Talk:Judgement of Paris

Merge with the Kallisti

I'm happy about the merge with the Kallisti article, which I proposed, but there is still a lot of duplication and perhaps a little contradiction at Paris (mythology) and at Trojan War#Peleus and Thetis, the_apple, and the judgment. It would be great if someone had a sensible idea of what should best go where. --Schoen 18:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, I prefer the spelling "Judgment of Paris"; does anyone have an argument on either side? --Schoen 18:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The American spelling is not preferable to the British spelling. The British spelling is not preferable to the American spelling. --Wetman 07:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd rather like to see "Kallisti" as a subchapter of Principia Discordia. It is no "real" Greek word, from all I know it was invented by Gregory Hill. --Blane 23:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

According to Google translate (using modern Greek),

καλλίστῃ - "Kallisti" = Plumber

καλλίστο - "Kallisto" = Volunteer

καλλίστω - "Kallisto" = Good

I found it amusing. Wcichello (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

There is also some redundant materials at Iliad and some useful material at Cypria, an ancient source for the story. --Schoen 06:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Merging

Apple of Discord is a floating fragment that doesn't really help the Wikipedia reader. I can't find any information there that's not here. What would be the harm of making Apple of Discord a redirect here? --Wetman 07:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Go for it. -Silence 08:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and completed the merge, and removed the tags. Kerowyn 07:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit

As a Discordian I object to it being classified as a psuedo-religion or a joke-religion (albeit less so) so I removed the /*psuedo-*/ from this and the Kallisti article as that was the first one I came across. Also this is my first edit so correct any violation of protocal I have made. David EaganDave Eagan

As a Discordian, I object to your objection of it being classified as a pseudo-religion or joke-religion. All hail Eris. Violate protocols. Eat hot-dogs on fridays. Amen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.142.53.3 (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

I changed the discription of Discordia from counter-religion to post-modernist religion. Because there is nothing against religion in Discordia. Unless you count makeing fun of religion. Or eating hot dog buns. All hail Eris!!!!!All hail Eris!!!!!All hail Eris!!!!!All hail Eris!!!!!All hail Eris!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Eagan (talk • contribs) 07:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Horai

The link for Horai goes somewhere else, but I dont know what it is supposed to redirect to. Any ideas? FreeMorpheme 14:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Article Needs To Be Moved

This article should be moved to Judgment of Paris because "Judgement" is not an English word

"Judgement" is the standad English spelling outside the US (ie. UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, Ireland). Wiki has no international preference - it just depends on who created the article in the first place. --Theranos 09:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the page on the concept, "judgement" is considered a variant just about everywhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Twin Bird (talk • contribs) 07:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Judgment of Paris (mythology)

Howdy, there seems to be some ambiguity issues with the Judgment of Paris going solely this article. I think it is a fair assumption that the famous Paris Wine Tasting of 1976 is on par notability wise with the mythology story. In fact the tasting is known more as the Judgment of Paris then it is as the Paris Wine Tasting of 1976. Would there be objection to making Judgment of Paris a disambiguation page and move this article to Judgment of Paris (mythology) so that we can move the wine tasting article to Judgment of Paris (wine)? Agne 22:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Its probably best to keep "Judgement of Paris" mythology as the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top of the page to the wine fest, since the latter is the derivitely named, and arguably lesser known. --Theranos 06:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

A moment's thought on what the Wikipedia reader is normally looking for when they enter Judgement of Paris or Judgment of Paris will save us from avoidable errors. Wikipedia is a reader service. --Wetman 06:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Personally, I think it is fairly even with possibly the wine event being sought for a little more often due to its considerable influence on the wine world. Comparatively speaking, the mythological story has far less influence on mythology. Hence the reason that a disambig page would be the most ideal. Regardless of what the reader is looking for, they will be able to find it easily. Plus, link maintenance would be easier since any linking to the disambig page could be easily identified and fixed. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The story is equally important for art historians. A number of significant paintings (based on the myth) by Renaissance and later artists including Ruben are entitled "The Judgement of Paris." I assume the name given the Paris wine-tasting festival was coined with a mythical allusion in mind. --Theranos 11:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh I don't doubt the importance of the mythological story and there is allusion to myth in the coining of wine tasting. But I think the relative importance of both subjects merits a disambig page. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I have not objection to a disamb. page. The two usages appear to be pretty evenly interspersed through the top results of a google search. A disambig. would also allow room for articles on the works of art titled "Judgement of Paris" (several of which also rate very high in these same google restults) - when the art history sections of wiki eventually come to be expanded. --Theranos 12:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 12:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Something to keep in mind....

The wine Judgement of Paris already has more article linking to it then the mythological story has. This is also before the Wine Project has had the opportunity to expand and link relevant articles which will increase those links considerably. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 08:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't feel strongly on this (and I speak as a member of both Wine and Classics projects!), but I would prefer to keep plain Judgment of Paris (however spelt) as the mythology article, with a Judgment of Paris (disambiguation) leading to all the others, because

1. As User:Theranos observed, all the other names are derivative from this one (calling the wine competition "Judgment of Paris" was intended as a joke)
2. there may well be a growing number of wine links to this phrase, I don't dispute it, but it's all wine buff stuff; whereas the mythological Judgment has had far more influence on history, literature, art -- a little bit more important on the world scale. Andrew Dalby 16:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Really it does seems a bit simple to have Judgement of Paris represented at Wikipedia by Judgement of Paris (mythology) — that's to distinguish it from all those other "Judhgements of Paris" a reader might have had in mind. If a wine-tasting party was named "Judgement of Paris", that was meant as a witty reference, not to be aiming a thought too high. User:Agne's move of this article, in the face of several people's sensible objections, is a discourtesy. A moment's thought for the Wikipedia reader saves such errors. I have deleted User:Agne's redlink to Judgement of Paris (1636) at the dab page: in general, please don't make redlinks to articles you aren't planning to write. And a redlink at a disambiguation page is thoughtlessly futile, if you consider what a dab page is actually for. Think of the Wikipedia reader. --Wetman 13:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Um..the purpose of that link was more for the blue link of Rubens. This is relevant content for a disambig page. See WP:DAB's own example of Canton. Since Theranos expressed an interest in noting some of the significant artworks which could later have a page, I went ahead and wiki-linked it. You are free to revert yourself and leave the artwork title un-wikilinked if you like. I will leave that up to you. I think we mutually agree that Wikipedia is in service of the reader but I am surprised at your objection to the primary topic of Judgment of Paris to be a disambig page. Certainly it is the best service to the reader to be linked to all alternative usage of the phrase of "Judgement of Paris" considering the notability of all of them? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Revisiting this after over 15 years later, I see the Greek judgement now gets significantly higher views that the wine one: 2023 yr to date views are 117K vs. 88K. Johnbod (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Something else

Hello Andrew. Your comment a little bit more important on the world scale was a little too much and provoked a response form me :-) You could argue the mythology Judgment is all just history buff stuff. Influenced Reubens? Okaaay. However, the wine industry was changed profoundly by the events of 1976, causing changes around the world that affected international economies, the lives and prosperities of wine region inhabitants, and the tastes of international consumers. One could easily argue that far more people have been indirectly affected by the wine Judgment than by the mythology Judgment. However, I'm not going to argue that :-)

I would very politely second the request for a Judgment of Paris disambig and let the wiki reader choose the appropriate page.

To repeat what was said above: A moment's thought on what the Wikipedia reader is normally looking for when they enter Judgement of Paris or Judgment of Paris will save us from avoidable errors. Wikipedia is a reader service. --Wetman 06:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Kindest regards Steve.Moulding 17:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Touché! Andrew Dalby 17:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've been meaning to come back here and admit my error. It's undeniable (as I see when gradually following up more of those links): the new Judgment of Paris has overshadowed the old one in notability. No further objections! Andrew Dalby 09:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The interested reader may check "What links here" to judge which is the Judgement of Paris. Next we'll have Homer (disambiguation), because Hom,er Simpson "has overshadowed the old one in notability." It hasn't occured to all of us that the wine-tasting was named that as a witty reference. --Wetman 13:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

So was "a Brave New World" but that doesn't mean that the subsequent "witty references" to Shakespeare phrase didn't achieve relevance and notability in their own right. The same with the Judgment of Paris. Yes, it started as a witty reference, but the magnitude of the event and its notability has distinguished itself far apart from its "witty origins". It has been distinguished to the point that a disambig page is the most fair solution for the phrase. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 00:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Disambig page move: support or object?

See Talk:Judgment of Paris (disambiguation) for more details. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I've made thenotice concerning opinion survey that is hidden away at Talk:Judgment of Paris (disambiguation) a little less obscure. Is that okay? --Wetman 13:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Move back to Judgement of Paris?

Looking back at the discussion on this page, I don't see consensus for the move to Judgement of Paris (mythology). I'm inclined to move the page back to Judgment of Paris, especially since there was never a discussion about the move at WP:RM, but I'd rather not start an edit war. What do others think? (You might want to look at the google results I presented at Talk:Judgment of Paris (disambiguation) to see whether the mythological episode is the primary use of the term, or not.) --Akhilleus (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

As I've said at Talk:Judgment of Paris (disambiguation), I think the original judgment, refereed by Hermes and won by Aphrodite, will once more be seen as the only significant one by the time Wikipedia is 30 years older. It seems so even now to those who choose to drink neither Bordeaux nor Napa Valley ... a nice Côtes du Rhone beats them both, or, as a real luxury, Amarone (a preference I share with Hannibal Lecter). I'm with you in spirit, Akhilleus, but beware of that Californian wine lobby. Andrew Dalby 21:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite simply, the Paris wine event is a commercial promotion on the part of the wine-distribution industry; part of that promotion is occuring right here in Wikipedia. "Judgment", on the other hand, is an Americanism: though I'm a New Yorker, I see no reason to "correct" to local usage at Wikipedia. I rarely see such "corrections" enforced in the other direction: why is that, do you suppose?--Wetman 06:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears the article was at Judgement of Paris before it was moved, so that's where it would go back to. Any implications to the contrary are the result of my failure to suppress my regional habits. Sorry! --Akhilleus (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Support moving back. No opinion about "judge-" vs. "judg-". Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there's consensus for the move back to Judgement of Paris, but I think we should wait until the discussion at Talk:Judgment of Paris (disambiguation) concludes--perhaps there will be further developments. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have made the move with reference to the WP:RM request made on the Talk:Judgment of Paris (disambiguation) page --Philip Baird Shearer 14:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Bad joke

Deleted a See Also link to Discordianism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.62.255.251 (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal meaning?

Are there any sources for people finding personal meaning in the myth? Like for instance these are the three choices a man could make in his life? Could be worth mentioning. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Judgement vs Judgment

I've read extensively concerning the correct spelling, and it seems to favor "Judgment", however I think what really matters is consistency. We have both spellings intermingled on the page. It seems wise that we make a decision concerning the spelling here so we can edit the page to be consistent throughout. Shall we vote or does someone have a Wiki precedent? Supertheman ^(talk) 22:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Stick with the spelling used in the article title, which is "judgement". Supposedly this is a variation between American and British English; I don't think this is actually the case, but there's no reason not to follow the advice given in cases of such variation--follow the form that was first used in the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - but "Judgment" is just wrong in UK English. Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? The dictionaries I looked at (briefly) didn't have such an indication, and the OED provided some uses of "judgment" for English authors (unless my skimming was deficient). --Akhilleus (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

and "jugement" too, but I would say that is the modern position, though COD says "also judgment". Johnbod (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to make the spelling consistent (as "judgement"), but I didn't change the spelling in the names of artwork, in case these are canonically spelled as "judgment". I'll try to check the spellings for these, but I won't be able to do it just this second. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.94.207 (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Why did the quarrel last that long?

Is there any explanation what it was that took the deities so long to ask someone for his judgement? The quarrel began before Achilles was born. Paris - if at all - cannot have been much older than Achilles. Judging from this, the quarrel between the three goddesses must have lasted twenty years or so.--80.141.2.208 (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)--80.141.2.208 (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

I read the accounts of Pseudo-Apollodorus (Bibliotheca, E. 3.2) and Hyginus (Fabulae 92). From what I read in this article, there are a variety of inconsistencies and lack of proper sources to back many claims.

1. The article says "Eris arrived at the celebration with a golden apple from the Garden of the Hesperides, which she threw into the proceedings as a prize of beauty", followed by Pseudo-Apollodorus (Bibliotheca, E.3.2) as a source. Pseudo-Apollodorus never states golden or Garden of the Hesperides.

What source uses "golden"?

2. The article then says "According to some later versions, upon the apple was the inscription καλλίστῃ (kallistēi, "To/for the fairest one")", followed by a link to the Theoi website which is nothing but a laundry list of sources (completely useless to state what later version uses the word καλλίστῃ which, by the way, is never mentioned - it probably is mentioned in some Greek version).

What source uses "καλλίστῃ"?

3. "They asked Zeus to judge which of them was fairest, and eventually he, reluctant to favor any claim himself".

What source says that Zeus did not want to arbitrate? Pseudo-Apollodorus and Hyginus never state that.

4. "After failing to judge their beauty with their clothing on, the three goddesses stripped nude to convince Paris of their worthiness".

Since when the goddesses got naked? Pseudo-Apollodorus and Hyginus never state that.

5. "Hera offered to make him king of Europe and Asia".

This is not true. Hera promises "kingdom over all men" (Pseudo-Apollodorus) and says "he would be king of all the lands and surpass everyone else in riches" (Hyginus).

ICE77 (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The note at the start of the account says "A synthesized account drawn from several cited sources is offered by Kerenyi, "Chapter VII, The Prelude to the Trojan War", especially pp. 312–314." There are many sources, and many variants, and this is probably the right approach. Let alone what post-classical sources say. If you want to add below a section with a closer account of what individual sources say, by all means do so. Pseudo-Apollodorus and Hyginus happen to have survived, probably in very abbreviated form. Both are late, & I don't believe they were regarded in (late) ancient times as especially authoritative. That a particular point doesn't appear in either is probably not that significant to an account of this sort. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

After reading about Greek mythology for quite some time I am not interested in summarized accounts of Kerényi or other mythographers. I am looking for the original sources from writers such as Hesiod, Homer, Callimachus and so on. I want to go back to the original passages and trace the stories back to their root. Summarized stories that mix different sources are not good because there are elements of each story that are unique. That is a problem itself on Wikipedia where I saw many articles with mixed sources or mixes of sourced, unsourced and untrue passages. You can see the work I have done on Talk:Zeus#Five sources on infancy of Zeus: documentation and discrepancies or Talk:Theseus#Five sources on Theseus: documentation and discrepancies to get an idea of why I am looking for original sources. In only 1 of 5 stories about Zeus bees are mentioned. In only 1 of 5 stories the word "clue" is used. I would not discount Hyginus or Pseudo-Apollodorus just because they came after Hesiod or Homer. They have excellent accounts of different stories in most cases.

ICE77 (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

2. There seems to be a link that points to an alleged source for "καλλίστῃ". It is currently source [7] and it points to "Atsma, Aaron. "THE JUDGEMENT OF PARIS". Theoi Project. Retrieved 13 December 2019." I see 3 possible sources:

1. Stasinus of Cyprus or Hegesias of Aegina, Cypria Fragment 1 (as summarized in Proclus, Chrestomathia) (trans. Evelyn-White) (Greek epic C7th or 6th B.C.)
2. Pseudo-Apollodorus, Bibliotheca E3. 2 (trans. Aldrich) (Greek mythographer C2nd A.D.)
3. Pseudo-Hyginus, Fabulae 92 (trans. Grant) (Roman mythographer C2nd A.D.)

I have read all of them and the last 2 of 3 in the past. I do not see anywhere on that page any "καλλίστῃ" inscription. Therefore, "καλλίστῃ" should be removed unless there is an actual source to prove that specific word in Greek was used.

ICE77 (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Why are there so many images?

On my phone, it appears two thirds of this article is just a gallery of paintings. While we should keep Wikipedia is Not Censored in mind, nearly all of these images are sexually explicit. I'm going to take the step to remove this gallery. Along with problems like the too short lede and lots of original research/synth, this article seems like it needs attention. Ardenter (talk) 10:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Taking a closer look, many of these images seem to be copyright infringing. Can someone else who knows how to deal with that help out? Ardenter (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Ardenter A cellphone may not be the best way to judge the appearance of a gallery of large artworks. Considering that The Judgement of Paris was the subject of a huge number of artworks, I think it is appropriate. Personally, I find it useful to see a diverse collection of different treatments of the same subject. "Sexually explicit"? If you read the article, you will see that Aphrodite was the goddess of sexuality. Copyright infringement? Is Renoir still under copyright? I think this wholesale change should have been discussed in Talk first. I would recommend restoring it. [1] Does anyone here have any opinions? --Nbauman (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Original Research Banner

There is an {{Original research|date=May 2021}} banner at the top of the page. Can anyone explain that? I can't see anything, ever, on this Talk page about an OR controversy, nor anything in the article that screams out as unsupported by RS. Sure, the article needs some more inline cites and maybe some cleanup, but nothing in it seems to be outside mainstream sources that are cited in the article. Unless I get some sort of response in the near future, I am removing the banner. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)