Talk:Lysistrata

message: I do not think it is neutral pov to construe a certain interpretation of the play as "laughable".(although it is a comedy)
:Actually it's true that women could not withhold sex, but the play itself addresses the point, where the women's oath includes a line about "if he has me by force, I will be cold and not aid him in any way" (the women knew where they stood!). But a pro-war interpretation is a bizarre idea completely at odds with everything we know about Aristophanes - it would absolutely have to be sourced from a notable scholar or critic. Stan 13:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Second paragraph states that the play was performed at the Lenaia and not the festival of Dionysus (as commonly believed).  Second last paragraph (Re: Lysistrata 100) suggests the play was, in fact, performed at the Dionysus festival.  By the way, is there a flag/tag for "conflicting information"? -- RedSirus (Fairly new and not knowing how to autosign)
:I don't know of any special tag. This note on the talk page is probably sufficient. I note the OCD pointedly omits mention of performance locale, suggesting that both Lenaea and Dionysia assignments are speculative. Stan 18:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflicting info

message: Witholding sex is named as an insite link but there's no article so i'm removing it 141.153.203.145 02:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention how extremely relevant the wearing of phalluses would be for this play. 76.95.40.6 (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: sex strike?

message: "Some archaeologists and evolutionary anthropologists argue that human culture itself was initially established, in Africa around a hundred thousand years ago, by women who organized a sex-strike once a month." 
Can anyone back this up?  I asked for a citation on the main page. proath01 00:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hypothetical are seldom realized. 2601:903:100:253:F188:CB8E:DC68:8A8F (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Anthropologists Assertion

message: Should we mention that the The Dresden Dolls' song 'Shores of California' refers to the play by name?  I'm not sure so I'll let another make the call. ForestJay 21:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dresden Dolls Reference

message: "As with all Greek comedies, the actors portraying male characters wore phalluses, but since audiences of the day were accustomed to this convention, there would be no shock-humour as might be experienced by the modern audiences of today."
i do not understand why this paragraph is even on this page.  if it's the case in all greek comedies, then why are we mentioning it specifically on this page?  it seems more like a response to something on a discussion page, not something encyclopedic.  Deutschebag17 21:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ralevence?

message: please, if you know, put the rest of us out of our miseryNankai 07:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Buckley's translation was probably done in the 19th Century or early 20th (I'm guessing). The Greek is quite clear: = lioness on the cheesegrater. Those 'ancient' Greeks were radical dudes even by today's standards. Lucretius (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lioness on a cheese grater

message: It's not essential, but it would be useful to me (if no else) if the article showed how the name is pronounced. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Some of the performances listed are not notable, I think, so am removing them.  Discuss if you disagree.
# "In 2007 the play was staged for PBS by MacMillan Films." No ref to it at PBS, and no ref to PBS at McMillan.
# A picture caption also mentioned PBS.
# "In 2008 members of Galway Youth Theatre will stage Max Hafler's modern-day version..." What makes this notable? Is the title even accurate? A wiki page for Galway Youth Theatre would be a start?
Colfer2 (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performaces 

message: how does the play end? it seems that very little wiriting is devoted to the actual play...
:Everyone comes together in a dance off. Think I'm kidding? --Tustin2121 (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The men finally take their wives home to have sex with them. How else would it end? 76.95.40.6 (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ending? 

message: Editor  labeled this section 'trivia' today.  I'm going to revert and refer here for discussion.
Pop culture refs are akin to literary allusions.  They are not trivia, as the matter cannot easily be integrated into the rest of the article, which the tag would suggest.  Each allusion should be judged on its own merit as to notability.  The 4 items listed are:
* Gilligan's Island episode
* M*A*S*H episode
* Utopia song
* Little Mosque on the Prairie episode
Maybe the name of the section should be change to "Cultural references", to include stuff besides "pop" culture.  Opinions? -Colfer2 (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your explaining your rationale behind removing my tag.  I propose that we keep as notable only the items listed that could be integrated into the (currently very piecemeal/disjointed) Modern Interpretations section (variations on the "sex strike" theme that postdate the original play).  This would make something like the M*A*S*H episode fair game for listing, as the whole episode is an extended treatment of the theme.  A single reference in a Gilligan's Island episode, I think, hardly merits a mention and falls under the category of the trivial.  Using this criterion, I think we can keep Little Mosque as well, but we should scrap the Utopia song.  Whaddya say? MarritzN (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. -Colfer2 (talk) 11:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for making the update today. -Colfer2 (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture 

message: I'm about to rewrite this article so that it links with my rewrite of Aristophanes and it will probably end up looking like my recent rewrite of Thesmophoriazusae. I will keep as much of the existing material as I can. I like the section on modern performances and adaptations as this demonstrates the relevance of the play today and - let's face it - most people who stumble on this article will probably be more interested in the modern stuff. So I'll keep as much of that section as I can. Anything that's got a link or a reference to support it certainly should be retained. I hope I don't tread on any toes in the process. Lucretius (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New edits 

message: I've put the info box (listing Aristophanes' plays) at the top of the article because the play is best understood as just one play by Aristophanes. It sets the context and it allows for easy movement between plays. Lucretius (talk) 06:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info box 

message: I have restored the nav box (linking to Aristophanes' plays) to the top of the article because it allows for easy cross-referencing between plays and because it is a useful reminder that each play is best understood in the context of all the plays. Lucretius (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nav. box 

message: One contributor has flagged the Discussion section as original research in need of supporting references. I've now added two references from Sommerstein's introduction of the play. That now makes three citations from secondary sources and there are also several citations of the primary source that demonstrate the arguement being made in that section. The section does not make any controversial statements and I'm surprised that anyone would flag it as original research. Anyhow, I've now added supporting references and I intend to remove the flag in the next few days -  unless of course somebody can demonstrate a reason not to remove it. Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest (talk) 06:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  flagged section - original research? 

message: This page has been tagged with the satire category. Someone should note in the article what exactly is being satirized.
66.41.253.22 (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satire 

message: I intend re-instating this version of the article introduction. The present intro is too stuffy. However, it has a very good source and I'll retain that but move it to the relevant section in the article. Disagree now or forever hold your piece. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting lede 

message: I appreciate Aubrey Beardsley's artwork as much as the next gal, but isn't the giant phallus in the illustration chosen for this page a little bit distracting from the topic? Beardsley's work is a separate work that stands on its own. 108.182.13.221 (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't imagine a "print" discussion of this play without an odd Beardsley picture myself. The topic is, after all, one of the sexiest plays ever written. "Complement" is a better word, I feel, than "distraction". Your last sentence is totally true (and very punny) but so what? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  big dick 

message: Huge sections of this article are cited solely to the text of the play (using them to make, apparently, an editor's arguments about it.)  This violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, so I'll try and make an effort to clean it up.  Feel free to restore any points that can be sourced to a secondary source, but remember to provide a citation! --Aquillion (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't overdo it! Literary criticism is an area where the very proper provisions of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH need a little "not-too-literal" interpretation at times. Provided we stay very close to the text itself, and are careful not to "draw original conclusions", there are times when the primary source is the best, even the only authority. We certainly would hesitate (for instance) to give preference to a secondary source (however respectable) that frankly misquotes the original text, or fails to report the original story accurately. It happens. Some otherwise fine scholars  do occasionally trust their own memories, or what THEY have heard in secondary sources, rather than referring to the original. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research and synthesis. 

message: I do not agree with ypor modern term "withdrawal of sexual privileges". Sex between a woman and a men does not entail "privileges" from one or the other side. It is and expression of mutual love and desire.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.22.91.172 (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  . 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lysistrata. 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/20061012062319/http://drama.eserver.org/plays/classical/aristophanes/lysistrata.txt to http://drama.eserver.org/plays/classical/aristophanes/lysistrata.txt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061012062319/http://drama.eserver.org/plays/classical/aristophanes/lysistrata.txt to http://drama.eserver.org/plays/classical/aristophanes/lysistrata.txt
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) 10:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I really think Eric Linklater's take on the Lysistrata story, the Impregnable Women, should be referenced under this rubric, especially as the novel was published in a Penguin edition and was widely circulated in the 1940s and 50s. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence and Legacy