lede. I thought I should also mention that the final "Cultural influence" section isn't in very good shape. It's mostly composed of bullet points and there are a lot of points that aren't especially relevant and even ones that are uncited. I would suggest converting these sections into prose and removing claims that are uncited or of dubious relevance. —Katolophyromai (talk) 05:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Another huge problem I'm noticing is that the section "Textual history" doesn't say anything about how Greek manuscripts of the Odyssey were copied throughout the Greek-speaking world (mainly the Byzantine Empire) throughout the Middle Ages and that medieval Greek writers such as Eustathios of Thessaloniki wrote scholarly commentaries on it. The way the section is right now could easily give someone the false impression that everything we know about the text of the Odyssey comes from the scraps of ancient copies that have been found through archaeology, which is not at all the case, since most of our information actually comes from the medieval manuscripts. —Katolophyromai (talk) 06:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@Katolophyromai: kindly leave the article alone until the review is over, thanks. -- Whiteguru (talk) 09:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@Katolophyromai: Hi there! Thanks so much for your input. I've been looking for someone with some more expertise. I'm in my fourth year of an English Literature degree, and I studied these texts for a year, but there's a lot of things which do frustrate me. Cultural influence is a relic of a prior iteration on the article, and the one which I did not really give any attention to other than cleaning up the list. Once the GA review is over, I'd be really appreciative of your assistance. The same is true with Textual history, which I wrote myself. There are bound to be some gaps in my knowledge, and I'd be thankful for having someone to patch them up. Imaginestigers (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@Katolophyromai: Actually, go nuts! Nothing wrong with editing while a GA review is in process. Especially if it’s helping. Imaginestigers (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@Whiteguru: Your comment above makes no sense. Good edits are always welcome. @Katolophyromai: Please please please edit as much as you like. Paul August ☎ 21:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with all of Katolophyromai's remarks above. It would be best it the "Cultural influence" section was converted from a bulleted list, into prose. But at an absolute minimum, everything in it should have a secondary source establishing relevance, significance and notability with respect to the Odyssey. Paul August ☎ 21:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@Paul August: Excellent idea, and surprised I didn't think about that sooner. University is busy right now, so I'll need to wait until I have more free time to dedicate to it at the weekend. Imaginestigers (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
@Imaginestigers: I have added some very brief information to the "Textual history" section about some of the really big moments in the history of the text of the Odyssey: the production of a standardized text and commentaries by scholars in Alexandria in the third and second centuries BCE, the archbishop Eustathios of Thessalonike's commentaries in the eleventh century CE, the production of the first printed edition in 1488 by Demetrios Chalkokondyles, and the production of the first English translation in 1614 by George Chapman. For some reason, none of these things were mentioned in the article before, but they are all there now. —Katolophyromai (talk) 06:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: The honest answer is that this is not my field, and I could only make changes to what I was reasonably certain of, in the hope that someone would fill the other blanks in later. I'm glad you have come, though. Imaginestigers (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the following from the Cultural influence section, because they are not cited, and I'm going to wait until I can rewrite the section (converting it into clear prose) before re-adding them:
Max Bruch’s choral work Odysseus told the main highlights of the hero’s story.
Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds use the Odyssey to form the "narrative" of the song "More News from Nowhere," released in 2008 as a single and on the album Dig, Lazarus, Dig!!!. In the song, Cave uses a variety of contemporary names to represent the gods and nymphs who populate the Odyssey, and sketches key episodes from the epic across an eight-minute track.
I'm preserving them here from the time being. Imaginestigers (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank everyone who has worked on this article over the years. I'm really thankful to whoever put in the earlier work at making the images in the article relevant and well-suited to the page in particular, as well as to @Katolophyromai: for their additions to the Textual history section, and to @Whiteguru: for the review. Imaginestigers (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Imaginestigers: I am actually the one who selected a very significant portion of the images that are currently used in this article. See this series of edits I made in June 2017 in which I added, replaced, and moved around most of the images in the article. The images I put in place back then are mostly the same ones that are in the article now. —Katolophyromai (talk) 02:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Nice one! I've a few other projects first but once they're done with I'll come back to try to help determine if it's worth pursuing FA. I think a lot of it is strong/robust, but work has to be done on Cultural influence, and I think receptiom needs some sort of dedicated section (the Emily Wilson translation stuff can be moved there).Imaginestigers (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The pronunciation was just changed from Greek pronunciation: [o.dýs.sej.ja] to Greek pronunciation: [o.dýs.seː.a]. This attracted my attention initially because it was not immediately obvious to me that this new pronunciation is actually possible. I then just doubted the facticity generally. Therefore I put my face in The Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek. Page 9 therein offers the pronunciation of the short diphthong ει as: "[e:] (earlier [ei])". It notes also that "ι and υ in diphthongs were not pronounced exactly like the equivalent single vowels, but as sounds approximating 'semivowels' [j] and [w]". I am accordingly sceptical of this new pronunciation. Untitled50reg (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@LangNerd1234: Hi there! Could you explain the change you made to the IPA pronunciation? Given a lack of explanation, I'm going to revert your change until one is forthcoming. Imaginestigers (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I am more than aware of the change in phonetic values when it comes to ει. However, since it is academically regarded for the term "Ancient Greek" to fit the description of classical Attic Greek, spoken from the 5th to the 4th century B.C., a period during which the standard pronunciation of ει has been proven to be [eː]. Thank you for your understanding! LangNerd1234 (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Ideally, the plan is to get this article in a good shape for FA nomination. To that end, I'm going to outline my broad structural plans.

Cultural influence. The most pressing issue are the current problems with this section. I intend to follow-through all the significant texts mentioned, and convert the material into something that does not have a list. Similarly, the poem's influence should be described in more detail beyond explicit references in other texts.
Analysis and criticism. Both of these are currently sprinkled in throughout the article, a remnant from a WikiEd project. The student did some excellent work that I was able to polish up, but I think that it can be condensed. I'm using the Hamlet article as a primary influence here. It’s incredibly well structured, and highly accessible. I think the current state of Themes and patterns focuses excessively on a few elements from a small sliver of critics. It needs to be reduced, and built out. Geography of the Odyssey is another point of pain for me. I mention it here because I think it could be folded into a section on analysis and criticism.
Odysseus. This section still, after a lot of work, gives me a headache. I'm not entirely sure how to approach it (open to feedback). Noting here that I know it’s an issue.
The lead will require rewriting when all this is done.
This isn't an exhaustive list. It’s just what is currently on my radar. If anyone has any suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them. Imaginestigers (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Katolophyromai and Paul August: You've both given really helpful feedback before about the Cultural influence section of the page (now just "Influence"). I've started making changes to it. If you have any feedback on the changes I've made so far, I'd appreciate the input! If not, I shall carry on. ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Temporarily on hold while I work on changes for another GA review. Work should resume within a few days. ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Some thoughts on this: Aza24 (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes the cultural influence section is tricky because even if the list is converted to text, it will likely still be "list-like" and I'm not sure there's an easy way to avoid that ("list-like" in the way that the literature section is already). Btw, I've found some other songs: "Tales of Brave Ulysses" and "Ulysses (song)" and the opera: Die Odyssee by August Bungert (check out its grove article); I know that U is a character in Troilus and Cressida but I think that story is mostly based on the Iliad. You may want to look through Category:Films based on the Odyssey as well and there are definitely a lot of paintings that could be mentioned – I think I brought some up at your talk. this chapter has some information that might help for general influence. The two other things I would recommend is more comparison to the Iliad, perhaps a small section and way more comparison to the Aeneid (which would go under influence I assume) – after all, there's a reason that this article exists. Sorry for throwing so many different things at you here!
Hi, User:Aza24! Appreciate the input. I think I've been doing okay with Influence so far. My major plan is to get it to resemble Hamlet#Influence, but the Odyssey has a much broader impact (imo), so it’s important to keep it narrow. My long-term goal is to separate Influence not into mediums, but movement. A section about its impact on Renaissance artist; a section about its (great) influence on modernism. But right now I need to keep things narrow, so that I have some material to work with. This section requires a lot of work. Thanks for the links to the music pieces! Regarding the Iliad, I've been advised against comparing the two in detail. It’s possible I can do it briefly (a section about all three of those texts and how they interact could work), but that's definitely a subject for later. ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree that Hamlet is a good format, the article itself is among the highest quality on WP. I understand the hesitency about Illiad, but the influence on the Aeneid seems more important anyways. Aza24 (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The Odysseus and Geography sections look OK – I think you'd have to be careful about expanding them too much, however, just glancing at it, I suspect one or two more sentences to Geography wouldn't hurt. I am yet to look closely at the analysis/criticism you're saying is sprinkled throughout.
I think there's a good chance Geography is going to be transformed into a subheading at some stage in the future. ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I would advise against that, only because it seems to be subheading for the sake of subheading. Considering that there's an entire article on Geography on WP, it would seem prominent enough to be its own thing – obvious no big deal if you disagree though. Aza24 (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Some random things:
Not sure that "Influences on the Odyssey" and "Geography in the Odyssey" need the "in the Odyssey part" – surely that's implied.
Great point! "Influences on the Odyssey" might find a better home under the Textual history section. I haven't done much to "Influences on the Odyssey" other than fix up some formatting. ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I wonder if the place of the influences section may be better suited somewhere else, perhaps between themes and textual history
YEP! Agreed. ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
The referencing throughout it a bit odd, I know that most people prefer not putting pages in the text but obviously there's no rule against this. Either way, it doesn't make a lot of sense at the moment, for example, ref 30 has "127–31" in the ref but page numbers of 127–31 in addition and then 124–5 later while it still refers to the "127–31" ref (if that makes sense?). I personally use sfn citations which I find solves issues like these, since you can separate the source from the page numbers and still link back but this up to you of course. I would also recommend you move more citations to the bibliography, such as "The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth" and then use page numbers throughout the text, otherwise there seems to be a big mix of citation styles.
So referencing is not my thing, really. I always try to include a direct page number to where I am quoting from. I won't do that if I instead put a quotation. I'll seek advise from a GOCE editor with some experience in that area much closer to the time, I think. We're a long way off FA nom. ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
With a further reading section like that there will likely be some skepticism from FA reviewers that not enough literature is used, you may want to consider trying to use more of them... Aza24 (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
WIP! Can only tackle so many parts at once. Right now I'm improving the worst sections so that I can solicit further feedback on important critical material. I'm also going to reach out to a lecturer at my university who specialises in classics; I think she might be helpful in that regard. But it’s going to be a slow process — I can only work on one section at once, and despite this article's very high views, it doesn't look like there's a whole lot of interest in improving it, which is disappointing. I've tried reaching out to people to no avail. For that reason alone, I am very very thankful for your feedback! It’s good to get another pair of eyes on it.
There's a lot of critical material missing. There's an over-lingering on some ideas (Homecoming, Patterns) with total neglect of other (the story's meta qualities, for instance; how enchanted it is with its own storytelling). Thanks again for the input. It means a lot. Check in on it every now and again! ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Reaching out to a professor is a great idea – my work in Medieval music has forced me to do the same on many occasions. I'll watch the page and try to keep an eye on your progress, but yes a long process for sure. Also, if it would help, I'd be able to reformatting/standardizing the citations myself; I've done it for some other high profile pages before (Abraham Lincoln and Leonardo da Vinci which is a work in progress) – up to you though. Aza24 (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
That would be great! But I won't ask you to do so now, when everything is in flux. I'll give you a ping when I'm at the stage where unifying the citations is needed. That'd be really helpful. Thanks Aza! ImaginesTigers (talk) 11:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes just let me know – and no problem at all. Aza24 (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I just had a little sniff at the present influence, as far as literature. I thought I would note that I don't think that Dante had read any Homer, so I am not sure if he counts as being directly influenced (if you want to limit it to direct influence). Also Ezra Pound's Cantos literally opens with the Odyssey. I don't know if Theocritus is adequately notable, but idylls 6 and 11 involve Polyphemus. Obviously you know Euripides'play. This is just what came immediately to mind... Otherwise I think there's an English idiom touching Skylla and Kharybdis (or however they are spelled). And that reminds me of Sin in Paradise Lost, but I am too ignorant of the Latin poets to offer her with any confidence. Untitled50reg (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Though I should add to that missing confidence The Faerie Queene, which I have not read in a long time but vaguely recall some monsters which diminish the Sin business further. Untitled50reg (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
There's certainly a fair amount of criticism on Dante and the Odyssey. And scholars have noted it. Ezra Pound will be added soon! He's on my list of important features. I think the current list doesn't include Keats' On First Looking into Chapman's Homer, which is also on my list. It'll be built out in time. If, when I finish each section, there's glaring stuff missing, ping me. I'll definitely be including The Faerie Queen — the lecturer I mentioned above is an expert on Spenser! ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Edith Hall suggests that Dante's depiction of Odysseus became understood as a manifestation of Renaissance colonialism and othering, with the cyclops standing in for "accounts of monstrous races on the edge of the world", and his defeat as symbolising "the Roman domination of the western Mediterranean".[32]
Modern writers have revisited the Odyssey to highlight the poem's female characters. Canadian writer Margaret Atwood adapted parts of the Odyssey for her novella, The Penelopiad (2005). The novella focuses on Penelope and the twelve female slaves hanged by Odysseus at the poem's ending,[72] an image which haunted Atwood.[73] Atwood's novella comments on the original text, wherein Odysseus' successful return to Ithaca symbolises the restoration of a patriarchal system.[73] Similarly, Madeline Miller's Circe (2018) revisits the relationship between Odysseus and Circe on Aeaea.[74] As a reader, Miller was frustrated by Circe's lack of motivation in the original poem and sought to explain her capriciousness.[75] The novel recontextualises the sorceress' transformations of sailors into pigs from an act of malice into one of self-defence, given that she has no superhuman strength with which to repel attackers.[76] 2600:1016:B024:4429:BC0D:1B9A:889:C46B (talk) 06:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Obviously the Odyssey has allegorical and metaphorical significance throughout the book. I am trying to create a section within the page to address this topic. For some reason Imaginestiger is blocking me from adding this section. I see nothing wrong in adding such a significant topic as allegorical information to this page.
Here is the entry I am trying to add:
Allegorical Analysis - new section title
- The Odyssey has similarities with the ancient mythical archetypal pattern of what Joseph Campbell calls a hero’s journey and the monomyth. The three main stages are identified in the story, which consist of several steps: the Departure (or Separation), the Initiation, and the Return. Joseph Campbell speaks of this parallel in his book: “Thus Odysseus answers, throughout his entire saga in The Odyssey, the single mythic question posed at the beginning, the one which could be phrased as: How do I ever find true home again? Greg1wiki (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Given that Campbell’a hero cycle theories apply to hundreds of works of literature, including on this article is pointless. Aza24 (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
How can it be pointless when Campbell references the Odyssey story with a quote is his most famous book? Greg1wiki (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I have already explained this to you: the Odyssey is more important to Campbell's theory than Campbell's theory is to the Odyssey. I reverted the addition of your content 3 times; another editor reverted it once; and a third editor removed it again. This is edit warring. You have warned about edit warring before, on an unrelated topic. At this point, you are wasting multiple editors' time with disruptive editing. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I do not feel that just because YOU think that Campbells Theory is not relevant to the Odyssey does not make it so. I have book references and citations to back up my argument for my edit. Where are your references and citations? The other people who reverted my edit also did not have basis to do so, as you can see from their comments in the talk. Aza24 only found the edit to be pointless, that is no reason for edit reversion. My edit is not unrelated to the Odyssey as you have stated, again just because you have a personal opinion in regards to related or not should not discredit my edit. This is an edit warning, you have been warned about reversing my edits. Greg1wiki (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
So, is this how Wikipedia works these days? I have three editors ImaginesTigers, Aza24, and Ferret revert my edit and then give me an edit warning and block my edit. Where are your valid arguments, references, citations, dialogue, discourse for your disapproval? It seems that you all just made up some arbitrary personal reasons without any valid points being made other than personal objections. How do I know that you are not all friends and are just teaming up to discredit my edit. How can you say “at this point, you are wasting multiple editors' time with disruptive editing” as you can see from this talk we have barely discussed anything, there has been no discourse? We have not even had any type of consensus argument over my edit? I thought that the Talk section was where you were supposed to debate your reasons for and against edits and back them up with valid references and citations to prove your argument/point.
Oh well, if this is how Wikipedia wants to allow their website to be run, so be it! It seems to be more authoritarian than democratic. This needs to be fixed. Greg1wiki (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Also, your argument that just because the "Odyssey is more important to Campbell's theory than Campbell's theory is to the Odyssey", who said this?, YOU? How do you know that statement to be true? The Odyssey was written in 8th century BC, there are ancient mythical monomyth (Campbells - hero's journey) stories that date back to 200-100 century BC, so who's theory is more important or came first? Where are your references and citations? Just because you make this personal opinion does not mean that we should not have an allegorical analysis section for the Odyssey page. Your statement has nothing to do with what I am proposing. Again, it sounds like you are making a personal opinion and you are definitely not backing up your argument with anything. Greg1wiki (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I wanted to move the discussion onto Talk to seek outside voices. If you are patient more people will come and express their views; mine should not dominate the discussion. The above is not great in tone. So far my position is that I agree there should be a place for it in the article but it is to attributing it to sources which are talking about Campbell's theory or the effect his theory had, because I am objecting that it's significant enough to include, especially to dedicated a whole header to it. If it was possible, I think the paragraph as written could go under a Trivia header. Thanks, — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 01:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I can be patient, patience is a virtue. I also felt as others can read for themselves that your tone towards me in the initial conversation were not great either. I am glad to hear that you think there should be an allegorical section. I would imagine that there are many other allegorical theories regarding the Odyssey story. It seems we are a little hung up on Campbell’s - a hero’s journey/monomyth theory. Campbell’s theory is but one allegorical theory that I myself have submitted for this section. There will be other editors who will have separate allegorical theories of the book. This is why I created the “Allegorical Analysis” section, so that other editors could give their separate allegorical/metaphorical theories that they themselves have researched and want to submit. Greg1wiki (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Modern scholarship has -- if not determined, certainly is leaning toward -- the conclusion that the Iliad and Odyssey were composed by different people and the Odyssey is quite a bit later. It was most likely composed when the Iliad was already a classic (at least generation or two after the Iliad; as late as around 600 to 550 BC). Martin West (I believe) among others asserted this, and it has gained substantial acceptance. I lack the time to correct Wiki's errors (which are pervasive) but if anyone has the inclination, they can easily find the references and update the very dated information in this article. 2600:1702:28E0:EE0:5D24:8197:2CAB:9CBC (talk) 01:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The article already says:
"The Odyssey was originally composed in Homeric Greek in around the 8th or 7th century BC and, by the mid-6th century BC, had become part of the Greek literary canon. In antiquity, Homer's authorship of the poem was not questioned, but contemporary scholarship predominantly assumes that the Iliad and the Odyssey were composed independently and that the stories formed as part of a long oral tradition"
What about this disagrees with what you've said? Aza24 (talk) 04:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

...about who is which. Neocorelight (Talk) 01:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure, but I've restored the image to what is was for a while after the GAN. It seems to have been changed by a now-banned user without discussion or explanation. Aza24 (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

"Wine-Dark Sea: Symphony for Band" by American composer John Mackey, is a three-movement work of 30 minutes based on stories from the Odyssey.  It was written in 2014 as a commission by conductor Jerry Junkin of the University of Texas Wind Ensemble, to whom the work is dedicated. The subject matter was suggested by the composer's wife Abigail Mackey, to whom the second movement, "Immortal Thread, So Weak" is dedicated. Here is the relevant page on the composer's website: https://www.johnmackey.com/music/wine-dark-sea/ 2603:9001:7600:1F21:F057:D501:752A:938D (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This does not look particularly notable for inclusion on this page, but you might consider adding it to John Mackey's. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 15:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Under opera and music section, Epic:The Musical by Jorge Rivera-Herrans should be added as music based on the odyssey as it is a musical retelling of his time away from Ithica. 2600:8803:2B0A:7100:5C5F:8C25:92F5:22F4 (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Left guide (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I would like to add a missing film adaptation to Odyssey. Listed in the film section is Christopher Nolan's recently announced 2026 Odyssey adaptation. Not listen on the page though, is Fortiche's upcoming "Penelope of Sparta".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odyssey#Literature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortiche BokerBigBanana (talk) 11:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Remsense ‥ 论 11:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Change the description of the main image from "Found in Medinet Ghoram, Ptolemaic Egypt" to "Found in Medinet Ghoram, Egypt". The manuscript was produced in Ptolemaic Egypt but was found many centuries after its fall. 24.44.38.24 (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you,  Done — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 13:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
@Remsense: Can you explain why it was made in Ptoloemaic Egypt 300 years after it fell? I am quite confident you are re-introducing wrong information and don't understand why. Reverting me again instead of discussing is not collaborative or good spirited. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 10:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
I simply don't know what you're talking about with the 300 years statement. As such, I didn't expect my correcting the caption in a way that retained the information in the original would be taken as "reverting" your correction.
More cogently, it is totally redundant to specify Epic as both genre and form. The latter is a perfect subset (and perhaps a supermajority subset) of the former. Really—the former is a bit of an artificial superset of the latter. I see absolutely nothing on Epic (genre) that would be of interest to a reader of this article that isn't already on the much more developed Epic poem Remsense ‥ 论 10:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
@Remsense: Collaboration like this is the reason I love the site ^_^ Thanks the welcoming and collegial atmosphere! 🙄 — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 10:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
@ImaginesTigers if there's a problem with what I did, I'd like to know about it. What did you mean above? Remsense ‥ 论 10:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
You violated WP:3R. I'm not going to engage further. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 10:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
If I may, I assume you're counting two consecutive reverts as two of four—not to be a pedant, but the precise wording of 3RR does matter as a bright line and article of good faith here. It's expected you'd be particularly upset if I did, as that would connote a particular conscious disrespect to you, so I want to clarify that I did not. Remsense ‥ 论 10:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
I've unwatched the page. Go nuts. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs)

In the citations section, change the "ixi" in  "46: Carne-Ross 1998, p. ixi." to "lxi", which is the real page number ("ixi" is nit even a valid Roman numeral). Tylerinfoboy (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)


### Odyssey
Hello! I originally took this through the GA process back in 2021. Being frank, I've considered initiating GAR on it several times since then. Instead of that needless move, I've decided to work on it. It goes without saying that I am drowning a bit in just what to do first. 
Earlier today, I ripped #Textual history out of "Background" and made a dedicated "Reception" section. From where I am currently standing, the straightforward way to break up reception is #Classical antiquity, #Post-classical, #Early modern and #Modern. With my previous work on literature, I think there is also an obvious and glaring need for #Interpretation. Here are sources I've been told are probably enough to get a strong, broad overview of Reception:

Edith Hall’s “Return of Ulysses: A Cultural History”
Clarke on “Homer’s readers”
Stanford's “Ulysses theme”
Possibly Graziosi/Greenwood on twentieth century receptions (“Homer in the Twentieth Century”)
I think the Themes section could benefit from some rewriting, but there are other sections in much more need of it. I am also, frankly, horrified by the prospect of building out, say, #Opera and music. Those bulleted sections need substantial work but I imagine it's obvious why those sections didn't get prose-ified with the rest.
In any case, I would greatly appreciate any and all feedback. It's a monumental bit of work.
@UndercoverClassicist: It would be great to have your eyes on this, in addition to anyone else you think could help. I'll make a post wt WP:CGR shortly.
Best — ImaginesTigers 19:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)


#### UC
I'll reiterate what I said before about this article -- it's a good piece of work. Fully agreed that GAR would be a bad move: the bar below which the article has to fall before removing GA status is low indeed, and really as long as it's fully cited I wouldn't say there's any good reason to talk about that.
With that said, you're right that improvements can be made. I think everything you've suggested above is entirely sensible. A couple of other observations:

In the Composition section -- I think we could do with extending this story into Hellenistic Alexandria -- particularly around the formalisation of the book divisions and the early scholarship to establish a "correct" text.
In the same section, we boldly say The Odyssey as it exists today is likely not significantly different [from "the original"?] This has been debated over time -- Milman Parry, in particular, thought that the Homeric poems were best compared with jazz pieces and likely to have been substantially different every time they were performed. It might be worth expanding on this debate a little. At any rate, it's almost certainly the case that some parts of the Odyssey are older than others (we make this point nicely for Book 24 later -- conversely, stories like the Blinding of Polyphemus and the Cattle of the Sun go back a very long way), but it then becomes a matter of taste as to whether we say that these older poems "count" as the Odyssey or should be considered something else.
On that topic -- we could do something about the idea of Neoanalyst criticism here, and the idea of the Odyssey as an accretion of much older stories, not originally tied to a single character. For example, The "Returning Husband" and "Waiting Wife" are ancient folktales, while the Polyphemus episode adapts a much older tale-type about escaping from and blinding a giant. This is particularly visible in the Wanderings, and there are basically two compatible ways of looking at those -- one is to see them as a collection of "universal" stories that get loosely bound together as an episodic narrative around Odysseus (in other words, to highlight the disunity of the narrative), and the other is to focus on Odysseus's telling of the tale to the Phaeacians and to emphasise the unity of the narrative via interlocking motifs, key themes (particularly xenia), and foreshadowing of the events on Ithaca.
On that topic, the big book currently missing is Irene de Jong's commentary, which has been massively influential on the study of the Homeric poems. De Jong's main focus is the study of narrative -- how the story is told. This would help to fill out the section currently labelled "Narrative", which is currently entirely about prosodic features (metre and an important poetic technique). On epithets, there is a lot of scholarship and debate as to what these "do" (Parry and Lord saw them as basically meaningless mnemonic devices; most more recent scholars think that they can be extremely meaningful) that would be worth including. Again, see De Jong on this point.
Personally, I think the Themes section is pretty good in concept, though it could probably be more comprehensive and take the discussion a level further -- I would agree with pushing it further down the priority list.
The Legacy section certainly needs a bit of work -- at the moment, its priorities are a bit odd (it spends a lot of time on Chapman and Wilson, but doesn't mention that the poem has been translated into anything other than English). Without wishing to blow my own trumpet, you might have a look at Homeric Hymns for one way to approach a section like this.
Pinging Caeciliusinhorto, who is very knowledgeable on classical topics, an excellent writer, and active around the GAN/GAR space -- I am sure they will have some thoughts. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

This brilliant and very helpful. Some thoughts:
There are several very straightforward upgrades presented here, so I'll likely start with those. This includes textual changes over time – you're right about The Odyssey as it exists today is likely not significantly different, especially because it's later contradicted by the article: Beginning in the 19th century, papyri containing Odyssey fragments were found in Egypt, preserved by the country's dry climate; these date back as early as the third century and have content that differs from medieval versions
Hellenistic Alexandria makes sense. Would you agree that this would be best placed as the second paragraph of Reception#Classical antiquity? Edit: I see now that you said this belongs in #Composition. That makes sense to me. I'd like to diversify #Composition into #Composition and performance – at least, that is my current thinking. Perhaps a new subheading could be added, something like #Canonical text? Or simply calling it #Textual history again (which I ripped out and moved into #Reception).
Yes, I think that's sensible. We haven't really talked about when, by whom and how it was actually performed yet, which is another interesting area. This could include the role of music, for example. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Earlier progenitor tales/predecessors – big stuff. For now, I'll likely continue to add this to #Influences, but it may make sense for it to get its own heading later. For Dracula#Inspiration, I found that there was simply so much scholarship that the best way was to provide a simple overview and flavour of the discussions rather than go into every particular theory. Would you see that as appropriate here? For instance, there's currently several sentences dedicated to Polyphemus; scholarly fictions around him; possible predecessor stories. If we scale up that level of content across, say, Circe; Odysseus himself; the divine cattle... I think it becomes very problematic very quickly.
Usually, my advice in this situation is to consider writing the "daughter" article first -- in other words, knock together (if only in draft form) something like Antecedents of the Odyssey and do the "proper" treatment, and then work out how best to boil it down into a condensed form here. That helps you make sure that the balance is right even if the quantity has to be reduced significantly. Very few people take me up on that advice, mind. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
It's not bad advice at all. Scholarship on this topic is quite easy to find. I'll pick up on this after the translations piece and drag myself back, probably dragging a skeleton of some variety. — ImaginesTigers 15:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
I didn't know about de Jong's work – thank you!
Concerning Legacy & translations – My original thought was that this is the English Wikipedia. I am wondering if this is flawed. I have no knowledge whatsoever on, say, Latin translations; or German; minimal on French (beyond what is already included). I think translation is an important topic, particularly into Latin, but I don't even know where to start looking. I'll start with the Cambridge Guide to Homer. Most of the famous essays on translation do focus inordinately on English, but that's because I'm biased attention to English writers and translators. Any further advice on that is welcome.
You could also have a look in this volume -- I came across the chapter on Anne Dacier's French translation, and she's noteworthy (as Wilson often points out) for being the first woman we know about to translate Homer. In general, we shouldn't limit ourselves to the importance of a topic in English-language works or scholarship -- notice that WP:DUEWEIGHT (Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources) makes no concession for sources in non-English languages. However, I think Latin is really the big missing piece here -- we have a hatnote to Virgil, for example, but no direct mention of him -- or indeed Livius Andronicus, who translated it in the C3rd BCE and is possibly the first known literary translator of anything. See here, pp. 91ff. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
There is a bit on Dacier in at the moment, but I've included her in Odyssey#Early modern as part of the quarrel of the ancients and the moderns.  What might be sensible is to change the subheading from being specific to English to being about translation more broadly.
I like the new opening paragraph there about the complexities of English translation, but it may just be too much detail (and could be translocated into English translations of Homer).
I'll try and write this section approximately chronological, providing the first translators of each language – that seems like the best way to do it in summary style. I do think providing a list of every single time Odyssey was translated into English for the first time feels a little silly, though. I'll likely pick this up first and it seems quite straightforward and my attention span is generally quite fractured. — ImaginesTigers 15:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
When doing Homeric Hymns, I handled translations alongside adaptations (partly because the line between the two isn't always so sharp). Agreed that talking about the first major translations into major or otherwise interesting languages is a good step, and perhaps it would be useful to give some sense of how many languages it's been translated into -- it'll be a lot! UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Medium is the current method for splitting them, but time period may make more sense. I am not particularly fond of the idea, honestly, but once I circle back to adaptations more broadly, I'm content to let existing scholarship dictate the structure. I do think there is merit to translation having its own section rather than slotting them elsewhere, and I think the sourcing supports that it is a standalone topic worthy of its own subheading. At the moment, for now I shall just get things down on the page. — ImaginesTigers 17:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
@UndercoverClassicist: I'm restraining myself on the level of detail I include, but our lack of dedicated coverage for some topics makes me think I should be writing 100–150 word explanatory footnotes with more context virtually every other sentence. What do you think about the translations section now? I struggle to conceive of what comprehensive means with this context. — ImaginesTigers 13:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Indeed. Again, this might be an area where drafting Translations of the Odyssey might be a good sounding-board: essentially, the lead of that article would become the body section of this one. You might want to look through the contents of this companion to the translation of classical epic -- perhaps one way to look at it would be that if it gets a chapter there, it should probably get a mention here? These sections are really difficult to write: somehow, we have to find a thread through the mass of information that avoids making the article into a hodgepodge of facts but also avoids major omissions or overwhelming the reader with information. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
That text is completely inaccessible to me, regretfully. I wish it wasn't. The preview is really insufficient, too. A huge shame that it's so prohibitively expensive, but nothing new there for academic publishing, I suppose! Seeing that work was out of my grasp demoralised me a bit, so I've moved on. I'm more or less satisfied it meets "broad", at least. My goal now is to get the other deficient sections to that same level. Here is our status quaestionis:
I followed up on your request to expand #Composition with material about the division. I found all sorts of competing theories, and a few good overviews.
There is a high chance my work on influences kickstarts Antecedents of the Odyssey draft, as you suggest; I look forward to diving into neoclassical analysis.
Themes will be easier to tidy up. I am not sure how to approach an "Interpretation" section. Strong "Reception" and "Themes" sections may mitigate the need for it at all.
I'd like to bring the "Style" section up to the "broad" criterion now. I've made some progress on this today, but not enough.
— ImaginesTigers 21:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Are you sure it's inaccessible -- it's a Wiley publication, and so on TWL (proxy link here). On the other sections -- it's probably no surprise that I have Thoughts as to some of the content, but that can probably wait until it's more-or-less beaten into shape! As will be no surprise, just about everything in this topic area is open to "well, yes, but actually it's a bit more complicated..." UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Oh, woah. I did search TWL but didn't find it. I'm possibly not very good at searching TWL – I didn't find it via the search bar – but that changes things. I'll return to translation. Thank you!
Additionally, I'm grateful to hear your Thoughts at any point, particularly if they can mitigate me looking like a dolt any lost time. This is, frankly, a particularly stupid ambitious undertaking for my academic background (Victorian literature). I took it on expecting it will take months, so I'm strapped in for the long haul. It'd be brilliant to get it through FAC before the Nolan film is released. — ImaginesTigers 21:58, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
It begins: Draft:Translations of the Odyssey. — ImaginesTigers 23:17, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you very much for all these thoughts. I look forward to implementing them. — ImaginesTigers 10:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC).
@UndercoverClassicist: It's a little crowded on the PR so I hope you don't mind me pinging you here. I'd very much like some input from you. I read Homeric Hymns last night—a fine piece of work.
I'm somewhat torn. Having read tens of thousands of words of scholarship at this point, reception and translation are deeply intertwined; many sources acknowledge this quite explicitly. I do believe Odyssey needs a dedicated section on translation, but I am more open to the idea that some of the material belongs under Reception now. I am struggling a little with the overlap. What do you think about the following approach:

I work on this article more with the explicit goal of mainspacing it. I do as you suggest: create a lead designed to be replicated on Odyssey.
I minimise details provided on individual translations on Odyssey (e.g., metre; who was first in each language) unless necessary (i.e., Dacier and La Motte's translations as part of the quarrel).
I use only general information about translational tradition for the #Translation section (i.e., "It was translated in antiquity"; "these were used as school texts"; "[Byzantium material]"; "Ancient Greek scholarship practically vanished from Europe for almost a thousand years").
I translocate material on The Divine Comedy from #Legacy into #Reception—this would affect the placement of, say, material on Aeneid.
I migrate some of the interpretative material from Reception into a new #Interpretation section.
There are contradictions and problems with what I've described above. For example, I think the articles becomes very bloated. The only way I can think of to do this comprehensively would involve multiple sections that use historical periods as subheadings. I would very much like to avoid this for, say, the Interpretation section. 
It would be helpful to have some input as I do feel just a bit loss and I'm struggling to see my own vision! – ImaginesTigers 11:58, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

All very tricky problems. I think one of the issues here is defining terms -- for instance, what's the difference between "Legacy" and "Reception"? One approach might be to track three major strands:
The study and interpretation of the poem -- which would largely be textual history, scholiasts, Analysts, Unitarians and so on, leading into the debates over orality in the early decades of the C20th.
How the poem has been translated and adapted -- here I would endorse Caeciliusinhorto's advice about being fairly strict with chronology but fairly loose with medium, and therefore to keep poems, novels, operas and paintings together. In Homeric Hymns, I used subheadings for those chronological periods, which seemed to work well.
How the poem has been thought of and rated -- which would be the place for the various "this is the greatest piece of literature ever" comments, and perhaps things like e.g. the debates you'll read about in Wilson's intro over the portrayal of women in the poem, and elsewhere in regard to colonialism, psychology (here Jonathan Shay might be rescued from his little island at the bottom), and so on.
One approach, if you feel a section is becoming too dense with minutiae, is to write a paragraph to serve as a mini-lead at the top -- essentially, the answer to "so, what footprint has the Odyssey left on later culture?" that you'd roll out if you were asked it by a curious person in a lift, your grandmother, or so on. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Makes sense. Lots for me to think about here. I'll play around with the structure in my sandbox a little. – ImaginesTigers 16:32, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
@UndercoverClassicist:, Caeciliusinhorto: I've (brutally) merged the translation information I've collected so far with the content on the main page. You can see it in this sandbox. There is a fair amount of detail concerning the translations that can be straightforwardly condensed or consigned to footnotes. Still, these are beefy paragraphs, and I'm confident some sections are missing some vital information. But as a proof of concept, what do you think? – ImaginesTigers 17:04, 3 August 2025 (UTC)


#### MSincccc
I’m not an expert on the topic, but my age makes it easier for me to explore it in depth. I expect to leave some constructive suggestions over the weekend (and perhaps a few in the coming hours). MSincccc (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@MSincccc: Being honest, my plate is a little full from UC's suggestions right now, and in all likelihood you'd be examining a moving target. You are bound to find literally thousands of words on virtually any topic, but what I really need is some people familiar with the material who can tell me what matters. This PR isn't closing any time soon, so perhaps it might be worth holding off for a week or two? — ImaginesTigers 15:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
@ImaginesTigers Fine by me. Feel free to ping me whenever you think it’s a good time to jump in. MSincccc (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
🫡 I shall. — ImaginesTigers 17:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)


#### caeciliusinhorto
Thanks for the ping, UndercoverClassicist.  At a quick glance, I certainly agree with UC that no matter your dissatisfaction with the article as it is now, there's no point putting it to GAR. 
Without reading through the article thoroughly (I suspect you have enough to be going on with from UC's usual thorough commentary, though I'm certainly happy to give it another pass when you have digested all of that!), the one thing which immediately strikes me is the legacy section: in the section §Literature, the article discusses several important examples of poems and novels influenced by the Odyssey and why they matter (e.g. Joyce is foundational to 20th century literature; late 20th/early 21st century feminist reimaginings); this is followed by sections on §Film and television, §Opera and music, and §Science which just list seemingly random examples with no narrative throughline. Is Ulysses 31 an important example of the Odyssey's legacy? I don't know, and the article doesn't tell me.  I also am surprised to see that we discuss the Odyssey's reception in science but not the visual arts: no Circe Offering the Cup to Ulysses, no The Farewell of Telemachus and Eucharis, no Ulysses Deriding Polyphemus?
My inclination, from having written reception sections for other classical topics, is that in fact dividing up by medium is a trap: it makes more sense in my experience to divide chronologically/thematically: for instance, one paragraph might discuss the renaissance and how, for instance, the increased knowledge of Greek and accessibility of the printing press allowed more people to engage directly with Homer, rather than having it be mediated through Roman interpretation, while another could cover the increase in feminist/gender theory in classics since the 1960s and how that shaped approaches to the Odyssey, Emily Wilson's translation, feminist retellings such as the Penelopiad and Miller's Circe, and the gender-swapped ODY-C. (To give some purely illustrative examples; you might in fact decide that neither of those strands of reception are so important that they require covering in this article!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto: Thank you very much for the feedback! With Legacy, it's the part I worked on least. I wrote the sections on Literature, but I'm in total agreement with you on how it should be tackled. A representative example of another legacy section I worked on would be Dracula#Legacy (which obviously has a much shorter life!). I intend to leave Legacy to be the very last thing I return to for a few reasons, but I'm in firm agreement that most of the current material should go. Concerning the increase in feminist/gendered readings, there's a bit of me what wonders if that would be more suitable for a few sentences in Reception. One of the great challenges of covering adaptations, as UC notes above, is that the Venn circle of "Reception" largely includes "Translation". Definitely a lot for me to think about there, so I'm sort of putting it off. Once I've worked through the material I need to bring up to par, I'll absolutely ping you back for a more thorough inspection—cheers for giving me some stuff to think about. Best — ImaginesTigers 20:39, 1 August 2025 (UTC)


#### Reception
This section is probably going to cause me a stroke in the near future. Here is how the Cambridge Guide to Homer breaks up Reception:

Homer in Antiquity
Homer and the Latin West in the Middle Ages
Homer in Greece from the End of Antiquity: The Byzantine Reception of Homer and his Export to Other Cultures
Homer in Greece from the End of Antiquity: Homer after Byzantium, from the Early Ottoman Period to the Age of Nationalisms
Homer in Renaissance Europe
Homer in Early Modern Europe
The Reception of Homer since 1900
Homer and War since 1900
Gendered Reception of Homer
Homer in Social Thought
Homer in Greece: The Inevitable and Impossible Nostos
Postcolonial Perceptions of Homeric Epic
Homer and Homerics on Screen
From the Cinema to Beyond: Homer in Comics, Television, Apps, and New Media
Homer in Twentieth (and Twenty-First) Century Scholarship
I have tried toying around with suggestions from UC with difficulty. At present, I am leaning towards building the dedicated translations article further, then providing a simple one-paragraph summary of translations and removing all other translation content from the article. I don't listing every adaptation in chronological order with no supporting analysis is feasible now. While I lean towards the idea of grouping reception thematically instead of chronologically, this would preclude a significant amount of important writing. 
Consequently, I am leaning towards: 

Reception as including a straightforward summary of views about Odyssey by time period.
An Interpretation section exploring material outlined in the chapters above (e.g., the Odyssey as the feminine epic, compared to Iliad as masculine; Odyssey and social theories, e.g., postcolonial, psychological, modern Greece).
But there is a significant volume of writing concerning film adaptations. There is the above, but there's also a lot of film material in Edith Hall (2008). Consequently, I am considering the same approach as what I outline for translations: create Adaptations of the Odyssey, get it to a passably broad standard, and then provide a few mentions overview of major adaptations within the "modern" subheading of reception. I am open to feedback, and apologies for being a nuisance about this. Tearing my hair out a little. – ImaginesTigers 19:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

You have to keep in mind what you have available right now. The article is currently 5,500 words; I'd say you can get up to 10,000 words without anyone moaning about splitting. You already have a "Themes and patterns" section; currently it is almost didactic in tone (and oddly seems to mostly cite 1970s literature?). I would incorporate the material you were going to use in "Interpretation" into that section, make it less instructional and more encyclopedic. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: Appreciate your feedback. Originally I considered Themes and Interpretation as being required to co-exist alongside one another, but changing the shape of themes entirely could make sense. One issue we might run into there is due weight—a significant volume of scholarship explores nostos, xenia, wandering, as the epic's well-documented themes. Some of these themes have been emphasised by some writers during some times (e.g., Renaissance readers loved wandering, which many modern scholars connect to colonialism).
Placing these alongside interpretive strands (e.g., gender) might look a little strange. It isn't impossible. The shape of The Great Gatsby#Critical analysis has always looked a little strange to me. But a similar approach might work here (L2 major themes subheading, themes underneath; L2 interpretative subheading e.g., allegory and gender). Ultimately I want this to be useful for students, so retaining the themes in some form feels important. I didn't write these paragraphs, so I'm likely to leave them till last. Thanks for giving me some stuff to noodle. – ImaginesTigers 09:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)


#### FAC PR sidebar
I have added this article to the FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles on that list. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

"Odyssey Jones" to "Oddyssey" (currently a redirect to "Odyssey"). McPhail (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Odyssey Jones which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 12:27, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

"He and Telemachus hide the suitors' weapons in preparation for violent revenge. Odysseus also reencounters Penelope and her servant Eurycleia, who recognizes him from a scar on his feet."
The scar was on his thigh, not his feet. 71.59.224.52 (talk) 11:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)