Talk:Hubris/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Intro

Does anyone have a source for the first sentence: "Hubris or hybris referred in Ancient Greece to a reckless disregard for the rights of another person resulting in some kind of social degradation for the victim." That's not my understanding at all of what hubris meant. I understood that it was daring to defy the gods. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I looked it up and could find no mention of "social degradation for the victim" or "reckless disregard for the rights of another person" (that's way too 21st century for the Greeks), so I've changed it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm reverting your changes. There are references listed in the article and an extensive discussion on this talk page. Please read the discussion (and perhaps the articles referenced; if you have access to a college/university library, you may be able to access them online through the library website). The definition given in the intro is taken from Fisher, and reflects recent scholarship. Wherever you've "looked it up" is probably relying on the popular definition, which is appropriate for the use of "hubris" in modern English, but classical scholars have determined that the sense in which the ancient Greeks used "hubris" is different. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard or read a classical scholar use the word in that way. Reckless disregard for the rights of another person? If you're going to restore that, please use an actual quote from a scholar and cite it, because as things stand, I don't believe you'll find one. Of course, I stand to be corrected. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added a reference for my intro. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh...the talk page has plenty of cites and quotes from classical scholars. If, as you said, you read the discussion above, then you ran into this bit that I posted:

Fisher's definition of hybris is "the committing of acts of intentional insult, of acts which deliberately inflict shame and dishonour on others." (p. 148)

Another article is Douglas L. Cairns' article "Hybris, Dishonour, and Thinking Big," Journal of Hellenic Studies 116 (1996): 1-32, which defines hubris as "excessive self-assertion in the face of others' claims."

SlimVirgin is correct. In these quotes there is no mention of "reckless disregard for the rights of another person". That is [i]very[/i] 21st century language, coming from a highly legalistic society. The idea of shame is far more native to that era.1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Legolasegb (talk • contribs).

I'll add a quote from the latest edition of the Oxford Classical Dictionary (3rd ed., 1996), which I also quoted in part above:

hubris, intentionally dishonoring behavior, was a powerful term of moral condemnation in ancient Greece; and in Athens, and perhaps elsewhere, it was also treated as a serious crime. The common use of hubris in English to suggest pride, overconfidence, or any behavior which may offend divine powers, rests, it is now generally held, on misunderstanding of ancient texts, and concomitant and over-simplified view of Greek attitudes towards the gods have lent support to many doubtful, and often over-Christianizing, interpretations, above all of Greek tragedy...

The best ancient discussion of hubris is found in Aristotle's Rhetoric... (note: I also quote Aristotle above) While it primarily denotes gratuitous dishonoring by those who are, or think they are, powerful and superior, it can also at times denote the insolence of accepted 'inferiors'...

Hubris is most often the insulting infliction of physical force...

And for my final quote, MacDowell (full cite in article), p. 14:

Hybris is one of the most familiar Greek words, often used in English in untranslated form by people who have never learned Greek at all. If you ask for a translation of it, English equivalents commonly offered are 'pride' and 'arrogance'. But 'pride' is not in fact what the Greeks meant by the word; that is just a misunderstanding of it which has grown up in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries....

I noticed that you supplied a citation from the Encyclopedia Britannica, but I hope we can agree that the Oxford Classical Dictionary, plus the articles by Fisher and Cairns that are given in the "references" section are a better reflection of classical scholarship than the Britannica. Aristotle is also a better reflection of what the Greeks thought than the Britannica, when it comes down to it... --Akhilleus (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

-Yeah I think Slim virgin is correct too. Going by the the ancient greek mythologies hubris is daring to better than the gods. There are countless myths that can be cited to support this. If any of these myths are direct translations then they would be a primary source and therefore more relevant than any secondary source. Also I have also never heard any classics lecturer talk about hubris as dishonoring oneself.

Michael_Scheuer Imperial_Hubris hubris David_Corn Michael_Isikoff

Michael_Scheuer

"Imperial_Hubris":

"Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror".

hubris

David_Corn

Michael_Isikoff

< http://davidcorn.com >:

"Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War".

Hopiakuta 16:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Mistaken pronunciation

Did anyone else, like me, at first think the word looked French and pronounce it 'oobree'? Jess Cully 11:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That's intriguing.

Hopiakuta 16:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't find a french word like 'oobree' in my dictionary, what does it mean? I pronounced hybris as 'highbree', and associated it with 'highbrow', which in English class (I'm not English) I thought was a very funny word. According to my dictionary it means '(pedantic) intellectual' or 'superior'. My 'dictionary of strange words' says: 'hybris' (Greek 'hubris') means 'verwaande trots', 'trotse teugelloosheid', 'buitensporigheid', which litterally translated (I don't know if my translation is perfectly accurate) means 'conceited pride', 'proud unbridledness', 'extravagance'. Could 'highbrow' stem from 'hybris'? (although it could be the same 'wrong' interpretation of the word as mentioned above) Anne

Folks, Jess Cully was making a little joke. The word "hubris" derives from Greek, and has no etymological connection to any English (or French) word but "hubris". --Akhilleus (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Paul Bernardo and Hubris?

I would like to say this...remember 12 years ago when Paul Bernardo got life in prison? Well if you really listen to the story, and some of the things he did, you might agree that it sounds like he had Hubris. He definitely showed some of the signs, and I think that it should have been taken into consideration before they tried him in court.

64.231.248.254 23:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ayn Rand and Objectivism in Links?

Considering that there is no clear reference to either Ayn Rand or Objectivism in the article itself, I find no reason for them to be included in the links section. Is this just some backhanded accusation of hubristic behavior on their part? I'm removing them pending any substantial justification for their inclusion. I've also removed the John Howard link for the same reason. Saxo Grammaticus 18:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

not erroneous to say it's against gods

This does exist in Ancient Greek thought. I particularly studied the myths and tragedies and it's very much the case. So the article shouldn't claim it isn't. That doesn't mean the other definitions aren't right (I wouldn't particularly know, though some of this looks like WP:OR to me) but the one of hubris being acts against the gods, or overwheening for mortals, definitely isn't wrong. Sticky Parkin 01:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course hubris can refer to offenses against the gods. But that doesn't mean that every action that offends a god is hubris, or that everything "bad" someone does in a Greek myth is hubris, and unfortunately the examples given in the article seem to be a random collection of negative actions in Greek literature without regard to whether the Greeks applied the word hubris to them. The article really needs to be revised on the basis of good secondary sources, because the definition(s) of hubris that you find in classical scholarship are at odds with the popular definition (and that includes the stuff you learn in mythology classes). --Akhilleus (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hubris is a Dragon?

The last sentence in the article stated: "Hubris is also the name of a mythical dragon."

I'm not sure what this refers to, but without further information, it seems really out of place in the article. I think I'll remove it, but if anyone has any information about this mythical dragon, it may be worth adding back into the article or the See Also section. --Robthepiper (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I too saw that part of the article and would not doubt it. It has been said to me before that dragons were common in ancient Greek mythology so hopefully someone can come up with some more information on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.198.7 (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"summate" unnecessarily obscure

Didn't have the guts to edit it myself but thought I would mention it. "Sum up" or "capture" would be better IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdenckla (talk • contribs) 20:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Any reason to remove text?

The article had many examples of hubris that have been removed in a recent edit. Is this justified? The edit summary says rm a bunch of uncited so-called examples of hubris, most of which aren't truly hubris, even though most of it had references. 187.7.70.41 (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's justified. Any text that had references that discussed hubris were retained. The material that was removed lacked such references; in general, the citations were to primary sources, not secondary literature, making the assertion that these were examples of hubris original research (WP:OR). In the supposed examples of hubris that I removed, the Greek text doesn't use the word hubris, so a citation to a secondary source would be needed to suppot the idea that these examples actually showed hubris. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary examples of word use

What's with all the examples of occassions when the word "hubris" has been used in its modern context? Who cares if someone said Berlusconi acted with hubris? Or that the Deepwater Horizon drilling proposal suffered from an abundance of hubris? These seem like completely random examples of the word and serve no purpose. It's as if the article was written by someone who thinks the word is a rare sight "in the wild" and every use should be documented. Monolith2 (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It's the result of many editors adding examples of what they think hubris is. It should be narrowed down to one or two well-chosen examples. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the Berlusconi and Deepwater Horizon examples. They seemed to be written more to advocate a political position than to illustrate use, and also seemed superfluous for the intent of a wikipedia article. For modern word usage the wiktionary should be referenced. Monolith2 (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggested examples of "Hubris in modern times"

Frankenstein, Faust, Don Juan, Don Quixote and Robinson Crusoe are all protagonists in the Western canon which exhibit a single-minded pursuit, most aptly named hubris, as one of their (and in extension, of the Western man's) defining characteristics. In showing contemporary hubris, these might be prime literary examples to begin with. If this suggestion can improve the article in any way, please incorporate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.64.240.184 (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree on Frankenstein, Faust. Don Quixote maybe. Dont really see the "over the top" with the rest. --Echosmoke (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggested the recent book by David Owen. The book has been left in the References but the text ("In his book The Hubris Syndrome: Bush, Blair and the Intoxication of Power the British politician David Owen argues that President George Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair developed a Hubristic Syndrome while in power. In particular their handling of the Iraq War showed their hubristic incompetence.") has been deleted. I think the text is highly relevant to the section and a lot more so than the rest. I can't be bothered to re-insert it if some twit is going to keep deleting it, but that's my opinion for the record. Vacarme (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Any so-called examples of hubris need to be absolutely clear on what exactly they are examples of. We must realise that "hubris" means three entirely separate things: (1) the Greeks appear to have used it to mean "abuse" of or an "offence" against another person, staining their honour and perhaps one's own; (2) in more modern times it has been erroneously thought to mean an "offence of arrogance against the gods"; (3) there appears to be a current fashion (particularly amongst Americans, it seems to me) whereby it is used as a pretentious way of saying "arrogant" in any context. — Chameleon 10:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I was truly surprised that this article -- which also redirects from "sinful pride" -- had so limited an overview of hubris in the medieval/Renaissance context. Faust, in particular, not only exudes hubris, he defines the essence of hubris.

Hubris has two forks, which may possibly be defined by the observer rather than the actor. In the first, a man challenges or otherwise sets himself against the gods/God - ie. he considers himself to be on the same level as the gods/God. In the second, man sets himself as his own measure, indeed as the only relevant measure - ie. still setting himself against the gods/God, in deliberately no longer finding them of personal relevance.

Societies which have structures aimed at approximating moralities traditionally associated with divinity (such as the legal system) often have safeguards to keep any one person from having ultimate decision-making power, such power being relegated to structure and procedure rather than to the individual. To personally overrule such a structure can have overtones of hubris.

Thus re the Bush/Blair comment earlier, their handling of the Iraq war shows various psychological assumptions similar to wishful thinking, groupthink etc, but not hubris. (For example, consider the constant work to find justification beyond "because I say so" -- which would have been adequate for hubris.) Contrast this to the line from Frost/Nixon, where Nixon says, "When the president does it, it is not illegal." This sets up the president as the ultimate authority on right and wrong, traditionally the realm of divinity. - Tenebris

Based on the above, I've removed the David Ormand quote, as the quoted source, a BBC article, does not mention hubris at all. Martin Turner (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

References

"Ancient Greek origin" section is written very unclearly, with a changing definition. It also lacks sources

The "Ancient Greek origin" says it meant one thing, then another, then another, and then at the end it describes it as bullying. And then the sources, the first two paragraphs are the fake book sources which cannot be verified online. The rest of it has no sources at all. It needs to be totally rewritten clearly. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Not a valid argument for why I reverted you twice, seen here and here. The paragraph is now deleted. Per the WP:Burden policy (it is policy, not simply a guideline), you should not restore the material without WP:Reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about that. I'm aware that Wikipedia and a lot of wikis are populated mainly with trolls that just revert people sadistically. They just revert to revert, not that it's better, it's just what they enjoy. It's the same reason why the people with leafblowers only come by early in the morning. I'm not saying anything about you personally though, I'm saying it about 90%+ of the people here, and quite a lot of people on other wikis, too. It's why I rarely contribute. My issue was on reading the "Ancient Greek origin", it's unclear. As I said, the definition jumps all around and defines different things each time. It would be good if it would be researched and something coherent be put there. If you're going to say I should research it to put the content, I don't see why, since once I know it I have no reason to do the hard work of rewriting it just so some sadist can destroy my hard work. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm over this discussion. And per WP:Civil and WP:No personal attacks, you should be very careful about calling or implying that someone is a WP:Troll or a sadist. What type of editor I am is clear from the current state of my user talk page and my edit history. And as currently seen on that user talk page (the Prince Charles section), I am very familiar with WP:Trolls. I know what I'm doing when it comes to editing Wikipedia. The less experienced Wikipedia editors would do well to seek that knowledge. Flyer22 (talk) 08:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a shame you only want to revert and not add content or fix things. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 07:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a shame you apparently didn't read my talk page to find out what type of editor I am. Either that, or you didn't comprehend what others have stated. I am one of the main editors on Wikipedia to fix things. Am I obligated to fix things? Or fix everything? No. I already pointed you to the WP:Burden policy. If you don't want to follow that policy, whatever. Do be on your way to not doing much for Wikipedia, as your contribution history shows. Flyer22 (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I struck through the line above because it's the holiday season and all that, but I strongly suggest that we stop talking to each other. I meant it when I stated above that "I'm over this discussion." Flyer22 (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Your userpage doesn't say much and your talk page is a huge wall of text. I'm not singling you out as I'm speaking of Wikipedia and various wikis on Wikia. Most of the people there revert people for fun. I just consider it unethical for so many, many people to be so quick to destroy other people's work for fun. I've never done that and would never do that. Even one person on a Wikia wiki that I am on friendly terms with the guy just reverts people for fun, including me. So I am not singling you out nor is this personal. By the way on a side-note I visit Wikipedia many times a day, rarely contributing, but reading a lot. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The top of my user talk page points to my thoughts on Wikipedia, including a point to a previous statement from my user page, and briefly what I've been through on Wikipedia. There are also currently comments from others giving their thoughts about what type of editor I am, starting with positive thoughts and nearly ending on a sour note in the "Responded: User:Serinne" section. But never the matter, I'll be archiving the vast majority of my user talk page soon, and I'll eventually have a lot on my user page again. The current lack of a user page that I have going on is temporary.

Anyway, Happy Holidays. Flyer22 (talk) 08:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Not really what hubris means...

I think hubris in ancient Greek basically has very little to do with pride and not all that much to do with over-confidence. The literary and mythological handbooks of the early and mid-20th century that propagated the idea that, for instance, Oedipus is a "hubristic" character tend to ignore how hubris is actually used. "Hubris" was a legal term for "rape", and in general could refer to mistreating someone with disregard for their personal space simply to indulge your own impulses. I suppose there's an element of pride in there somewhere, but it certainly doesn't seem to be as prominent as people have made it out to be. Having looked at all the uses of the word "hubris" in the Odyssey, I can safely say that Odysseus is never called "hubristic" a single time. I'd personally like to wipe the page clean and start over because the whole thing seems to have been flawed from the beginning. The whole "hubris in modern times" is pointless; something like that belongs in a dictionary. Anyway, we should wipe it clean. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Campbel2 (talk • contribs) .

As an ancient Greek legal term, hubris means the unjustified use of violence against a person; sexual assaults fall under this definition, but so too would what modern law would call assault and battery, and most occurences of hubris in a legal context (e.g. Demosthenes 21, 54) deal with physical assault, not sexual. The notion of "personal space" is pretty fuzzy and seems un-Greek to me. I'd rather say that the crime of hubris involves inflicting undeserved shame and dishonor on others--the worst part about the crime isn't the physical harm, it's the social harm the act causes. More broadly, behavior that is called hubris is connected with persons who overstep boundaries, who have insufficient regard for their place in the social hierarchy, and in general behave like jerks--Pentheus in the Bacchae, the suitors in the Odyssey. Odysseus himself is usually seen as doing something hubristic when he taunts Polyphemus in Book 9--a taunt which gets Odysseus in a lot of trouble with Poseidon. Akhilleus 08:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with most of that, Akhilleus. As far as 'personal space' goes, I was referring to, for instance, the case--is it found in Demosthenes?--where someone is said to have acted hybristically by barging into the women's chambers of another man's household. As an aside, I think 'personal space' is arguably a very significant category in the Greek way of thinking about dignity and shame; we could perhaps point e.g. to the importance of the active and passive roles in sexual relations. As for the broader definition of hubris as a transgression of boundaries, be they physical or social, I think that's exactly right. The Homeric usage seems to me to convey that idea especially consistently.

In re of Odysseus taunting Polyphemus in Od. IX: Is the word hybris or one of the cognates actually applied to him there? I don't have an edition or a concordance at my fingertips right now, but I don't remember it there. Whether it is or not, one of the more general problems I noticed on this page was the tendency to project later ideas about hubris onto Greek texts without regard for the way the word is actually used there. Charlie

Sorry, but hubris means setting yourself up as greater than you really are. A classic example is flying too close to the sun, like Icarus. Other examples might be claiming to be as beautiful as a particular goddess, boasting that you will destroy a city single-handedly, opposing the will of Dionysus or some other god, and really anything that merits a come-uppance because you have been overweaning or presumptuous, not knowing your place as a mortal or a mortal of a particular rank. It has nothing to do with invading someone's personal space. Standing too close to someone while you talk to them is not an act of hubris. Thinking you are worthy of marrying the king's beautiful wife is, but not because it's his person space (in the modern sense) that you're invading (though I fear a terrible pun may be used against me here). There are countless well-known examples in Greek mythology, and they bear little relationship to the definition as I encountered it here. The current definition would seriously mislead people who have encountered the word in, say, works of literary criticism and want to know what it means.

I've only changed the definition slightly so far, but I will change it much more unless I see good arguments to the contrary.

I suppose the counterargument is that (it might be claimed that) the actual uses of the word in certain Greek texts are different from this "popular" understanding. That would be an interesting argument, but the "popular" usage is certainly not modern in the sense of recent. Whether it is as old as the Homeric texts might be debatable, but it is very old. It is certainly the common meaning of the word now, whether applied to events in Greek mythology or to the actions of modern-day mad scientists. If someone wants to argue that it appeared in late classical times, or early medieval times, or something, and distorts the meaning in (say) pre-classical texts such as The Odyssey, that might be open to you, but it had better be referenced because it is not the ordinary way that even Classics scholars talk. Remember not to rely on original research. Check what the mainstream meaning is when the word is used by scholars who write about ancient myth, Athenian tragedy etc. Metamagician3000 08:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, actually, Metamagician, you might want to source your own statements, since it appears you're relying on a "common meaning." The classical definition of hubris has been the subject of recent books and articles (unfortunately only one, Fisher, is cited by this article), which is in fact where "personal space" came from. I agree, though, that the phrase "personal space" sounds new agey, and if you're not familiar with the sense in which it was used (e.g., coming into the women's quarters of someone else's house uninvited), it's misleading. Let me quote the entry in the Oxford Classical Dictionary:

  The common use of hubris in English to suggest pride, overconfidence,
  or any behavior which may offend divine powers, rests, it is now generally
  held, on misunderstanding of ancient texts, and concomitant and over-
  simplified view of Greek attitudes towards the gods have lent support
  to many doubtful, and often over-Christianizing, interpretations...

The solution is to clearly distinguish between the ordinary language sense of the word, which is probably what most people are looking for, and the current debate within the field of classics over what the word "hubris" meant to the ancient Greeks. So perhaps the initial paragraph can be rewritten thus:

  Hubris or hybris (Greek ‛′Υβρις), according to its modern usage,
  is exaggerated pride or self-confidence, often resulting in fatal retribution. In Ancient
  Greek, however, hubris referred to a reckless disregard for the rights of another person
  resulting in social degradation for the victim.

Here's how Aristotle defined hubris (Rhet. 1387b):

  Hybris consists in doing or saying things that cause shame to the victim,
  not in order that anything may happen to you, nor because anything has
  happened to you, but merely for your own gratification. Hybris is not the
  requital of past injuries; this is revenge. As for the pleasure in hybris, its
  cause is this: men think that by ill-treating others they make their own
  superiority the greater.

and the defintion of Douglas MacDowell in his commentary on Demosthenes' Against Medias (Oxford 1990; see also MacDowell, "Hybris in Athens," Greece and Rome 23 (1976), 14-31):

  I argued that hybris has several characteristic causes: youthfulness,
  having plenty to eat and drink, and wealth. It also has characteristic
  results: further eating and drinking, sexual activity, larking about, hitting
  and killing, taking other people's property and privileges, jeering at people,
  and disobeying authority both human and divine...its essence consists of
  having energy or power and misusing it self-indulgently.

Fisher's definition of hybris is "the committing of acts of intentional insult, of acts which deliberately inflict shame and dishonour on others." (p. 148)

Another article is Douglas L. Cairns' article "Hybris, Dishonour, and Thinking Big," JHS 116 (1996): 1-32, which defines hubris as "excessive self-assertion in the face of others' claims."

Something to notice is that several of these definitions have to do with behavior towards other persons, while the modern definition is more about a psychological state and the behavior that results from it--the effect on other people isn't an essential component of the modern definition. Akhilleus 22:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll think about this some more. However, as further information, here is the definition given in the Encyclopedia Britannica (2005 CD-ROM version), which one would expect to be pretty uncontroversial rather than expressing the POV of a particular school of thought: "hubris also spelled hybris, in classical Greek ethical and religious thought, overweening presumption suggesting impious disregard of the limits governing human action in an orderly universe. It is the sin to which the great and gifted are most susceptible, and in Greek tragedy it is usually the hero's tragic flaw. Perhaps the simplest example occurs in the Persians of Aeschylus, in which the arrogance of Xerxes in building a bridge of ships across the Hellespont flaunts nature by turning sea into land. He is punished by the crushing defeat of the Persians at Salamis. In most other Greek tragedies the hero's hubris is more subtle, and sometimes he appears wholly blameless."

(I do wish people wouldn't write "flaunt" when they mean "flout", though. It's tough when even the Encyclopedia Britannica people make a simple, if common, error like that. :) )

My old Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon starts with: "wantonness", "wanton violence" or "insolence", which covers a wide range of ideas. It then goes on in a way that suggests it was used in quite a wide range of situations, some violent, some not so, some just involving acting in an outrageous way, some involving injury. I can't see any evidence that it had the kind of cosmic overtone that is so often given to it by modern writers (even when they are writing about Greek tragedy). If that is entirely a (more) modern idea it is very interesting.

I guess something like the solution given by Akhilleus would be okay with me. We could say what the word means in modern English, and how it is used in literary criticism and in debates about science, politics, etc. We could include how it has been applied by critics over the years to ancient Greek myth and tragedy. Then we could move to pointing out that a lot of Classicists (or a consensus of them, or whatver it is) now think this is not the way the term was originally used by the Greeks themselves.

However, if we do that, it would also be very valuable to say when the "modern" meaning first became dominant, given that it is applied, e.g., to what Xerxes does in The Persians, an act which is not dishonoring any mortals but apparently denying the natural order or something. If the word changed meaning at some point, there must be theories about how this happened. Was the term used in the "modern" way by the Greeks at all? If so, when is the first instance we know of? Was it used in the relevant play? Is it used by ancient commentators on the play? What about the other famous examples that don't fit what is supposed to be the original definition? Was the word applied to them by anyone in classical times? Was the change of meaning affected by the rise of Christianity, with its dislike of the "sin" of pride?

Btw, for reasons of my own I actually quite like the idea that the word is now being used in a way that is not what the Greeks originally meant. I just think that if this is correct we need to be very careful not to use the original meaning as our primary definition that we start off with. The word is too caught up in modern literary criticism and many debates, e.g. about new technology, "playing God", etc. We want people to understand the word as they encounter it, before they get to debates among Classicists. Metamagician3000 11:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a very old discussion, but surely one of the best, most interesting, and actually to the point of the article, on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia had a rating for quality of Talk pages, this one would certainly be up there. Thank you for providing it. Fool4jesus (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent changes to the lead

As seen here, here, and here, PlewReficuL keeps WP:Editorializing in the lead and adding anal sex material to the lead. Not only, per WP:Lead, is the lead supposed to summarize the article and not include stuff not covered lower, it should be WP:Due. And, per MOS:BOLD, there is no reason that anal sex should be bolded in the lead.

Ceoil, Lugnuts, ChiveFungi, Editor2020 and BD2412, I see you in the edit history. Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC) −

Contray to what you say, the article body mentions it, and it does appear to be major. Also I removed the stuff you accused of being editorialising, the extra words were just added to avoid misunderstanding as we do not have to use the exact same wording as the source-quite the contrary, we have to put it in our own words per WP:Plagiarism PlewReficuL (talk) 07:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Where lower in the article is anal sex mentioned? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

And using the same exact words is not necessarily a WP:Plagiarism issue. See Wikipedia:Plagiarism#What is not plagiarism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

O I don’t know, maybe the very first section? Also, nothing changes the fact that we have to use words not found in the source, in this case. Also, we have to put anal sex in bold at the top to make the lead emphasize the difference between how Ancient Greeks and post-18th -century writers used the term. PlewReficuL (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2017‎ (UTC)

No, we really do not. Wikipedia has many examples of words and phrases with modern meanings different from their ancient roots where the ancient meaning is discussed only in the body of the article, and not in the lede. A good example would be shut up. bd2412 T 13:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

PlewReficuL, I don't see any mention of anal sex below. It seems you are assuming that the text is referring to anal sex. On a side note: Remember to sign your user name using four tildes. I fixed one of your signatures and signed for you the second time. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Correction: I see a single mention, where the text states, "Timarchus, is accused of breaking the law of hubris by submitting himself to prostitution and anal intercourse." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

We have to, in this case. In fact the Ancient Greek meaning is already being discussed in the lead, the difference is not being made clear enough, and it ahould be.PlewReficuL (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

We have to what? Mention anal sex in the lead? Mention it and bold it? Bolding it is a no per MOS:BOLD. As for mentioning it, why? It has but a brief mention lower, which pertains to Timarchus. Brief mentions usually are not summarized in the lead.

Also, PlewReficuL, don't keep WP:Edit warring. You can seek WP:Dispute resolution options, like WP:Third opinion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)