Talk:Stheneboea

"As in the myth of Potiphar's wife"

An attempt to delete this information was made 17:25, 13 August 2007 by User:Carl.bunderson with the edit summary "rm excess info, pointless wikilink." We are all aware that some religionists take up the POV that there are no myths or literary tropes in the biblical narratives, and some of them are ruthlessly active in censoring any information that does not suit their view. User: Carl.bunderson must certainly be aware that theirs is not a neutral approach. The literary parallels between the story of Bellerophon and Joseph and Potiphar's wife need no championing. Some further Greek literary parallels, and even an Egyptian variant may be seen here--Wetman 13:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be expanded upon, because it was a good faith edit. It really seemed like it was just comparing it to Potiphar's wife, which yes, its similar, but I fail to see why it is important that the stories are similar. I don't deny that they're similary stories; I just don't particularly care. The article needs to demonstrate why it is important. Perhaps if there's an article on myths and literary tropes in the Bible, it could be linked. Or if nothing else, make the blog an external link. Carl.bunderson 18:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether it is disingenuous or not, Carl.bunderson's claim to be "failing to see why it is important that the stories are similar" should not become our problem. I feel that attempts to suppress such a commonly observed connection, espoecially when couched as intellectual rigor, are every bit as damaging to Wikipedian honesty as the most callow vandalism of text. Perhaps not every reader will agree. No matter. At any rate, I have restored the reference again, this time with Robert Graves' specific observations, noting parallels in Greek mythology and an Egyptian tale. The need to marshall quotes and references to make the perfectly commonplace observation that the tales are parallel has made it all into a much bigger deal than one with a clear conscience would have thought strictly necessary. Carl.bunderson's next move will be to denigrate Robert Graves as a reference, I imagine. I hope to be pleasantly surprised. --Wetman 19:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

My claim is your problem, which you yourself have demonstrated. Were my claim a load of crap, you wouldn't have bothered to improve the article as much as you did. You've added sections and sourced them. Were my objections something to be ignored, you would in fact have ignored them. Intellectual rigour is what keeps this encyclopedia from degenerating into the original research ravings of a thousand editors. The need to marshall quotes and references is very much a part of Wikipedia. And while Robert Graves isn't the sort of source I had dreamed for, he's published and that's good enough for Wikipedia. As much as you may detest me, which I certainly get the feeling you do, I think you'll agree that the article is superior to how it was before 13 August. Carl.bunderson 23:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it is. I am to be congratulated. --Wetman (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha, very funny. You are though. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)