Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue)

message: The Gorgias (dialogue) page needs some serious work and more foot-traffic.  I added a link to the page under "See Also" to encourage more visitors.  209.135.141.57 (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: You could have made life much easier of yourself by using WP:CITES. Instead of writing all those "ibids", you can just use   Plato. etc..   at the top of the article and then    for each repeated reference to the same book. Then in the refs section, you just type  </ references>  and you are done.--Lacatosias 17:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No,I see. You want to cite the page numbers. I think you've done a good job. I can't see any significant errors. But then I haven't read the dialague in about ten years. --Lacatosias 17:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  You know what?? 

message: Whereas it is quite obvious that Socrates often addresses his young partners flirtatiously, the claim that the  mesembria stathera  in 242a connotes sexually laden "straight-up" is preposterous. Gerard Huijing, Leiden NL 11:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use the original text 

message: : Beyond that, the only remarkable thing about Phædrus is his personality. Plato often names Socrates' foils for characteristics of their personality. A young, overtalkative, innocent and good-natured foil in the Gorgias is named Polus, which is Greek for "colt". Phædrus' personality is different from this. He is unallied to any particular group. He prefers the solitude of the country to the city. He is aggressive to the point of being dangerous. At one point he threatens Socrates with violence. Phædrus, in Greek, means "wolf". In this dialogue he is carried away by Socrates' discourse on love and is tamed. -- Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
-- Sy / (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nickname 

message: Why does the Pederasty section deserve this label whereas the other sections under "Interpretations and themes" do not? The other sections similarly lack citation, but are deemed appropriate? Did the person who added the "unverified claims" tag ever read the Phaedrus?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.244.70.102 (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't be opposed to removing the entire Interpretations section, or replacing it with how specific interpreters have read various aspects of the dialogue.  The entire thing looks like original research to me. RJC Talk Contribs 16:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This section may contain original research or unverified claims.

message: The section headed "Derrida and pharmakon" is badly worded and never says what Derrida had to say about this dialogue or about pharmakon. Then it wanders into quoting the Second Letter – and attributing it to Socrates! I don't know much about Derrida, so I don't want to edit the section; I would hope that someone who does can clean it up. Maybe it should be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgrommel (talk • contribs) 17:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I came to the talk page to make the same point. The section says nothing about Derrida's ideas; it seems to imply some kind of academic conspiracy with the "scholars have kept in secret"; and the relevance of the quote from the Second Letter isn't explained (and yes, surely "Socrates writes" is a mistake?). Seeing that this issue was raised two years ago and is still unaddressed, I'm just going to remove the section. Dan from A.P. (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with Derrida section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Phaedrus (dialogue). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206010046/http://www.glbtq.com/literature/plato,3.html to http://www.glbtq.com/literature/plato,3.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article currently uses a possessive form of Lysias which adds only an apostrophe (Lysias') rather than apostrophe and letter 's' (Lysias's). See, for example, the Lysias' speech (230e–235e) section. Though that usage is correct by, for example, the Assosiated Press styleguide, by my reading it is incorrect by the Wikipedia:Manual of Style's rules on Possessives (and also hard to read): "For the possessive of singular nouns, including proper names and words ending in s, add 's (my daughter's achievement, my niece's wedding, Cortez's men, the boss's office, Illinois's largest employer, Descartes's philosophy, Verreaux's eagle). Exception: abstract nouns ending with an /s/ sound, when followed by sake (for goodness' sake, for his conscience' sake). If a name ending in s or z would be difficult to pronounce with 's added (Jesus's teachings), consider rewording (the teachings of Jesus)."       ←   ZScarpia   09:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lysias'; or Lysias's?