Talk:Crito

Original research in the "Civil disobedience" and "Conclusion" sections

In the "civil disobedience" and "conclusions" sections there are several interpretive statements that lack citations, e.g., "Socrates makes two more logical errors. He defends his moral pacifism with a bad analogy and props it up with a false dilemma." If these statements are widely held views in scholarship on the Crito, it should not be difficult to give references, following the example of WP:CITE and WP:FOOTNOTE. On the other hand, if no citation can be supplied for these interpretations, the sections need to be rewritten in accordance with WP:OR.

Please note that I've placed {{original research}} templates in several other articles on Platonic dialogues, including Charmides (dialogue), Protagoras (dialogue)‎, and Theaetatus (dialogue). --Akhilleus (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

English Pronunciation

I changed the English pronunciation from "usually KREE-toh" to "usually KRY-toh, also KREE-toh." I checked with two leading experts in ancient philosophy, and they both indicate that "KRY-toh" is the usual English pronunciation (which comports with my own experience). Mark DeBellis Debell (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism

The "Summary" section is copied in its entirety from Sparknotes with the exception of two transitional words added to the summary on Wikipedia. Proof provided here, and the Sparknotes page is here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.90.91.2 (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

A long time has passed since the above comment and the recent tagging! I removed the summary section. The first two paragraphs are exactly the same as the text here: https://www.indiebound.org/book/9781091025264 BUT since it's a indie publishing website, I do not know if a WP editor copied it from there or if the webpage copied it from Wikipedia (which is also a possibility). I will fiddle around with webarchive and see if I can tell.--MattMauler (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@MattMauler: the entire article is plagiarized from various different sources now that I looked at it. We might need to nuke it and build it from scratch. puggo (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Rebuilding

Since the article was nearly completely plagiarized from SparkNotes or other such sources, all but the lead was deleted. Now we need to rewrite it, and luckily, as it is a well known piece, there are plenty of sources. A quick search of "Crito" on Google Scholar yields a good amount of papers to write a summary, explain the significance, and write about what it means today.

Additionally, the German translation of this article is featured, so anyone with the ability to read German would be vital to making this article better than it ever was.

I will be more than happy to work on this article once my workload thins, which it should after tomorrow. puggo (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Crito/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 19:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

• It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
• It contains copyright infringements -
• It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
• It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -

Links

• Lots of red items in the references - could you have a sweep through and clean these up (mostly date issues).Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Prose

Lede

• Could we import a short description? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• Lede is very small for an article of this size. Would need a major expansion for a GA. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• Shouldn't we be referencing the IPA? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• WP:SEAOFBLUE in lede. Three links in a row. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• The first sentence denotes what the article is. This one says its a dialogue, but presumably this was recorded somewhere. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

General

• What is the "texts and translations" all about? Seems like a non referenced list with external links. No idea what they are, or what they are for Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• Seems like a lot of "further reading". A lot of these items seem to already be sourced. We need to be careful as per WP:FURTHER. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• Why is one of the further reading lists set as an external link, as we have both on this article? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• Is there no images we can expand to this article? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• No real paragraph breaks here. A lot of a single sentence then a line break. Needs merging. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• Lots seem in present tense. Needs a full scale change to past tense. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• Ledes are a summary of the main articles prose. You need to explain what the article is about in the background section. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• Lots of items should be wikilinked. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• Apology, William Guthrie and Legalism are duplicate links Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• Some unsourced material such as in Early modern. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• Philologist Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff WP:SEAOFBLUE. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• "James Stephens simply believes the problem to have no solution." - who is this person, and why do we care? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

• Automated note - If you fancy returning the favour, I have outstanding GA nominations that require reviewing at WP:GAN. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these, however it's definately not manditory. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}
  • I've done a first sweep Bug2266. Quite a lot of work, specifically bits on the tense, and a really small lede section. I've placed on hold. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Could you elaborate what you mean by the problems with the tenses? I've fixed what I think you meant in the summary section, but I would appreciate further critique. Thank you for all the work you've done. puggo (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

just the above for now. Everything seems to be written in present tense. Wikipedia articles are written in the tense of today's point of view. These things happened a very long time ago. We should be using "was", "had", etc. It's quite common for this article to comment on things as if they are still occuring. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski:, Finished with the edits. Please review the improved text at your earliest convenience. puggo (talk) 00:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry Bug2266, I don't think this article can be promoted without significant work. I see you've changed a lot of the tenses in the article, but you missed a lot. Here's what I suggest you work on before renominating:

• Take the refs out of the lede - I have no idea why you added them in.
• Fix the paragraphs/proseline. So many (including the lede) have one or two sentences for a paragraph. You wouldn't see that in published works, so we shouldn't see it here.
• There is still some completely uncited paragraphs. Unless it's sourced somewhere else, every statement should be sourced.
• I'm certain there can be some images that can be added here. It's such a wide subject, there has to be some things that could be added.
• There's still some tense issues. See Since his trial in Apology, Socrates has been for example.
• There needs to be more background. The section starts "the conversation" - what conversation?

I'm going to fail this one for now. I'd suggest requesting a copy-edit at WP:GOCE as well. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Crito or The Crito?

I read the article and I do not understand what the convention for the name in the article is supposed to be: Crito or The Crito? And why is it spelled the Crito? Veverve (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Crito without the "the" is the person. The Crito refers to the text. Thank you for your edits, by the way. But I also have a question for you: when you say clarification is necessary for "Plato's middle period", would you want me to add a citation and leave it; add a section about the sections of Plato's bibliography; or make an article about Plato's bibliography periods and plug it in? Because I would otherwise think "middle period" is rather self explanatory, especially since the word bibliography is used a few words later. puggo (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

then why is it the Crito throughout the whole article and Crito in the lead? It should be The Crito all the time when referring to the work if "The Crito refers to the text."

I do not know what "Plato's middle period" is. Is it when he was in his fourties, is it a period between such and such book? I do not know what it is supposed to be concretely. Veverve (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, the article should be called The Crito by the same token. Veverve (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Veverve:. I have made the suggested fixes. I have also added an additional definition about the middle and early periods of Plato's bibliography. puggo (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I did not find the title The Crito anywhere on the internet. It seems the dialogue is rather called Crito. However, I am not well-versed in the study of Platonism, so I might be wrong. Veverve (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 19 March 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Reverted to stable title. The user who rejected the technical request (Station1) explicitly accepted this solution, so there are no objections and, I think, nothing to discuss unless Veverve prefers the disambiguated form, in which case he can just revert my closure (but should leave the page where it is). (closed by non-admin page mover) Srnec (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

---

The Crito → Crito (dialogue) – harmonisation with Theaetetus (dialogue), Critias (dialogue), Minos (dialogue), etc. Veverve (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 06:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Reverse move back to Crito where it was before and debate the move to The Crito instead._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Nothing prevents someone from referring to it as "Plato's Crito" or "the Crito" in text, but "the" doesn't appear to be part of the title, nor would we normally translate it as such in English, since the Crito referred to by the title is a person. If someone today wrote a dialogue with Napoleon, or Benjamin Franklin, it probably wouldn't be titled The Napoleon or The Benjamin Franklin, although one could still refer to "the Napoleon of Richard Blumenstein" to distinguish it from "the Napoleon of Hermann Moskowitz". A different result might be warranted if the subject were a building, i.e. The Parthenon, or a concept, i.e. The Athenian State; note however that this would not necessarily be the case; Athenian Democracy would not require "the"—although it could have it. But in this case, I can't see any reason to include "the" in the title. P Aculeius (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: Which proposal do you support: "Crito" or "Crito (dialogue)"? Veverve (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Unless there's another article titled Crito, perhaps about the person, that should probably be the title. If there's an article about the person, it should probably be primary, and Crito (dialogue) would be better. P Aculeius (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: There is no other article called "Crito" since this article was already called Crito. there is some articles about people called Crito here. Veverve (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize I needed to reply to this comment until just now. Since the Crito who's the subject of the dialogue has natural disambiguation (Crito of Alopece), and all of the other persons who could be referred to by the name are similarly listed (and apparently also with the spelling Criton), this article would seem to be the logical choice as primary for the title Crito, and I think that would be preferable to "Crito (dialogue)". Crito of Alopece will be linked in the lead, and a hatnote should be sufficient to send people looking for other Critones to the disambiguation page. P Aculeius (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Yeah I kinda screwed that up. puggo (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: If the editor who moved the page agrees with moving it back, and nobody else is advocating for the present title, I think we could probably treat this as an uncontroversial technical request and speedy it. P Aculeius (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why using two different editions of Crito?

Why does the article use two different editions of the Crito (one by the Oxford Univ. Press, and another by Wildside Press)? Moreover, why is the Wildside Press version simply referred as "Plato (2018, etc.), Crito, etc."? Veverve (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Looking at it more closely, it appears most references do not give the page number. This needs to be fixed. Veverve (talk) 06:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bug2266: Veverve (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

There are no page numbers in Platonic dialogues. If you see something along the lines of 43c, those are the equivalent of page numbers. As for there being two different editions, that's a mistake I made while translating it from the German article. I'm assuming the Wildside Press version is like that because of automatic citations being weird. I'll look at it.

Side question: why haven't we changed the name yet if consensus supports it? puggo (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bug2266: When I say "most" I mean most, e.g. Sloterdijk, Peter (1999). Weltfremdheit. Suhrkamp. ISBN 3-518-11781-5. OCLC 938692097.; Erler, Michael. (2010). Gorgias -- Meno : Selected Papers from the Seventh Symposium Platonicum. Academia Verlag. ISBN 9783896655264. OCLC 659500147.; Reale, Giovanni (2000). Critone: Plato. Milano: Bompiani. ISBN 8845290859. OCLC 797359547.; etc.

Xenophon of Athens (2013). "Apology". doi:10.4159/dlcl.xenophon_athens-apology_2013.2013. is not an acceptable reference as there is almost no data (who translated it, which publisher published it?).

Simply translating an article and nominating it for GA is a very bad idea, especially with the numerous mistakes you left while reusing the same refs (e.g. putting the first and last names along with the date of birth and death of the author within the "Last name" parameter). Moreover, I strongly believe you are supposed to check almost every ref within the article before nominating it for GA to insure the article conveys faithfully the information found in the source; obviously you did not.

"Side question: why haven't we changed the name yet if consensus supports it?"

It is a technical move. Veverve (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bug2266: I remind you that it would be a good idead to try and fix this article. Veverve (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll try in my free time but I'm bogged down right now with school. puggo (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)