curprev11:5411:54, 16 February 2020 Prinsgezindetalkcontribs 8,835 bytes+58 That's not what I meant, but maybe I shouldn't have said "stolen" but rather "copy-pasted". This isn't even remotely worded in an encyclopetic manner. "An interesting confirmation", questions within normal text, general tone, the repeated use of "we". If you think it's salvageable, I'll just tag it.undoTag: Undo
curprev02:0902:09, 16 February 2020 Paul Augusttalkcontribs 8,777 bytes+1,403 Undid revision 940970651 by Prinsgezinde (talk) Yes as noted in the article: "This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Homer". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press."undoTag: Undo
curprev19:3019:30, 14 May 2019 Anthologetestalkcontribs 8,739 bytes−518 2 changes: first, removal of the last sentence of the first paragraph--it is extraneous; the other poets are not the subject of this article, nor is Herodotus' reliability in this context. Second, the removal of the West comment entirely--this article cares about the ''ancient'' sourced dates of Homer, not the modern scholarly ones; leave those to the Homer article.undo
