Talk:Odyssey

Patriarchy, female characters, etc.

Note: There is a similar discussion ongoing at Talk:Iliad. Paul August ☎ 11:45, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this means: Atwood's novella comments on the original text, wherein Odysseus's successful return to Ithaca entails the restoration of a patriarchal system. In the link, to the Independent, she talks about what the hangings symbolize; it's her interpretation. The text itself isn't generally seen as depicting a matriarchal system in the absence of Odysseus. That would be an odd interpretation. Mevsherd (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Whoever reverted my last edits: Would you mind terribly explaining? Working toward consensus? I spent at least an hour researching that material. Saying it is "partially redundant" and too long would be a reason to shorten it, not wholesale delete everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mevsherd (talk • contribs) 21:41, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Policy: If a change is merely "unsatisfactory" in some way, undoing/reverting should not be the first response. Editors should either make a reasonable attempt to improve the change, or should simply leave it in place for future editors to improve. Undo/revert is appropriate in cases where the contribution is arguably "wrong" (consider moving it to the Talk page), or is unreasonably difficult to fix (e.g. incomprehensible, and the author is unresponsive), or is actually harmful to the article (such as vandalism). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mevsherd (talk • contribs) 22:24, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I suggest reading WP:OR and not citing to websites that host full copies of copyrighted texts. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Why are you following me around? Mevsherd (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

The only complaint I understand here is that the citation was bad. Wouldn't the normal edit be to replace it with a "citation needed" note? I keep forgetting that citations don't have to be accessible online, so an even better fix was just to cite her book, which is already cited many times.

I didn't add original research. I added two translations of the texts, without any opinions of my own. The difference between translations was discussed in the article before I came to it.

It's impossible to assume good faith when you follow me from unrelated disputes. Mevsherd (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

As I stated, your addition also attempted to conduct novel analysis in comparative translation (which the section left still does but less egregiously). You need to cite secondary sources that make these claims, statements, and analyses. Citing primary works and conducting the analysis yourself is WP:OR which articles and editors should not engage in. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

This is what you deleted. The first is a block quote of the translator. If it exceeds fair-use rules or lacks a proper citation, you could propose or make improvements.Not just delete the whole thing. The two translations contain no original research. But, if you think otherwise, you're supposed to make suggestions, not just delete the whole thing. That's what the rule on "Twinkle" I found above says, and it's obviously polite. You cam here from RSN to revert me, not because you wanted to improve the article.

So, please describe the OR in this:

I try to avoid importing contemporary types of sexism into this ancient poem, instead shining a clear light on the particular forms of sexism and patriarchy that do exist in the text, which are only partly familiar from our world. For instance, in the scene where Telemachus oversees the hanging of the slaves who have been sleeping with the suitors, most translations introduce derogatory language ("sluts" or "whores"), suggesting that these women are being punished for a genuinely objectionable pattern of behavior, as if their sexual history actually justified their deaths. The original Greek does not label these slaves with any derogatory language.

Translation by Robert Fitzgerald: "I would not give the clean death of a beast to trulls who made a mockery of my mother and of me too—you sluts, who lay with suitors."

Translation by Emily Wilson: "I refuse to grant these girls a clean death, since they poured down shame on me and Mother, when they lay beside the suitors." Mevsherd (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

You framing is the first paragraph, where you provide no citations for the claims throughout about it being analysed within gender studies and comparative translations, to which you then provide a subsequent list of translations, with no citations that analyse the translations. That is the OR. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

You provide no citations for the following:

The Odyssey is a frequent subject of the study of women and patriarchy. Beginning in the mid-2000s, retelling or re-imagining the events from the point of view of female characters has become a popular sub-genre. The first translation by a woman, Emily Wilson, in 2017, brought attention to the way different translations can depict women's experiences differently. The hanging of the female slaves at the end of Chapter 22 is a common target of analysis.

For the translations you present, you only cite two of them to their source texts (one via a piracy site), and provide no citations that actually link them to gender studies. You add a note of See also discussion elsewhere, which provides nothing to the article. You should be taken sources like you link there, and building the section from such. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh wait, one of those to See also discussion elsewhere items is a SPS by a non-notable person who at the time had just received their MPhil, so not really a usable source. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

What's self-published? Eidolon.pub seems to be an online journal and Time.com is for sure not self-published either. Gawaon (talk) 07:51, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

This may be a mistake on my part, Eidolon, being hosted via Medium, looked like an SPS. It has no editorial policy provided that I can find. As to it being a journal, do you mean an academic journal? Because that is certainly not the case. I would describe it more in format, having looked through more of their articles from various authors, to being an online magazine. I am also unable to find any prominent mention of it elsewhere (probably due in part to the fact they shut down in 2020), the only mentions I could find are this ycombinator post, and this reddit post.

The articles are well written, but bereft of the sourcing one would expect in academic works. The authors seem to be a mix of professors, lecturers, scholars, and students. If it is used in conjunction with other sources it may not be an issue. Though as I mistook it, others may also read it that way due to being hosted on Medium. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure of that either. My impression is that it is/was an online journal with some editorial oversight and certain standards, but I didn't check closely and may be mistaken. Gawaon (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

BTW, did you object to the addition of a link to archive.org? That is, for sure, not a piracy site. Gawaon (talk) 07:49, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh no, it wasn't the Internet Archive, that was removed under the OR logic, presenting a series of quotes of different translations as evidence of gender studies. The piracy site, was the url provided for Wilson's translation of the Odyssey. I'm not surprised it was used, as it explicitly labels and brands itself as a host of free texts that are out of copyright, and while this is in part the case, recent translations of classics (including Wilson's) are in fact still in copyright. It was then when I was nosying around the site I saw they were advertising at least dozens of recent fiction works whose authors are very much still alive, as available to read, and yes the full texts were present.

Additionally, as the citation was to Wilson's translation, while the quote may need a bit of trimming (you'd need someone more familiar than I with our copyright reviewing), the citation to the book is fine, it's that we can't link a pirate site. As previously mentioned, my removal of the quote as a whole was under the logic of it being OR.

I'm in agreeance with Mevsherd that information on how such classics have been analysed within the field of gender studies is probably due for this article, probably linking out to a standalone article, and the crude GScholar search I did shows that there should be more than enough good quality RS we can pull from. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

First, I was still working on it. I had thought gender studies in ancient literature would be a fun project; I don't think I have to complete the project perfectly in a single edit. Second, the reference for a lot of that was in the very next sentence, the interview with Madeline Miller, and I was going to add another when I had time (time spent on this drama instead). Third, please specify which site is a "piracy" site, so I know what to fix. Fourth, I didn't add the lettered reference, don't even know how, so if that's what you mean by "SPS" then please direct the complaint at someone else. And, why are you following me around? Mevsherd (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Now another editor has deleted the section as largely unsourced. That's how it goes! But don't get discouraged. Once it's better sourced and more substantial (not just about that single sentence), you can re-add it. Regarding "I was still working on it": while Wikipedia is always a work in progress, it's usually better to prepare a new section or a few paragraphs offline until they're well sourced and substantively add to the article. That will improve the chances your edit is accepted without major reverts. Good luck! Gawaon (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

It was sourced to the interview with Madeline Miller. The only unsourced part, which I was going to add, was that the genre became popular in the early 2000s, a very minor claim. The guidelines are very clear that weakly sourced material is to be improved or labelled, not blanked. I think that editor, like Cdjp1, is following me around to harass. They deleted a similar addition I made to the Iliad, also without discussion. Mevsherd (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Except no, five sentences were unsourced, of which I left four in the initial paragraph with Citation Needed tags. None of what I removed was sourced to an interview with Madeline Miller. I have not edited the Iliad article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I first took some objection to your addition because, while relevant, it's also somewhat redundant. Wilson's remark on the "sluts" mistranslation is important, but it's already in an explanatory note elsewhere in the article. Arguably it could be moved out of the note and maybe expanded on a bit, but do we really need such an ultra-long quotation and two sample sentences just to compare? That seems to give that detail too much weight.

I feel the article would benefit more from expanding what else Wilson and others have said about gender aspects in the original work and its translations, and who else has looked at it from a gender studies perspective – surely Wilson won't have been the only one. Gawaon (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

We only have 139,000 hits in GScholar to choose from. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Then why don't you choose some, and improve the article? Mevsherd (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Per a note at ANI that I missed this discussion (sorry!), I largely agree with the concerns about sourcing and duplication. Important to keep in mind levels of detail (WP:SS) and WP:DUEWEIGHT. I believe the article’s primary author ImaginesTigers is currently inactive, but if they happen to see this ping their opinion would be most welcome. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

It's been a while since anyone performed the ImaginesTigers summoning ritual. Sure, I can give my 2p.

• #Legacy (which includes ##Literature) is not good; I apologise for that. I wrote it 6+ years ago, and it was the first thing I wrote on the site. When I tried to repair my damage, I started with #Background (which is now fine), then had began work on #Legacy when I burned out. Beginning with #Translation, I'd started spin-off articles to address structural issues and burned out shortly after Translations of the Odyssey). I was going to do #Literature next.
• I still reckon that the best way to contextualise modern feminist interpretation is by emphasising it as modern (i.e., structuring it chronologically as part of Reception) within the article. If I were thinking about this now, I'm calling to mind Stephen Harrison's Living Classics introduction where he describes classical "democratisation"—e.g., writers from the "margins of traditional anglophone culture" engaging with the classics, not simply through translation but by way of complete reconfiguration.
• I am not sure the approaches I used for Dracula or The Turn of the Screw could work for this topic; it is too big. I wouldn't have added a section like OP did because it feels a bit structurally weird in the current article. That doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. Just that the way the material is currently distributed makes it feel jarring/duplicative. You can see me having a meltdown over the article's structure last year at the closed peer review.

@Mevsherd: You correctly spotted multiple problems above (including my misquoting of a source!!!). That means Wikipedia needs you! But you need your experience to catch up with your ambition. Read and research widely; paraphrase powerfully; quote sparingly. It really sucks to feel like you wasted time. (Check out my sandbox for something I spent 100h+ on due to others disagreeing!) But nobody here is out to get you. – ImaginesTigers 19:52, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

ImaginesTigers and Gawaon. The challenge of a section on gender (or patriarchy, or a feminist perspectives) is that it overlaps other sections. It covers some of the material re translations (mainly Wilson, at the moment), and some of the material regarding other literature, like Madeline Miller. So, if there is a gender studies section, it will be somewhat redundant with other sections, but if there is no such section then it's not treated as a unified subject. Personally, when I come to a long article on Wikipedia, I rarely read the whole thing. I treat the sections as mini-articles and only read what I want, so I don't notice redundancy.

The deleted material is easily fixed. The Wilson quote is easily trimmed and cited, and is actually nearly identical to material in the Time article (which also got blanked). Most of what I wrote in the intro was recapitulating (or redundant with) cited material above it, and I don't think claims need to be cited every single time they are mentioned. However, I can easily add the refs if needed. There was no OR in the lines containing the two translations. As a reader, I would want to see the translations being discussed.

So, I can add it back, but I'm not sure if there is a consensus on having a section for "Gender Studies" or if that it the best name for it. Mevsherd (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll give a third and final pence, and be a bit more blunt: I'm opposed to the creation of such a section because the article's current structure, and I think the prose you have proposed has been reverted for good reasons.

• I would be delighted to see the creation of Gender in the Odyssey, where that material could be covered. (I'd recommend going through AfC.)
• There's no other dedicated section for a particular interpretative mode: ramming one in doesn't do the article any favours. Someone brought up due weight for a reason. I've outlined why I think it's a bad idea right now.
• Presenting two quotes from two translations is not regular practice on Wikipedia. They aren't essays—they're an article of others' views which, to be glib and quote myself, are read and research[ed] widely; paraphrase[d] powerfully; quote[d] sparingly. Working on a dedicated Gender in the Odyssey article for AfC would likely illustrate the challenge for you better.

If "as a reader, [you] want to see the translations be discussed", you may also find Translations of the Odyssey interesting. There are also articles for Miller's Circe and Wilson's Odyssey (I actually started the latter!); work on those is likely to ruffle less feathers. – ImaginesTigers 21:12, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

No opinion on the best approach to structuring the material. But, this is not fair: "Presenting two quotes from two translations is not regular practice on Wikipedia." In this case, the comparisons are the subject of mainstream media coverage of how male and female translators translated differently. The comparisons are covered in Time and and mentioned by Madeline Miller, for instance. It's a more notable subject in the Odyssey (and Iliad) than in the norm. Mevsherd (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

“Covered in Time and mentioned by Madeleine Miller” is at least one, maybe two, levels below the level of source quality this article is aiming towards, and from which we decide on WP:DUEWEIGHT. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Right, it wasn't intended as a mathematical proof that I'm right, just giving some examples. The differences in how male and female translators have translated this text has received a lot of media coverage, so that's why a comparison of translation might make more sense here.. That "due weight" guideline is mainly, albeit not entirely, aimed at disputes, minority views, etc. Mevsherd (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

If you have a mathematical proof that you’re right, please do so instead of worrying about examples. Media coverage is not a high standard of reliable sourcing; I think you need to reread the neutral point of view policy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I may also point out that the differences in how male and female translators treated the work are already covered, if quickly, in the Translation" section. Gawaon (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

This doesn't really discuss the differences, merely alludes to their existence (I see some specifics in endnotes). "Emily Wilson writes that almost all prominent translators of Greco-Roman literature had been men, arguing this impacted the popular understanding of the Odyssey"

I might do an RfC on whether we should have a section on Gender. I don't understand ImaginesTigers' suggestion that it could have its own article, but not its own section. Notable sub-topics usually have a section, and if spun-off, a "See main article..." note. Mevsherd (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Fair point. If you prepare a longer, well‑substantiated and well‑sourced section on gender, you might be able to get it into this article without needing an RfC. (Obviously I can't promise that, but personally I would, at least, not be opposed.) Gawaon (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

+1 -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Notes

References

One starting point is the comparable section at the Iliad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iliad#Gender

In this article, I think the concerns were: 1) There will be redundancy with other sections. That's unavoidable, because "gender" is a interdisciplinary topic, yet merits a unified approach in its own right. Categories often overlap. So, what's the best way to handle it? 2) The section intro wasn't adequately sourced. Some of it was sourced in the previous section--hence, redundancy happened--so I didn't think it needed to be repeated. There are many more, similar sources in the Iliad article, which could be added here. 3) The Wilson quote was too long, which is a 30-second fix. 4) Providing the two translations being discussed is OR, which I don't see.Mevsherd (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Odyssey composition date from West 2014 that should be added its becoming consensus

Yet again scholars have fiercely protested the 8th century date notably West and Gainsford and have dated the Odyssey to around the 630's or 620's bce much much later than assumed here is the evidence taken from West M. L. (2014)

1---------The illiad and Odyssey have no clear separator from the rest of archaic poetry and its clear the world of the author is later than the Illiad ,,And it has become increasingly clear that there is no clear blue water separating them from the rest of archaic Greek poetry. Other epics and epic lays existed before them and beside them. So did elegy, iambus, and various forms of lyric. In terms of both literary and national history it is now to a significant degree possible, and desirable, to put the Odyssey in context. --------West 2014 page 24-25

2-------The odyssey borrows from the Illiad many scenes and setpieces up to 52 cases identified and so many of them are formulaic too and its not just the Illiad that he knew of but the Doloneia ,,chapter I shall be setting out fifty- two cases in which Q takes over lines and passages from the Iliad and employs them inaccurately or inappropriately. So far as we know, the Odyssey was the only epic composed in the archaic period that came anywhere near the Iliad in length; the longest of the Cyclic epics, the Cypria, had only eleven books, and none of the others more than five. This probably reflects a deliberate ambition on Q’s part to produce something on the same vast scale as the Iliad. Jacoby diagnosed a ‘conscious rivalry’, a ‘creative imitation’.6 Heubeck similarly saw a poet who took the Iliad as given and aimed to set something comparable (‘etwas Gleichwertiges’) beside it. Indeed, with the many references scattered through the poem to the fall of Troy and the returns of other heroes he made it effectively a sequel to the Iliad,, West's idea of a odyssey created by a single author named Q around 630 bce is less accepted but his date is--------M L West 2014 page 26-27

3------the episode with Odysseus and Penthiseleia is a separte work from the rest of the Illiad that Q did not know about but he did know about the next passage about Memnon ,,He refers to Memnon as the handsomest man that Odysseus saw at Troy (λ 522), and he mentions that the bones of Antilochos, whom Memnon killed (δ 187 f.), are with those of Achilles and Patroklos (ω 78); the Memnon poet had used Antilochos as Patroklos had been used in the Iliad, as a special friend of Achilles whose fall in battle provoked Achilles to go aft er the enemy hero. The fall of Memnon led on to the death of Achilles, the great battle over his body, the magnificent funeral and games in his honour, the dispute over his arms, and Ajax’s suicide after they were awarded to Odysseus. All of these episodes are alluded to in the Odyssey (ε 309 f.; ω 36–92; λ 543–60). They were no doubt more traditional elements than the battles with Penthesileia and Memnon, but we may assume that Q knew them from the same source as the Memnon narrative.,, so its pretty clear from just one passage that since the Odyssey is clearlly not the same author of the Illiad most scholars accept that the he musy have used that as a source and well West previously dated the Illiad to the 650's Bce so it has to be later.-----M L west 2014 pp 28-29

4-----------he is very influenced by the argonaut poetic tradition which is universally seen as 7th century bce cause its related to when the greeks colonized colchis ( and is a mythic explanation of that) and well that is only after 650 bce from the archaeology and just like the Illiad there is clear Gilgameshian influence from the standard assyrian version again from the 600's bce and that is pretty clear with enkidu and odysseus and like the Illiad its influenced by Hesiodic poetry in work and Days from the very early 600's bce a whole 10 passages M L West 2014 pp 30-33

5---------the Odyssey was influenced by the elegiac poets Callinus and Tyrtaeus who lived in the mid 600's bce ,,β 65 f. λλους τ᾽ αδέσθητε περικτίονας νθρώπους | ο περιναιετάουσι ~ Callin. 1. 2 οδ᾽ αδεσθ᾽ μϕιπερικτίονας; As Seeck notes, the Ithacans have done nothing more shameful than leaving the suitors to their devices, and as they live on an island the reference to the peoples living around them is odd. It certainly looks as if Q has borrowed a trope from elegy, though Callinus will not have been the only poet to use it. ξ 228 λλος γάρ τ᾽ λλοισιν ν ρ πιτέρπεται ργοις ~ Archil. 25. 2 λλ᾽ λλος λλωι καρδίην αίνεται. This is a truism, and neither passage need be derived from the other. σ 136 f. τοος γ ρ νόος στν πιχθονίων νθρώπων | οον π᾽ μαρ γησι πατ ρ νδρ ν τε θε ν τε ~ Archil. 131–2 τοος νθρώποισι θυμός, Γλακε Λεπτίνεω πάϊ, | γίνεται θνητος, ποίην Ζε ς π᾽ μέρην γηι, | κα ϕρονέουσι το᾽ ποίοις γκυρέωσιν ργμασιν. Th is is a more individual observation. In Archilochus it was prominently placed as the opening of a poem. In the Odyssey it is a dispensable and not completely appropriate appendage to what has preceded, and νόος is perhaps less accurate than θυμός (Seeck 362 f.). It may well be adapted from Archilochus. The phrasing of σ 137 is very close to that of Archil. 131. 2.,, also he says on page 35 ,,THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD; DATING Even if these examples do not all show Q’s dependence on specific passages known to us from poets of the mid seventh century, they tend to reinforce the impression that he was living in the same world as they. It was a world in which poets travelled about—the aoidos is among the skilled professionals that one might invite to a community from elsewhere (ρ 382–6)—and knowledge of poetry could spread quickly over large areas. Ionian epic and elegy flourished on both sides of the Aegean. Semonides in Amorgos (fr. 6) and Alcaeus in Lesbos (fr. 347, with Sapph. fr. 101 A) knew and adapted verses by Hesiod. Solon in Athens (fr. 20) knew and modified a verse by Mimnermus of Smyrna.,, overall the citations are from M West 2014 pp 34-35

And that is the data only from greek literature and not stuff like material culture and allready mid to late 600's bce sounds very plausible now on to external dating

6------The Illiad is clearlly very familliar with Asia Minoe the Odyssey by contrast has a very vague understanding of it only using in it via the Illiad tradition by contrast the Odyssey constantly mentions Egypt the Phoenicians and mythicised versions of the Western Mediterranean ,,He is focused on mainland Greece. His world extends much further out than that of the Iliad poet, though with geography fading into mythical topography. Some critics have made a distinction between the ‘inner’ and the ‘outer’ geography of the Odyssey. It is perhaps useful to distinguish three zones: 1. the known Aegean world; 2. remoter overseas lands that have a real existence but are known mainly by rumour and hearsay and may be invested with some fabulous features; 3. mythical places such as Oceanus or the islands of Aiolos, Circe, and Calypso, to be found somewhere in the yonder regions of the earth.,, the text also mentions sicliy as aplace where slaves are to be bought and sold as well as the sicels sicilian colonization is clearlly post 700 bce in big numbers and it took time to become settled there is also Egypt as this exotic land whitch matches the Saite Period quite well as Necho 1st (664-610 bce) welcomed greeks to Egypt the Phoenicians were also at their peak in the 600's bce, also there appear to be allusions to mainland italy and sicily West 2014 pp 83-85

7-------the book still gives the impression that the western colonies were not widely known ,,Corcyra.44 Q, then, or one of his predecessors, picked up a rumour of a strange people up in the north- west beyond Corcyra, the Phaiakes, who lived in a region called the Scheria; being unfamiliar with the dialect word, he took it to be the name of an island. Th eir origin was connected with the Giants, and they had a petrifi ed ship off their coast. For Q at any rate Corcyra lay beyond his Zone 1, and as for Scheria its location was so ill defi ned that he could put it wherever in the west suited him; he imagines it as lying somewhere beyond Sicily. The Phaeacians, like other peoples on the outer limits of his world, are invested with some semi- utopian features. Q adds various fi ctitious details. He says that they moved to Scheria from ‘Hypereia’, near the Cyclopes (ζ 4), and that Nausikaa’s nurse was a woman captured from ‘Apeira’ (η 9). Th ese are invented names, designed to suggest that Scheria is one of many unknown lands in the Western Sea. It is noteworthy that in Odysseus’ western wanderings he sees nothing of Sicily or Italy. From Scheria the Phaeacians convey him home on a non- stop voyage through the night, with no hint of what lands they are passing. When we analyse his peregrinations more closely in the next chapter, we shall see that if we leave aside a series of adventures adapted from the Argonautic tradition (Telepylos, Circe, the Sirens, etc.) there is a good measure of geographical coherence. Th e Lotuseaters and the Cyclopes are situated on a coast somewhere west of Cyrenaica. Calypso’s island is much further west, far from any land. From there Odysseus returns eastwards in the direction of Ithaca. Scheria is somewhere close to his route. All of this fits comfortably in the great Western Sea West 2014 pp 84-85

8------the Pontic connection as the area of the Pontus was only colonised in the mid 600's onward then this passage is telling,, he far east, near the sunrise (μ 3 f.), and we can find Pontic connections in the descriptions of Telepylos (κ 82–94) and the approach to Hades (κ 509–15, λ 14).45 But we cannot reconstruct a coherent geographical framework for Odysseus’ ‘eastern’ adventures as we can for his western ones, nor explain how his transitions between the two spheres may relate to the configuration of the world known to Q and his contemporaries. If he gave any thought to the question, he presumably imagined these transitions as being performed over northern seas that connected the eastern and western ones, somewhere beyond Epirus and Th race. He brings Odysseus right up to Oceanus, the world- encircling river, and across it to Hades. But he is not concerned to take him on a grand tour of all earth’s outer regions. He comes to Atlas’ daughter, but not to Atlas himself, nor to Erytheia and the other western regions that Heracles visited. He comes to Circe’s island of Aiaia, but not to the Aia from which it is named, the land of the Golden Fleece beside the river Phasis. He does not approach either the eastern or the western Aithiopes. He does not encounter the Hyperboreans, or go near the Rhipaean Mountains.,, West 2014 pp 85-86

9-----Its clear the Poet of the odyssey was not from Asia Minor his geography of the region is vague same for the western regions so West hypothesizes that he is from Evvia or Athica ,,over from a Nostoi poet. The reference to the palm tree by Apollo’s altar on Delos at ζ 162–7 does look very much like something that Q has seen (Scheibner 96 n. 17). He also shows a noticeable interest in and knowledge about Crete.46 Seeck rightly infers that he had either been there himself or heard an account from someone who had been; but that he was not himself a Cretan, or he would not have treated it as he does in τ 172–8, as a fascinating land overseas.47 A Peloponnesian horizon appears when Nausikaa is likened to Artemis among her nymphs on Taygetos or Erymanthos (ζ 103); contrast the ninth Homeric Hymn, where the goddess is pictured driving through Smyrna to Klaros. Hermes is associated with Kyllene (ω 1), as he is not in the Iliad. Not that Q has any thorough familiarity with Peloponnesian landscapes, or he could hardly have pictured Telemachos and Peisistratos driving overland from Pharai to Sparta, with no regard to the problems of crossing the Taygetos massif.48 His knowledge seems to be more of the coastline.49 He is aware that someone rounding the infamous Cape Maleia will pass inside Cythera (ι 81 f.). He shows some acquaintance with the west coast too; in ο 295–300 he traces Telemachos’ course from Pylos up past Triphylia to the promontory of Phea and from there towards the islands.50 In picking on Pharai as the natural halfway point between (Messenian) Pylos and Sparta he makes a judgment that someone sailing across the Messenian Gulf might well make.51 It is a plausible inference that he had himself sailed round those coasts. Th ere are indications that he knew Ithaca at fi rst hand.52 Possibly he found a ruling family there that already claimed descent from a Telemachos.53 Such a family did apparently exist in the fourth century.54 If he sailed round the Peloponnese to Ithaca, who took him? Traders, no doubt, making for Corcyra or Sicily or beyond.55 And where was he coming from? Where was his home territory? and he concludes that its Attica or Evvia rae the lands where the poet came from: ,,We do not hear of any epic poets hailing from Attica or Euboea, but there is no reason to suppose that none existed. Certain passages in the Odyssey have been thought to point to an Athenian poet (cf. Scheibner 95 f.). Orestes returns to avenge his father from Athens (γ 307), not from Phocis as in the familiar version. Menelaos sailing homeward from Troy calls at Sounion to bury his helmsman Phrontis, who has died suddenly (γ 278–85); his tomb was presumably a local monument. When Athena leaves Scheria she goes to Marathon and Athens, into the old palace of Erechtheus (η 80 f.).56 Th ere are several references to Attic myths that probably did not at the time enjoy Panhellenic currency: a trio of heroines with Attic connections in λ 321–5 (Phaidra, Prokris, Ariadne, with an annotation on Th eseus’ expedition to Crete);57 the deifi cation of Heracles (λ 602 f., if genuine); Th eseus and Peirithoos (λ 631); Prokne and Itylos (τ 518–23),, M L West 2014 pp 86-89

Overall you get the picture overall West is great source to use so we should start a discusssion on chnaging the date so let's do it

West, M. L. (2014). The Making of the Odyssey. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0198718369.

~~~~ Theopedias (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2026

Please change: "Penelope tells them she will remarry when she is done weaving a shawl; however, she secretly unweaves it every night."

To: "Penelope tells them she will remarry when she is done weaving a shroud; however, she secretly unweaves it every night."

Reason for change: In Homer's Odyssey, Penelope is cleverly delaying her suitors by weaving a burial shroud for Odysseus's father, Laertes, to be used for his eventual funeral. A shroud is specifically used for a corpse, whereas a shawl is an article of clothing for a living person. AsterionHekataios (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

“Attributed to Homer” prominence and specificity

“attributed to Homer” is a very prominent part of this page. It features in the short description, first sentence of the lead, the “subtitle” of the Infobox.

As the “Background > Composition and Authorship section” makes clear. There is no consensus on if Homer lived. And the consensus seems to be that the odyssey was formed from oral traditions over centuries.

I thus have 2 questions: (1) Does “attributed to Homer” deserve such prominence in the lead/infobox/short description? (2) Should we be more specific on _who_ attributes it to Homer? YannLK (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

The earliest surviving source explicitly attributing the poems to Homer by title appears to be Herodotus. I've made this edit to clarify this point. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

A related problem is that the whole wiki treats it only as Homeric standard version, the one that was written and known today word for word. But part of the reason why authorship is unknown and unconfirmed and mysterious is presumably because the person/group setting it down knew they were just writing/adapting an existing thing, and everyone know the story already (if they’d ever heard a bard). I’d like to revise some phrasing, in accordance with sources. Yes I know and understand the wiki article is for the one particular work, not the larger myth, but I still think it’s misleading and confusing in parts.

Example right in the first paragraph: “ also known by the Latin variant Ulysses”. It makes no sense to include that in the article, there, when the article is about the Homer Written Thing *not* the larger older myths or stories.

When someone thinks of any given myth story, they shouldn’t *only* be aware of one authored standard version mentally. This kind of thinking is wrong and comes from modern publishing culture. And the fact that Homer is thought to have never existed makes it all the more wrong that the very first words focus on “one of two” instead of just “a”. Why is broader bibliography being worked into the very first words of the article? If a novelist has 14 books, does every article say “[book X] is one of 14 books” in the first line?

The article also has Useless First Sentences syndrome, an epidemic on Wikipedia, partly because of the fuzziness around Homer. The two sentences before “It follows [i.e. story info]” should not be prioritized before a few words of brief definitive story info and a rough date (like any good book wiki article). Why am I discussing here instead of editing? I think the Useless First Sentences Syndrome is so entrenched now that editors will think it *should* be like that and they’d revert and improvement. So now ledes are buried, repeatedly, in a way that I think should be obvious to any person looking at it with a notion of helpful informativeness in mind. And yet.

Useless First Sentences Syndrome is where the nouns/phrases chosen in the first sentence are too broad, or are associations rather than definitive about what the thing is. I.e. “a ‘product’ manufactured by so & so” when it’s a ‘boat’, or just “a videogame by [publisher]” (always publisher instead of creator/developer as is obviously the standard for other works of art) when it’s a street-racing game, or a “musical style from [location]” with no word on what it really is. (These are just examples.)RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Add Emily Wilson's translation to the list of translations

Emily Wilson's translation with a unique point of view, and using modern English, might warrant being added to the list of significant translations.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odyssey_(Emily_Wilson_translation) for reference and reviews cited there as commendation for a possible inclusion in the list of translations. Derdok (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Her translation is already referenced, in the "Books" section of the Bibliography. I agree it makes sense to also add it to the "English translations" section. However, I'm not sure how to handle this best – duplicating the existing {{Cite book}} entry would probably cause problems with short citations referencing it. Gawaon (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

? What "list of translations"? This article does not have one. We have some quite nice paragraphs discussing the history of translations, but the content on English translations doesn't go into the 20th century. I'm not sure why we would skip a whole century and throw in a 21st century translation. And frankly, the section is quite lengthy for an overview article, so I would be hesitant to expand it much. Aza24 (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion! My reference was to Odyssey § English translations, which is a subsection of "External links" – but I hadn't noticed that when I wrote my comment yesterday. Right now its contents are a bit odd – there's one translation in there (Lawrence) that doesn't come with an external link and should probably be removed. And you're right that it wouldn't make much sense to add Wilson's translation there since its full text is almost certainly not available online. My mistake. Gawaon (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Aza24: Hello, been a while. I can provide some context. I built out the translations paragraphs as a sort of non-sandbox draft while writing Translations of the Odyssey. The honest answer is quite boring: I intended to pare this article's translation section back in detail after publishing the dedicated translation article but didn't get around to it. Wilson's article is listed, alongside her Iliad, in English translations of Homer, and her scholarship is cited repeatedly on this article, but I agree that throwing her translation into the article for the sake of it feels a bit silly to me. (I made her translation's article so it had its own time to shine!) Further up the page, someone requested material on gendered analysis -- I had some time & wanted to put together another spin-off article but it never made it out of my sandbox because life got in the way. It could certainly warrant an entire paragraph in there. – ImaginesTigers 15:50, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Title formatting

Why does this article refer to it as "the Odyssey" and not "The Odyssey"? A quick look on Amazon shows that English translations appear to overwhelmingly or universally be titled "The Odyssey", and I don't understand why this article is treating the title differently than we normally would. Somatochlora (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

To expand slightly, "Odyssey is composed of 24 books" and "The Odyssey is composed of 24 books" are both sensible, and are how we would treat any other poem or work of fiction. But the status quo seems ungrammatical. I see that secondary sources tend to use this styling. But I don't see why we would follow that anymore than we would use "Ke$ha" in prose. I am reminded of the rfc about names of birds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_156#Bird_common_name_decapitalisation which determined that specialist styles within the field should not override normal rules of grammar and styling. Somatochlora (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

The idea is that the work's actual title is just Odyssey but that it's commonly used with the article, just as various other proper nouns. Just as we write "the United States" with a small "the" which is not a part of the proper noun but still precedes it. "United States" doesn't take italics, of course, but otherwise the idea is the same. Gawaon (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

In the United States the "the" is used to make clear that this apparent plural is a singular entity. That is not the case here, just "Odyssey" would be perfectly comprehensible. It really just seems to be a stylistic convention. Which is fine, but I would normally expect a Wikipedia page that does something like that to include e.g. a short section called "Name" that explains these conventions and the reasoning behind them. I don't know what that reasoning is as I haven't found any sources. I find it very jarring on this page and find it strange that there has never been any discussion I can see of why Wikipedia would follow this convention for a small number of ancient works.

I also think it is very clear that the common name for this work is genuinely the "The Odyssey". That's what every single English translation that shows up in the first couple of pages on Amazon calls it on the cover and spine from what I can see. I don't feel like feel like it would be worthwhile for me to actually put into the effort to change it but it seems pretty clear to me that by Wikipedia policies the title of this article should be "The Odyssey". In contrast, it is very common for "the" to be left off the U.S. in contexts where that is possible, e.g. map labels. Somatochlora (talk) 11:56, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually this specific work is given as an example of the thorny "the" capitalization issue in MOS:THECAPS. The idea seems to be that, since the article is not included in our page title, it's not an actual part of the title of the work. So, if you want to change the italics and capitalization, you'll have to make a WP:MOVE request to change the page title from "Odyssey" to "The Odyssey". If that request gains consensus, the rest will follow automatically. Good luck! Gawaon (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

As I said I'm not about to start a move proposal. More just think this should be clarified *in the article* because I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds it jarring and confusing. I can't do so because I don't actually understand why it is like this. I presume there is some historical or linguistic reason. Somatochlora (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Somatochlora. What you're noticing is an English convention that isn't specific to Homer. When descriptive titles are borrowed from another language, we add a the that doesn't form part of the actual title (e.g., the Bible, the Talmud, the Torah). If the title is a proper noun, like a name, they don't add one (like Beowolf) because proper nouns don't need the definite article to be definite. The Ancient Greek/Latin titles were descriptive (song/story of Odysseus), so convention arose for the. This is so widespread that plenty of people do now consider the to be part of the title, and you'll see it in plenty of translation titles/modern printings. – ImaginesTigers 16:23, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Does it insult the Greeks to suggest that mere Egyptians should have inspired them?

I mentioned a suggestion, with sources. Someone objected and reversed, which I find suspicious. But I'm not doing an edit war. Let someone else restore it, if they think it worthwhile. GwydionM (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually, your edit, which I reverted, merely described the Odyssey as "part of a broader tradition of East Mediterranean homecoming stories", without saying anything about which stories inspired which. You also mentioned the "Tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor" but without making a direct connection. If there was a reliable source (RS) establishing a likely specific influence from that story, it would be interesting, but your vague edit did nothing of that sort. The other problem is that the edit itself didn't refer to any RS, which is needed for all factual information added to Wikipedia. Gawaon (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Ian C. Johnston's translation

Section "English translations" states that the translation by Ian C. Johnston was released into the public domain in 2024. I am not sure it is true. First, the link is dead. Second, the book is currently offered for sale ($24.50 from Richer Resources Publications, or Amazon.com).
Ion Soggo (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Hubris?

The word "hubris" doesn't appear in the main text of the article, despite being a major (the major) theme of the story. ~2026-42129-94 (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this assertion? And really, instead of trying to explain how hubris is a (or the) major theme, please give us a reliable, academic source we can cite. Because it also doesn't appear in the Britannica article on the subject, nor our article on hubris (admittedly, a poor article). As recently as two weeks ago, a Professor of Greek Literature has rejected the notion of hubris as a central component: "All of the Homeric heroes are excessive in some way, which is at the root of the meaning of the word 'hubris.' The ancient word has to do with excess. The heroes of Greek epic all go to extremes in one way or another: extremes of grief, extremes of rage, whatever it is. So I don’t think there is exactly a reflection on hubris as such going on here." Aza24 (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC)