Talk:Chiasmus

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus. MartinZ02 (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

---

Any reason that Chiasmus and Chiastic structure can't be combined into a single page?

• No. Because the use of chiasmus are specific to verses or stanzas where the words are laid out in a specific way like a poem or haiku. Whereas, chiastic structure has a more broader ranger of parallelism occurring throughout a chapter or an entire book, usually subject to interpretation or certain points of view. A merge like this would not be appropriate. Further, this merge was already proposed in 2005 here > Chiastic structure#Merge? and I agree with User: E=MC^2 that it not be merged. Jasonasosa (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• support merge The fact that merge was suggested 3 times means something. The two things are essentially the same, and I don't see evidence from reliable sources that the difference is deep to warrant an article. Both articles are full of original research and examples., so the resulting merge will be small and meaningful. In fact there is a whole dissertation about chiasmus which does not draw this nitpicking distinction and applies the term to literary structure of any size. Cite within cite from it:

"Moliere’s Tartuff and Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Tempest have been deemed whole work chiasms (Quinn 95)".

- üser:Altenmann >t 15:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Neutral on this, but the merge template has been there since 2011, so I updated it to say so. —siroχo 02:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Merge chiastic structure into chiasmus: the latter is by definition a structure, so the phrase "chiastic structure" is a case of unnecessary amplitude. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is currently the oldest open merge request so despite having some recent comments it needs closing. I am going to boldly close it as no consensus. From a purely numbers point of view (looking at the two merge discussions together) we have 2 against and three for (and two neutrals) merging. If someone strongly feels this should be merged then they can either be bold or open a new discussion. AIRcorn (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conceptual Chiasmus

The section Conceptual Chiasmus is from a single academic source and, I would argue, overwritten. There is an incredible amount of detail on (theoretical) links between slavery and abortion given that this is an article on a figure of rhetoric. Everything from "Consider the table below.. " treads very heavily into discussions that really aren't the remit of this article and could easily be deleted while still keeping the initial idea of the conceptual chiasmus. --Mdb23b (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thyestes 10 is not an example of chiasmus

Someone please export that example to the synchysis article. ---Mark Miner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.183.99.12 (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Mormon Apologists

I like how LDS apologists keep updating this article to include the Book of Mormon - 3 out of all 6 references in the article are books and articles written and self-published by LDS apologists, and the one external link to presumably read more about this topic outside of wikipedia points to a site hosted at byu.edu (LDS school). Not arguing they shouldn't have a voice on wikipedia, but I think the article needs to be a tad more diverse - and the amount of LDS sources I think are planted to make it appear they are an authority on the subject. Also: the quote from the published article suggests that examples are "found throughout the Book of Mormon" is dubious at best. FAIR themselves (Unofficial LDS apologist group) admits there's 6 examples: [1] Skuld-Chan (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree. The intro paragraph for example references the Bible and the Book of Mormon. There needs to be a more diverse list, including more mainstream religious and secular texts. Kristmace (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

  It makes sense that Mormon scholars have written so much about chiasm and are more enthusiastic to share, as compared to scholars of more mainstream religions. Mormon scholars see chiasm as being much more than just an interesting literary device; to them it's exciting and worthy of much academic energy because they believe it provides compelling evidence of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. 
  The six examples given by FAIR in your link are of more complex chiasms and is by no means an exhaustive list. I personally have run across two extended examples of chaism in my reading of the book that are not included in their list: 1 Nephi 17:30-42 and 3 Nephi 27:7-29, the latter example being a thematic chaism. 

FreedomWorks! (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chiasmus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060712042330/http://humanities.byu.edu:80/rhetoric/Figures/C/Chiasmus.htm to http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/Figures/C/Chiasmus.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Re-edit: distinguishing between chiasmus and antimetabole

If these two "schemes of repetition" are identical, then they should be presented as such, but according to Corbett and Connors they are distinct.

Baldick concedes as much, when he writes that antimetabole is a "subtype" of chiasmus.

John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address (1961) includes a well-known example of antimetabole: "...ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." Corbett and Connors emphatically regard this as such, not as chiasmus. The famous quote should be removed and replaced with as example of chiasmus. CerroFerro (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@CerroFerro the above state conflicting positions for the purposes of this article. Are the terms disjoint or is antimetabole a subset of chiasmus? Oxford's outstanding example of chiasmus is antimetabole ("Poetry is the record of the best and happiest moments of the happiest and best minds") . Let's change the language in this article to reflect Baldick's (as far as I can tell generally accepted) interpretation. Gilsinan (talk) 04:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

References