Talk:Psyche (mythology)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 10 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Slysightly (article contribs).

Reorganization and lead edits

Howdy! Just wanted to give a heads up to anyone still active on this page that I'm planning to reorganize and rework some of the content to fit it more in line with Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology standards. If anyone has any suggestions or ideas please let me know! slysightly 20:29, 24 February 2022

Hi! I'm not sure if this helps, but I noticed there's a more in-depth version of Psyche's storyline here https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Cupid_and_Psyche#Story which contradicts this page a bit. 22:59, 28 November 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.2.132 (talk)

Wiki Education assignment: HUM 202 - Introduction to Mythology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nikitalee02 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Nikitalee02 (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: HUM 202 - Introduction to Mythology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Macaroni n cheese (article contribs). Peer reviewers: RagingWaterspout05.

— Assignment last updated by Rockethound (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello @CrashD2025. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Era Style in Psyche article. Thank you. —Dont trap anna (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately a user with no talk page has been intent on violating the Era Style Guidelines. I am unsure of their agenda, and have accidentally broken the 3RR rule, but am going to report them anyways, as I am tired of their continued insistence in editing something that does not need to be changed.

Dont trap anna (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I am leaving up my previous comments so that others will understand what is going on. I was advised to invite @User:CrashD2025 to participate in a further discussion instead of edit warring with you/them (sorry!). The first time that BCE/CE are mentioned in the creation of Psyche can be found here [1] and the Era Style Guidelines state:

"Either convention may be appropriate for use in Wikipedia articles depending on the article context. Apply Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Retaining existing styles with regard to changes from one era to the other. Use either the BC–AD or the BCE–CE notation consistently within the same article. Exception: do not change direct quotations, titles, etc. An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content; seek consensus on the talk page first (applying Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Retaining existing styles) by opening a discussion under a heading using the word era, or another similarly expressive heading, and briefly stating why the style should be changed."

@User:CrashD2025 could you please explain why this should be changed from the original format to BC/AD? Dont trap anna (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The Latin designations ACN and AC predate BC and AD. The page in question should, if anything, be edited accordingly in order to reflect any supposed lean toward the aforementioned law of primacy. BC and AD represent an unsophisticated compromise to the nascent and Anglo-centric BCE and CE. This compromise now appears to be consistent within the article. Regards. CrashD2025 (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@CrashD2025 Thanks for taking the time to discuss this. I very much disagree. Why should a naming convention based on a religion created after the original mythology referenced in this article be used to describe this other religious myth as opposed to the contemporary accepted academic terms BCE/CE?

Dont trap anna (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Your conclusion is a non sequitur. Recent efforts to cleanse antiquity of its antiquity by historical revisionists is a secular disputation. It is also an abhorrent effort to bifurcate history in Anglo-centric terminology. It appears we are at an impasse. Best to you. Cheers. CrashD2025 (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

It should also be noted that any "acceptance" of those nascent, Anglo-centric designations within “academia” is somehow the result of a unanimous, united front is preposterous. Nothing could be further from the truth. Cheers. CrashD2025 (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@CrashD2025 Thanks! I'm not sure how the change you have made is not a non sequitur. The article does not deal with this terminology directly and was completely legible and clear without your change. There is no real reason to make this change. Wikipedia is built on neutrality and bringing your strong personal opinion to an article that does not need to have a change made is not in line with the rules and etiquette of the platform. You must understand that I don't even fully disagree with what you are saying. The problem is that you are not in a position to decide for everyone based on your opinion that BC/AD is somehow 'better' or 'more accurate' when it is an equally biased format. Dont trap anna (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I apologize. I didn’t realize this conversation was still occurring.

First of all, I didn’t write that my correction was a non sequitur. I wrote that your conclusion was. My opinion on the matter is rooted in a distaste for historical revisionism, while your reply to which I was referencing was based on your opinion on the historical figure of Jesus the Nazarene. That is a non sequitur in the logical sense as opposed to a literary one.

I liken the BCE/CE movement to the foolish revisionists who are in the business of tearing down statues that mark the historical record. Tearing down a statue does not change the historical record; these people for whom the statues were made still lived. If an effort is being made to expunge the historical figure of Jesus from the record, then why continue pointing to his birth? BCE and CE still reference the birth of Jesus. It is not a movement to change how history is bifurcated, it is merely another toppling of a long-standing statue (in an ancient language). If a student were to ask what event marked the “common era,” any professor worth their salt would have to point to the birth of Jesus. Changing the designation does not change its history.

Regardless, the appellations of BC and AD predate these nascent, Anglo-centric attempts to revise history. The terms point to the same moment in history and are more suitable for the modern reader. Like or loathe the statues, i.e. the dead languages, let them stand. Let’s not contribute to the dumbing-down of society.

This concludes my opinion on the matter.

Cheers. CrashD2025 (talk) 11:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@CrashD2025 Good morning! Thank you for confirming that your edits are based in your own personal crusade against "historical revisionists" with full disregard for the Wikipedia platform, mission, rules, and etiquette. I believe this is the perfect moment for me to bring this to arbitration. Have a nice day! Dont trap anna (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement about whether or not era style should be changed in the article):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Psyche (mythology) and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

@CrashD2025: & @Dont trap anna: Per MOS:ERA and MOS:VAR, BCE and CE should stay, as that was the established era style. Consensus is needed to change the era style, and looking at the talk page, no such consensus was gained. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

If Wikipedia ever decides to rise above its reputation as a disreputable and contemptible source on any and all subject matter, a thorough vetting process clearly needs to occur. For instance, CVs should be submitted and checked for any and all contributors. Until then, its readers will continue to wade in its shallow and puerile waters. Ad fontes. CrashD2025 (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Until then, let's raise another glass and hoist another trophy to ignorance. CrashD2025 (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@BerryForPerpetuity Thanks so much for your input. I really appreciate you taking the time, particularly for such a trivial matter. Have a great day!

Dont trap anna (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)