Talk:Cyclopes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Various origin speculations

Elephants

The skulls giving origin to the legend would be Deinotheriums or Sicilian Palaeoloxodons? Is there a way to choose? (Anon.)

"Tatoos"?

"Blacksmiths also tattooed themselves with concentric circles in honor of the sun; this is another possible source of the legend. " Which? whom? where? I suspect manufactured post-literate "tradition" in this statement. --Wetman 02:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fetal development

In about 1997, I was in the hospital with pinched nerves in my back and extreme pain. The pain medication would wear off during the night, and I would turn on TV until the new medication put me to sleep, which was too long a wait for me.

One earl morning TV session, I switched to the PBS station in Dalls, and caught a video that a man made when his wife first became pregnant. He actually had a doctor to insert some fiber optic strings into her and attached them to his movie camera. It was fascinating, to say the least, to actually see the development of the body destined to house a new Soul.

At one point, the fetus was facing the camera, and I saw the spaces where the eyes wer to be located. They were only indentations, covered over with skin.

Shortly after that scene, I saw one very large eye appear in the absolute center of the forehead, then begin to pull apart, and looking every bit like it was just detaching one eye from another eye, and each eye began a slow movment downwards and to the left and right until they were located firmly in their correct places.

This experience was astounding to say the least.

I think this may be the results of the development of man that had goten to the pont where the body needed two eyes, and not one. As this is obviously a development process, now, the true cyclops fell by the wayside and has not been a part of modern man since.

A few years later, I had a desire to see it again, but when the PBS station showed it, the sequence where the single eye split into two eyes had been cut out. Perhaps the powers that be, church or politician or scientist decided it would be way too much for the average person to handle to know we are descendants of one-eyed giants. I don't know.

I have tried to find that video, and it can be found on Amazon.

If anyone who has more research skills than I is interested, (s)he might find the original producer/photographer and see if he has an original that new, complete versions might be made available to the general public. (Anon.)

Could that feature be the pineal gland, which some link to the third eye? --Error (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Congenital cyclopia

"It is also possible that the rare but occasional birth of malformed children affected by cyclopia, a rare congenital cephalic disorder, could have inspired the legend." Moved here from text. This shows a fundamental misunderstandings of mythology comparable to the fetal cyclops above. Too cranky. --Wetman 05:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Picture

I added a rather nice picture. It's an animatronic.--Codenamecuckoo 14:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Pic plz Crystal pepper (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Sicily and Cyclopes

Is possible that Syracusae, in Sicily, may be the Land of Cyclopes?

Etymologically, there is an identification of Cycl-opes and Sicelians (the ancient Sicels, a non-Greek people of this island).

Note: In ancient times, there were three non-Greek and non-Phoenician peoples lived in Sicily.

1. Sicelians (or Sicels or Siceli, lived in eastern Sicelia)
2. Sicanians (or Sicani, lived in central Sicelia)
3. Elymians (or Elymaeans, or Elymi, lived in western Sicelia)

--IonnKorr 19:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about this etymology, but there is a connection between the Cyclopes and Sicily--as metal-workers, the Cyclopes were localized in areas where there was volcanic activity, and that means Mt. Etna. There are sources for this, but I don't have them to hand--Theocritus 11 might be a place to look. --Akhilleus (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

What is the spelling in Greek? My guess would be KYKΛOΨ. Michael Hardy 01:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

In Greek, the word "Cyclops" is "Κυκλωψ" and "Κυκλωπες", in plural .

--IonnKorr 16:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, in my all-capital notation, it's KYKΛΩΨ; I had the penultimate letter wrong. I checked this in the Oxford English Dictionary and I've added the spelling in Greek letters to the article. Michael Hardy 19:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Greek uses accents like many languages like Spanish or Portuguese so the above are lacking accents and should be written as Κύκλωψ and Κύκλωπες. ICE77 (talk) 06:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Redirects?

I'm thinking that there isn't much to add to the individual articles for Brontes et al. What if I made those into redirect or disambiguation pages, pointing readers to this article? The only additional information that was in those articles was the translations of the names, which is why I added those in here. Nareek 18:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

All three articles now lead readers back here. My feeling is that a lot of mythological stubs need to be either redirects or disambigs--there's only so much to be said about a lot of minor figures. Nareek 12:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Two generations?

Methinks this article is doing a bit of original research: I don't think any Greek source says that there are "two generations" of Cyclopes. Rather, like much of Greek mythology, the sources are simply inconsistent: you have Hesiod's Cyclopes, Brontes, Steropes, and Arges, and you've got the Odyssey's Cyclopes. But Hesiod and Homer don't try to reconcile these groups of Cyclopes. I doubt that any later writers (out of those we have) give a schema of two generations, but if someone does, it would be nice to have some sources in the article... --Akhilleus (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not work that right into the article? --Wetman 03:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I take "generations" to mean "groups distinct in time"--which they plainly are. I don't think it necessarily implies parenthood, which would be not OR but inaccurate. Nareek 20:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

To say that there's two generations of a particular group or creature naturally implies that the second generation is descended from the first. If you want to say "groups distinct in time", just say "groups distinct in time." Except, that's not as clear as you say--the Homeric Cyclopes are described as a kind of race or tribe of human-like beings, and so presumably have a history of their own, stretching back several generations. Note that the Phaeacians lived close to the Cyclopes, but then moved to a new land because the Cyclopes were too troublesome--and this happened at least a generation before the "present time" of the Odyssey (the relevant lines are at the beginning of book 6, I think).

There's actually a controversy, reaching back to antiquity, about the connection between Homer's Cyclopes and Hesiod's (see e.g. R. Mondi, "The Homeric Cyclopes: Folktale, Tradition, and Theme", Transactions of the American Philological Association 113 (1983) 17-38). The two-generation solution adopted by the article looks like original research to me, since it's not supported in any of the original sources or the modern scholarship I've seen--it appears to be an original, ad hoc solution to the problem of the two groups of Cyclopes. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The word "generation" is often used in a figurative sense, not implying actual parenthood. If I said that the Sex Pistols were part of the generation of musicians that followed the Beatle, would you assume that I meant that Johnny Rotten is John Lennon's son? Nareek 13:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

But what if I said there were two generations of Beatles? Two generations of Sex Pistols? Two generations of the Ramones?

Or, to use "generation" figuratively, let's say that there were two generations of punk rock music. The Stooges belong to the first, and Sonic Youth belongs to the second. Doesn't that mean that Sonic Youth was influenced by the music of the Stooges--that, figuratively, Sonic Youth descends from the Stooges?

Even in this figurative sense, then, "generations" implies some kind of descent or genetic connection.

At any rate, the notion of "generations" stems from ancient attempts to reconcile Homer and Hesiod's Cyclopes (see Aristotle, fr. 172 Rowe), and there the idea is that they were related. (I was mistaken earlier when I said the "generations" idea was an ad hoc solution.) --Akhilleus (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

One or Two eyes?

Is it possible that Cyclopses may not necessarily be 'one eyed' since the greek word Cyclops in fact means Round eyed? Perhaps it should be mentioned that the perception of Cyclopses having only one eye is only the result of popular social belief? This is just a suggestion.

I've infered that regardless of the number of eyes it has they're going to be round. As there are so few texts it's entirely possible that there "were" two-eyed cyclops, but they just weren't interesting to write about :-) Well, this article seems to focus on one-eyed and doesn't really mention round, so I'll try to add it in a NPOV way. Rodiger 19:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Lost information

For the record, the following has been lost during recent months:

• Κύκλωψ, "meaning round eye"
• Note to Kyklopes: "In English usage, this more strictly accurate transliteration may appear pretentious." (replaced by Futurama references).
• "Their individual names were secondary, save Polyphemus, singled out for his encounter with Odysseus."

--Wetman 03:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The second and third items don't seem like losses to me. It would be useful to include information on the etymology of Κύκλωψ; I don't have references at hand, but I believe that a few people think "round eye" is a folk etymology. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Nareek 10:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Harryhausen

Isn't that the same cyclops at the beginning and the end of the film? Nareek 20:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Polyphemus in Homer's Odyssey

I read Robert Fitzgeralds translation, and in it Odyessus and his crew definetly knew the Cyclopes ( called Kyklops in this version) lived in the cave. Odysseus and his men go in, and even though his men protest lingering, and suggest they grab and run Odysseus decides that they stay. There they eat Polyphemus' sheep, and steal his cheese.

The rest here is definetly just my speculation...

When Odysseus and his crew came to the island, they had been plundering and pirating (their attack on Ismaros an example). Their coming to Kyklopes island was more of the same. They ate Polyphemus's sheep, which in this he calls his children, and cousins. Also when talking to the Kyklopes, Odysseus lies to him, saying they are shipwrecked and asks for his help. Polyphemus sees through the lie, and a few other lies, with the third eye he's the 'seer of the meaning of things'.

Anyway, the movies always depict the Cyclops as a monster, and I don't think I've ever seen him use language at all. I figure mentioning that Odysseus did know what he was getting in to, and definetly brought some of the trouble on himself. Without going way off on a tangent, it just seems that the Cyclops is often passed off as not important, but he really shows at the time that Odysseus was acting rather brutishly and greedily. It's an important part of Odysseus's character development through the story.

But, how much of that was speculation, and what could I do to put it into the page?

The encyclopedia question is only, was Polyphemus, the easily-fooled but dangerous being of some primitive order, meant to be a sympathetic figure to Homer's hearers? (No.) Our sentimental reaction of universal sympathy for all creatures has only developed since the 18th century: not encyclopedic, except as an example in a subsection "Homer and the Romantics", which would belong at Homer. Do you see how that is?--Wetman 04:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I do see, but what about the issue that they knew he was going to come back all along? Odysseus's men even impore him to leave before the beast comes back. Saying it was unknown seems to be a contradiction to that. --KLoverde 04:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If the article is misrepresenting the plot of Homer, that ought to be corrected. As for the rest of your question, I would say it relates more to the character of Odysseus than to Polyphemus, and so belongs (if anywhere) in his article. Nareek 04:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Nareek) The article may be a bit unclear. Odysseus and his men know the cave is inhabited, but they don't know who lives there. The text could use some editing.

I think you raise a valuable point, too--eating Polyphemus' food without being invited to do so is a violation of hospitality, and you could draw a parallel between that and Odysseus' piratical behavior. To make it into the article, this analysis would need to be based on secondary sources. I know that a few people have written about this very question, and have compared Odysseus' behavior in the Cyclops episode to the suitors' behavior in Ithaca, but I don't have references at hand. I'll look for them tomorrow. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll look for a source on the issues of Odysseus's morality, and piracy.

But as for the crew knowing who inhabited the cave, when they are leaving the island of the Lotos eaters, there is this passage

" In the next land we found were Kyklopes, fiants,louts,without a law to bless them, "

Odysseus then continues to describe them, as savages. Now, I just remembered that all this is a retelling of the tale to the Phaikins(sp?), so that might be why he mentiones this. But.. Right after they make landfall and Odyessus takes 12 men to scout the island I find this passage " A wineskin full I brought along, and victuals in a bag, for in my bones I knew some towering brute would be upon us soon --all outward power, a wild man, ignorant of civility " This is right before they get to the cave, and in the cave his men urge him to leave swiftly. So this makes me think that they did know who was going to be in the cave. So saying they were caught unknown is misleading, or it's incompatitable with the Fitzgerald version that I have, I figure this might be worth mentioning.--KLoverde 05:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wheel-eyed?

From what I've read, cyclops translates as 'round eye', not 'wheel-eyed'. A source to back this up is Dictionary.com.--Jcvamp 14:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Dajjal

How about the Muslim folklore about an Anti-Christ false prophet with one-eye called Dajjal, in which Imam Mahdi and Jesus will destroy close to the Day of Judgment? Isn't that a cyclop too? --Fantastic4boy 06:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Why captilized

Why is Cyclops always captilized? Isn't it a noun? Would you captilize dog? Please answer me it's bugging me. --Alec0124 16:25, 16 April 2007

I believe that it is because this is the name of a God therefore having important significance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.161.91.13 (talk) 13:24:47, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

It's the name of a god, actually, not a God. Aran|heru|nar 15:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

So-called "Triamantes"

I moved this here:

The Triamantes in Cretan legend have been suggested - they were a rural race of man-eating ogres who had a third eye on the back of their head. Other than the detail of the eyes, they sound very similar to the Cyclopes of Homer.

There is no "Cretan legend" of "Triamantes". In fact the word "Triamantes" has never occured in any of the professional literature that is indexed at JSTOR, which goes back into the 19th century. This bit of text was added 09:47, 5 January 2004 by an administrator of Wikipedia, whom I decline to identify. Thanks to our lack of oversight, and that includes me, for this page is on my Warchlist, "the Triamantes in Cretan legend" have been mirrored and replicated all over the Internet. --Wetman 05:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Vase in origins is OR?

There is claim that the cyclops may not have been a true cyclops in the origins section, saying that there is a vase with a cyclops being stabbed in the face with a two pronged fork. But the reference given was simply an image of the vase with no text at all, which leads me to believe that the editor that added in there "worked it out" himself and then thought it would be a good idea to add it into wikipedia. It was added by IP address 81.77.229.152 on 14:58, 16 May 2007. This reference seemed to be "confirmed" by user Bibliomaniac15 two days later when he fixed up the reference at 02:18, 18 May 2007 and 02:19, 18 May 2007 and again on 02:22, 18 May 2007. This concerns me because this bit of original research has been on this article for over 5 months now, who knows how many people read it or used it as a source for a school project or official work? Or even brought it up in conversation as a fact, when it was purely original research from one random viewer. Even worse is that this original research was in a large way "approved" by Bibliomaniac15 as a verified and "checked" source by an admin! C'mon people, we need to stay sharp here, we are telling people that we are editors of an encyclopedia, it's time we started living up to it! JayKeaton 20:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

So much for "okayed" articles approved by the Ministry of Magic. Quite to the contrary, a major lesson in using Wikipedia is that the wise reader is always skeptical of printed "facts". Previously this was an axiom of elite education alone. --Wetman (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is always dissapointing when you find something false and completely made up in an encyclopedia. People do not come here to question what we tell them :( JayKeaton (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, too. Especially disappointing in "okayed' articles, where readers are encouraged to let their guard down, by a perhaps spurious "guarantee": not a good category, in my experience. --Wetman (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Too true and you are absolutely right, Bibliomaniac15 really let the readers down with this blunder :( JayKeaton (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible folk etymology

I saw Akhilleus' mention of it above, and added another theory with refs. in a footnote: it may be from PIE kuh-klops "cattle thief."Ifnkovhg (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Who has suggested such a PIE root for "cattle thief"? --Wetman (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, Ifnkovhg has misremembered and confused the actual proposal. Kuh is the German word for cow. What Paul Thieme has really proposed is PIE pku-klops, from peku "sheep" and klep- "steal". I'll correct that in the footnote.

If his idea is correct, the Cyclopes were originally just regular giants and the depictions of the Cyclopes as one-eyed are incorrect and just secondary consequences of the folk etymology. The elephant origin explanation is then moot, as well. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Genetic Mutation?

I've heard of single gene mutations which cause dramatic changes in body morphology. This blog post alludes to the fact that mutations in embryonic cells can result in human changes such as "the symmetry of the internal organs reversed so the heart is on the right instead of the left". A curious comment talks about cyclops as potentially being such a mutation. Can anyone dig up anything substantive on this? http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/the-monster-is-back-and-its-hopeful/#comment-807 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1000Faces (talk • contribs) 21:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How could there be anything "substantive" on this? Only the very simple confuse fiction with fact to this extreme extent. --Wetman (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

New possibilities on the origins of cyclops

Thread moved from unrelated page Wikipedia talk:Contact us. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 15:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The History channel has recently aired a documentary on the origins of certain mythological creatures of Greece. It states that certain Islands and areas of Greece were very rich in dinosaur bone deposits. There are records left behind that state that peoples of Greece would come upon large bones and either re-bury them, or bring them to a local temple as a sacred object, completely assured that they had found the bones of either ancient Gods or heros. It also states that dinosaur bones have been found in temples. Also, ancient pottery in these areas show mythological creatures in bone-only form, which are absolutely accurate to known dinosaur specimens. The theory that is set forth by the documentary is that cyclops came about by the local people finding mammoth skulls. Since it is very difficult to make out the eye sockets of a mammoth, people may well have mistaken the hole in the upper middle of the skull face for being the eye (this is the spot where the trunk would have attached itself to the skull). The cyclops was described as a misshapen giant with one eye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.212.166 (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

just a link you can use; in the the subject "shangri-la" (english version) at the line "Story of the blossom valley" you need a citation; i propose http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2090 from the gutenberg site

Vandalism

The article has been completely replaced with a one that is a modern fiction story involving a teacher, that happens to be a cyclops, having sexual relations with a student. Aside from this being a disturbing look at the author. it completely messed up a good page. I am going to try to fix it. but I would like Wikipedia to treat this as vandalism.=)

Awg1010 (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Tischbein

There are better reproductions of Tischbein's Polyphemus on the Net: google image.--Wetman (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Capitalisation of 'cyclops'?

Needs to be consistant. DrJimothyCatface (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Issues with recent edits to page

I have issues with three recent edits by DarkSleach, which I've reverted.

1. This edit removed all the links and a "ref" tag.

2. This edit changed:

"They fashioned thunderbolts for Zeus to use as weapons, and helped him overthrow Cronus and the other Titans."

to:

"They fashioned thunderbolts for Zeus to use as weapons. That was how Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades overthrow Cronus and the other Titans."

I think the former is better since although Zeus had help from many quarters, Zeus was clearly the leader, and there is no good reason to mention Poseidon and Hades over others.

3. This edit removes links and a "fact" tag, and adds unsourced text which sounds a lot like original research to me.

(Other editors have taken issue with DarkSleach's edits see: [1], [2], [3].)

DarkSleach would you please discuss these edits here first before reinserting this material? Thanks.

Paul August ☎ 21:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Autism

If one interprets the Hecatonkeres, Cyclopes, & Gigantes as possessing symbolic representations intended to communicate symptoms or aspects of Autism, then you can correlate Adhd, OCD, & Berserking perfectly with the descriptions of these 3 the mythological characters.

Having a hundred hands & 50 heads is obviously another way of describing people who are all over the place moving so fast in body & mind that you see an after-image that can easily be described as someone possessing 100 hands.

Cyclopes if you break it down into two parts, phonetically sounds alot like Psyche (Mind) Op (Eye). This indicates deep perception & observational skills, which are absolutely crucial to masons & blacksmiths.

Gigantes were known to be strong & aggressive...both aspects of people who are genetically inclined to be berserkr. According to another wikipedia article, the name may also interpret to be "Sons of Earth"...or beings who are very natural to this world.

In all, it's very possible that Zeus gained the aid of these...extreme-folk...& lead a revolution against the established power of the Titans.

I try to interpret all mythos with realism, not necessarily to criticize our ancestors, but rather understand them & perhaps put together a clearer cast of characters in the stories of the past.

65.130.247.155 (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know about how you study and interpret mythos! It's certainly very interesting. Unfortunately, Wikipedia articles can only contain information about what has already been discussed in reliable sources (in this case, often scholarly sources), so your thoughts are not yet ready to be included in the article itself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

All seeing eyes

Cyclops = see-all-eyes

from PIE root *sekw- "to see,"

Just granpa (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Cyclops mythology of the Caucasus region

The Caucasus region is considered part of the ancient Greek empire, because Greek colonies existed there, including Pitius and Dioscurias. The legend of the Cyclops apparently flourished in the Caucasus region. The origin of the Cyclops legend is not known, as it begins in prehistory. It is known that the myth traveled around, picked up some variations, and occurs in different parts of the ancient Greek empire. The Caucasus region itself is an important part of Greek mythology: That’s where Prometheus was famously chained by Zeus, for one example. Handthrown (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I moved that paragraph to its own section (and retitled the original section), since it didn't seem to fit well with the other content. Paul August ☎ 19:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

In the literature of ancient Greece there is no mention of the word "Cyclops" associated to the areas of the Caucasus. (No ancient greek), creatures similar but not identical (are terms and concepts to contextualize). POV --151.43.142.16 (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The section you keep removing doesn't claim they are "identical" (whatever that might mean exactly). But as you admit they are related, as the cited sources in that section make clear, so they seem to deserve some mention in the article. Paul August ☎ 02:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You need to better explain what your objections are to the section. Do you think the section needs to be rewritten? Or are you saying that there should be no mention of these legends in the article? Paul August ☎ 17:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

As no response seems forthcoming, I've restored that section for now, at least. Paul August ☎ 18:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment: it seems perfectly appropriate to have a section on other cyclopean traditions that might be related to or derived from the Greek, or perhaps examples of similar myths elsewhere. However, the material described in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this section seem to be completely derivative of the Odyssey, rather than an independent tradition. That shouldn't be surprising, as the stories would have been spread orally or through Greek texts for more than two thousand years before the earliest current oral traditions (just because the region didn't have its own alphabet or writing doesn't mean that none of the inhabitants could read (or speak) Greek, or other languages into which the Odyssey might have been translated). If this material remains, it should be clearly stated that such variants appear to be retellings of the story of Polyphemus, rather than original traditions (with the implication that they and the story in the Odyssey are either unrelated, or based on some ancient pre-Homeric folklore, not in evidence here). P Aculeius (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

This is your very personal point of view (POV) thanks. In the literature of ancient Greece there is no mention of the word "Cyclops" Associated to the areas of the Caucasus. (No ancient greek), creatures similar but not identical (are terms and concepts to contextualize). There are NO reasons to include such a misleading paragraph in this article.--151.57.60.117 (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I see that now you've removed the article (please see WP:consensus). You keep repeating "that creatures similar but not identical (are terms and concepts to contextualize)", but you don't address my response which is, Just because they are not identical does not mean that they should not be mentioned in the article. Paul August ☎ 15:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@P Aculeius:. Thanks for your comments. Do you (or anybody else) think that section needs to be reworded? And if so do you have any suggestions? Paul August ☎ 15:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Paul August: I would probably keep most of the first paragraph, and strike the other two, perhaps keeping the sources. I would also state unequivocally that the stories appear to be derived from the account of Polyphemus in the Odyssey, rather than representing an independent tradition. P Aculeius (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The ancient traditions of the Caucasus are extremely pertinent regarding the myth of the Cyclops. The origin of the Cyclops is not Homer, but earlier, and is thought to be born in an oral tradition. Sources consider that the Cyclops is in part is an expression of the Greeks encountering foreign, or barbarian peoples. The Caucasus appears to be, in this way, of particular fascination to the Greeks including Homer and Hesiod. The astonishingly vigorous oral traditions of the Caucasus it is said are still alive, and may have outlasted any other oral tradition in the region. And that oral tradition seems to be obsessed (!) with retelling all kinds of tales and variations of Cyclops stories. Those traditions are studied, but not as much as they should be. I think that whatever opinions the Wikipedia editors have, we should defer to the idea of respecting what the reliable sources are saying, and allowing them into the article. @P Aculeius: suggests that some of the Caucasus stories may be derived from Homer, that is one possibility or speculation that can and should be considered, but there are other possibilities. It’s possible that it could be the other way around, or that they both derive from a kind of ur-myth. There may not be any authority who claims they know for certain the origins, and if anything is put into the article regarding derivations — it may be a challenge to find sources. This article has recently apparently been under attack by vandalism, and also by editors who in good faith seem to want to insist on their own opinions — sources be damned. Perhaps there is some kind of politics involved that I’m not aware of. I dunno. @Paul August: and @Boomer Vial: put up a good fight. But right now the Caucasus tradition is gone. I’ll put it back, and if any editor wants to edit it, of course they may. Handthrown (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Handthrown: I'm fine with adding back a section on the Caucasus tradition. But I wonder if it might be reworded to try and address the "contextualization" concerns above. You write: "The ancient traditions of the Caucasus are extremely pertinent regarding the myth of the Cyclops. The origin of the Cyclops is not Homer, but earlier, and is thought to be born in an oral tradition. Sources consider that the Cyclops is in part is an expression of the Greeks encountering foreign, or barbarian peoples." What are your sources for this? In particular are there reliable sources which speculate that this tradition predates Homer? (That would seem like an extraordinary claim to me). Paul August ☎ 14:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Paul August:I’m not sure exactly what you find hard to believe. There is a widely accepted consensus that the origin of the Odyssey predates Homer. There are those, such as the renowned scholar Gilbert Murray and also J. A. K. Thompson, who think that Homer’s Odyssey was gradually developed in a single tradition by generation after generation of singers and story-tellers in a kind of folk tradition, and that each generation gave the various stories a buffing and polishing, and added and took away, and eventually handed them down to Homer. There is a second group who think that there was slew of independent traditions, that came from the south, north, east and west. And Homer opened his arms and gathered all of them together, contributed his poetic talents, his editorial talents, cleaned them up a bit, and unified them into his epic songs. These two groups have battled it out long enough, and the second group seems to have attracted the most adherants.

Also, by the way, I think it’s a mistake, or it might be confusing to talk about the Caucasus region and the Greek world as two completely different places. The Greeks certainly got around, and colonized the Caucasus significantly beginning in the 10 or 9th century BC or so. So a tradition that was occurring in the Caucasus towns of Tanais, Pitius, Gorgippia, and Dioscurias to name a few of the ancient Greek colonies would be considered a Greek tradition, and on top of that they certainly mingled with the local populations and listened to their folk tales of monsters and heroes, etc.

As far as what the Greeks thought of the tribes in the Caucasus Mountains — Hesiod, as I recall, has some very detailed descriptions. I can check. I hope I’m being responsive to what you were saying, but I may have missed something. Let me know. Handthrown (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Personal point of view (POV) thanks. In the literature of ancient Greece there is no mention of the word "Cyclops" Associated to the areas of the Caucasus. (No ancient greek), creatures similar but not identical (are terms and concepts to contextualize). There are NO reasons to include such a misleading paragraph in this article.--2.232.70.45 (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Per the above editorial consensus, I've restored this section again. Please stop insisting on your version of the article (see WP:consensus). Such actions may be considered disruptive editing (see Wikipedia:Disruptive editing) and could result in loss of your editing privileges (see WP:block and WP:ban). The section describes creatures which, as you seem to agree, are "similar" and almost certainly related (whether derivative, as P Aculeius assumes, or possibly an independent tradition as Handthrown suggests), and in the opinion of these and other editors, is deserving of being mentioned in the article. I've tried above to address your objections, but with no response from you other than to repeat your objections. You object that the creatures need to be "contextualized", but doesn't the section provide the appropriate context? Can you please say why exactly the section is not appropriately "contextualized"? You say that the section is "misleading", but it does not say that the creatures are identical (whatever that might mean in a mythological context), all it says is that similar stories about one-eyed creatures can be found in oral tradition from the Caucasus region. Can you say why exactly you find the section misleading? Perhaps the use of the proper noun "Cyclops" is the problem? I've now changed this. Does that help? Paul August ☎ 12:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus because (POV) please do not insist, thanks. In the literature of ancient Greece there is no mention of the word "Cyclops" Associated to the areas of the Caucasus. (No ancient greek), creatures similar but not identical (are terms and concepts to contextualize). There are NO reasons to include such a misleading paragraph in this article; (see Wikipedia:POV) --2.232.70.45 (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

While there is some debate on what the section ought to contain (see discussion above by myself @P Aculeius: and @Handthrown:), all three of us believe that a section on the related Caucasus stories are an appropriate addition to this article. A fourth editor (@Boomer Vial:), has reverted your deletion. Consensus does not have to be unanimous. Only you seem to object to any section at all. You say that the section as written is "misleading" and needs "contextualizing". Perhaps you are right. Let's try do that. I have tried to address your concerns, by making changes. First I moved the content to it's own section, and second I changed the proper noun "Cyclops" into the common noun "cyclops", so as not to imply that these generic Caucasian cyclops were necessarily "identical" with the Homeric or Hesiodic Cyclops (who, by the way, are themselves not "identical"). But this doesn't seem to satisfy you. P Aculeius (who seemingly has some sympathy for your point of view) has suggested more radical changes above. Would his suggestions satisfy? What would satisfy you? Paul August ☎ 14:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand your motives but in the literature of ancient Greece there is no mention of the word "Cyclops" Associated to the areas of the Caucasus. (No ancient greek), creatures similar but not identical. To find a consensus with you is essential to make some modifications (to eliminate misleading phrases or built with this intent). I'll show you the changes That I think are essential for this purpose (the inclusion of this paragraph): [[4]] These changes are precise and clear to avoid errors and misleading phrases--2.232.70.45 (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you're arguing that because none of the surviving literature concerning cyclopes mentions the Caucasus, any discussion of the oral traditions of the Caucasus should refrain from identifying these traditions as derivative of the story of Polyphemus or any other Greek source, and avoid describing the creatures as "cyclopes". Your assertion appears to be that these developed as a fully-independent tradition, and that at best perhaps Homer drew on the same body of folktales, without the Greeks contributing anything to the traditions of the Caucasus. But "cyclops" is a common noun applied to anyone or anything that exhibits the basic characteristic of the Greek cyclopes. Even if there were no connection between the Greek myths and the folktales of the Caucasus, the word would still be valid. However, it's not credible that the stories of the Caucasus aren't derivative of Greek myths. Just because you substitute "One-Eye" for "Polyphemus" and "two brothers" for "Odysseus and his crew" doesn't make it an independent tradition. P Aculeius (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It is improper to add unsourced original research and remove content that is properly sourced in the way is was done today and repeatedly in the last few weeks. The section is being subjected to edit-warring and vandalism by user 2.232.70.45 and by user 151.47.124.128, 151.35.3.56, 151.57.60.117, 151.43.142.16, 151.188.125.214, who all may be the same person, since they edit-war in the same way, and repeat the same claim that the word “cyclopes” doesn’t appear in a particular way in ancient Greek literature. If such an idea can be supported by a reliable source please point it out so the idea can be verified. Handthrown (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm just talking about my interventions (NO 151 ip) the discussion is clear; is a vandalism that makes misleading information out of Greek literature( Cyclops). Look at sources in EXTERNAL LINKS. The discussion is totally over.--2.232.70.45 (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

User 2.232.70.45 you insist on removing an amount content that is properly sourced, and removing several reliable sources. You add the sentence: “In the literature of ancient Greece there is no mention of the word “Cyclops" associated to the areas of the Caucasus.” without ever offering a source to support that sentence. That idea appears to be your opinion. You refuse to respond to other editors and you claim that the discussion is over, when it is not. You suggest that editors should read WP:POV, I read it, and I don’t see the problem. The external links you mention don’t seem to support your actions either. Handthrown (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The intervention of the 2.232.70.45 is very accurate and decisive. Handthrown's interventions are misleading ... wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a blog ... Everything is in the eyes of everyone.--151.37.97.252 (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I've decided to remove the "Legends of the Caucasus" section

This section (discussed above) involves stories from the Caucasus which are similar to Homer's Polyphemus story in the Odyssey. While this article is about the three groups of beings called Cyclopes in Greek mythology: the Hesiodic Cyclopes, the Homeric Cyclopes and the Cyclopean wall-builders. Clearly these Caucasus legends, have nothing to do with Hesiod's Brontes, Steropes, and Arges, who provided Zeus with his weapon the thunderbolt, nor famed wall-builders of Mycenae, Tiryns, and Argos. Nor do they have much to do with the Homeric Cyclopes who were the brethren of Polyphemus.

As such, while this section has some relevance for our article Polyphemus, I don't think it has much relevance for this article. Because of this I have decided to remove this section from this article, and insert a mention these Caucasus legends into our Polyphemus article in a section titled "Possible origins":

Folktales similar to that of Homer's Polyphemus are a widespread phenomenon throughout the ancient world. In 1857, Wilhelm Grimm collected versions in Serbian, Romanian, Estonian, Finnish, Russian, German, and others; versions in Basque, Lappish, Lithuanian, Gascon, Syrian, and Celtic are also known. More than two hundred different versions have been identified, from twenty five nations, covering a geographic region extending from Iceland, England, and Portugal to Arabia, Turkey and Russia. The consensus of current modern scholarship is that these "Polyphemus legends" preserve traditions predating Homer.

References

Notice however, rather than include any of the text from this article, I decided to insert just a mention of the topic in a footnote (#5 above). This was because, in my opinion, given the many many other similar legends, to devote the amount of space as was done in this article, would be to give undue weight to the topic.

Notice also that, pertaining to the discussion above (just as Handthrown seemed to suggest) the answer to my question: "are there reliable sources which speculate that this tradition predates Homer", at least in regard to some of these traditions of similar stories, seems to be a resounding yes.

Paul August ☎ 16:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this, Paul August. This section has been discussed often, and has meaning for editors here, as can be seen in the previous discussions. A consensus was reached to keep the section. A hard fought battle occurred against some editor who constantly was deleting content. If you want to remove the section, you need to make your case and allow others to be heard. The reasons you give are not convincing, detailed, or persuasive. It seems more to be an off-handed and casual whim on your part. I was very much hoping, along with all the good work you've been doing, that you would have something to contribute to the Caucasus legends. If some reader of this encyclopedia has heard or read about the Caucasus Cyclopes, they would certainly expect to find it mentioned in this article, not elsewhere. Remember that the title of this article is “Cyclopes”, and that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means that if one of us files this article down to a particular point that excludes some extremely interesting Cyclopes — that is not very "encyclopedia-like". An encyclopedia should have open arms and be inclusive–not restrictive. I want to respond to the reasons you have given, and I hope to find time, though not now. Meanwhile, I urge you to put the section back and reconsider this. If some reader of this encyclopedia has heard or read about the Caucasus Cyclopes, the would certainly expect to find it in this article. - Quarterpinion (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I think this is useful content, just not for this article. I'm not trying to exclude it. Perhaps it could be included somewhere else in the encyclopedia? Some of this content might be added to the Polyphemus article? Or the article on the Caucasus, say in the "Mythology" section? Or a new article altogether could be created to contain it? Paul August ☎ 15:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

As I said above, there is a great deal of discussion (above) regarding this section, and a consensus was reached to keep the section. If you want to remove the section, you should explain why, and have good reasons, and then allow others to discuss your idea. The reasons you give I don’t think are convincing. For example: You claim that the Caucasus cyclopes have nothing to do with other cyclopes that are in the article. You offer no reliable source to support your claim. And is it true? Because the Caucasus cyclopes share with other cyclopes in the article the fact that they have one eye, that they are derived from an oral legend, and that they come from an area that was very much a part of the ancient Greek world. All that seems to contradict your suggestion, which you give as a reason to exclude this section from this article.

Secondly, it is circular reasoning for you to change the article to include only certain cyclopes (and exclude the Caucasus cyclopes), and then offer what you have done as a reason that supports what you have done. Circular reasoning is an example of a fallacy, and does not support what you have done. - Quarterpinion (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The one-eyed monsters which figure in the Caucasus legends are all different versions of the Polyphemus story as found in Homer's Odyssey. This content would be more relevant there than here. Or as I suggested above why not put the content in the Caucasus article? Paul August ☎ 23:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Paul August, I appreciate your interest in the other articles, both Caucasus and Polyphemus, but discussion about those articles should be on the talk pages over there. Various Cyclops content can and does occur in a number of other articles. Other Wikipedia articles are a bit off-topic in the sense that this talk-page is for the article titled Cyclops, and a title like that should include the Caucasus cyclops. The Caucasus cyclops stories and legends are ancient, they have similarities and differences with other stories. Your claim that that they are “all different versions of the Polyphemus story as found in Homer's Odyssey” is not accurate. One example that refutes that is the Caucasus Cyclops story that involves a goat that can speak. That is not in Homer. There is no good reason to exclude the Caucasus cyclops from this article, that section was properly sourced. It should go back in. - Quarterpinion (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

As currently written, this article is about the plural proper noun "Cyclopes", that is, the three groups called Κύκλωπες in Greek mythology, hence the capitalized plural title "Cyclopes". It is not about all one-eyed beings. And such a topic would cover a lot more than just these stories from the Caucasus. And in fact—except for the Polyphemus story—one-eyedness does not figure at all in the mythology of the Greek Κύκλωπες. Homer nowhere states that Polyphemus is one-eyed, although the story seems to presuppose that he is. And even if Polyphemus is supposed to be one-eyed, his fellow Cyclopes need not be. Hesiod does say that his Cyclopes, the makers of Zeus' thunderbolt, are one-eyed, but this seems only to be mentioned as an aside, as an explanation for their name "Cyclopes" (i.e. "Circle-eyes"), nowhere is one-eyedness involved in their mythology. Nor is one-eyedness anywhere involved in the stories about the Cyclopean wall-builders, the third group in Greek mythology named Κύκλωπες. So, that these Caucasus legends involve one-eyed creatures, does not seem to me, to be sufficient reason to include the removed content here. Paul August ☎ 11:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah! I didn’t realize what was going on, Paul August, thank you for explaining. You say the article has been changed and is no longer about all cyclopes — it’s instead now about three particular groups of cyclopes. However in the lead section you have the article saying that the plural (cyclopes) refers to one group of beings, and the singular version of the same word (cyclops) refers to a different group of beings. That doesn’t seem to make sense in terms of English usage, does it? I can’t think of another example in the language. Is there a source that supports or explains that? I’d be interested. If the article is now only about the three groups you mentioned, then why doesn’t the title say that, for example: Cyclopes (three groups of Greek mythology). I’m not recommending that, I’m just asking. The title of the article “Cyclopes” doesn’t seem that specific. One more question: Instead of changing an article (one that, as you indicate, used to refer generally to creatures known as cyclops) — why not just write a new article on the topic you are interested in (the three Greek groups)? - Quarterpinion (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

The lead says that there were three groups called Cyclopes:

Three groups of Cyclopes can be distinguished. In Hesiod's Theogony, they are the brothers: Brontes, Steropes, and Arges, who provided Zeus with his weapon the thunderbolt. In Homer's Odyssey, they are an uncivillized group of shepherds, the brethren of Polyphemus encountered by Odysseus. Cyclopes were also famous as the builders of the Cyclopean walls of Mycenae and Tiryns.

I don't see where the lead says that "the plural (cyclopes) refers to one group of beings, and the singular version of the same word (cyclops) refers to a different group of beings." What "different group" do you think the lead says the singular refers to? Paul August ☎ 10:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Paul August, you apparently are in the process of altering the content of the article in order to give it a more narrow focus and to exclude content that was once in the article. You’ve given this article a new title “cyclopes” — so the title went from singular to plural (cyclops to cyclopes). The lead section gives a false impression with a too-narrow focus, because, in fact, the title — whether it’s “cyclops” or the plural “cyclopes” — either way — is not exclusive or limited in scope, and (based on the title alone) other cyclopes should be included in the article.

To respond to your question which was: “What different group do you think the lead says the singular refers to?” The lead at the moment refers to: "Three groups of cyclopes", and when the title was singular, before your changes, the content was not so limited in scope.

On this talk page you refer to your changes and then say: "…hence the capitalized plural title Cyclopes”. Changing a word from singular to plural does not support the changes you are making. This problem could be solved with a title that indicates the narrower focus reflected by your recent changes. For example the article could be titled: Cyclopes (The three groups of Greek mythology). Or why not just write a new article on the topic you are interested in (the three Greek groups) rather than altering the meaning of this article? Quarterpinion (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The topic of this article has always been about the Cyclopes in Greek mythology. In Greek mythology the name is always used as a proper noun (rather than as a common noun) hence the capitalization. It is also usually found in the plural. Thus for example the entries in Grimal, Tripp, Brill’s New Pauly are “Cyclopes” (capitalized, and plural). This parallels other groups in Greek mythology like the Cabeiri, the Dactyls, the Telchines, the Korybantes, the Kouretes, the Erinyes, etc. When this article was created it was titled “Cyclopes” (capitalized, and plural). Later someone moved it to “Cyclops” (capitalized, singular)—I don’t know why— but I moved it back to the plural, to agree with the examples given above (there are many more by the way). I do not beleive I’ve altered the topic, or narrowed the focus.

What you are asserting, I think, is that the topic of this article is, or was, or should be “cyclops” a common noun meaning any one-eyed creature. But other than the "Legends of the Caucasus”, I can think of no other content which has been removed which would apply to anything other than the Cyclopes in Greek mythology. Can you point to any?

Paul August ☎ 11:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

No one has suggested that the cyclops of Greek mythology have been excluded from this article. I don’t agree that cyclops is always spelled with an upper case C— it’s not. It’s sometimes lower case and it’s sometimes spelled with a K. The answer is “yes” to your last question, but we’ve gone off-topic. - Quarterpinion (talk) 04:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

In Greek mythology, Cyclopes is a proper noun, so capitalized, please look at any of the dozens of sources cited in the article: e.g. Hesiod, Theogony 126–153; Homer, Odyssey 9.105–106; Apollodorus 1.1.2; Callimachus, 8-10; Diodorus Siculus, 4.71.3; Ovid, Fasti 4.287–288; Pausanias, 2.2.1 etc. (And yes, of course, it's sometimes spelled Kyklopes, so?). Given your answer "yes" to my question above, would you please quote any content (besides the "Legends of the Caucasus” section) which I removed from the article which would apply to anything other than the Cyclopes in Greek mythology? I don't believe there is any. And, so as to your claim that I've narrowed "the focus" of the article, I disagree. The focus has always been the Cyclopes in Greek mythology. Paul August ☎ 10:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Paul August, I can’t go along with you if you’re suggesting that “In Greek mythology” the word “Cyclopes” is always spelled that way, is always a “proper noun” and always “capitalized”. You suggest that the sources cited in the article support that idea. All of them don’t. At least one of the particular sources you cited in your previous comment spells the word variously, sometimes with an e and sometimes not. Another source in the article, Walter Burkert (Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual), capitalizes it variously, both lower and upper case. One example should refute the “always” idea.

I answered your question, which was: Could I point to any “content which has been removed”, etc. — you could answer that question as well as I can. I answered it without knowing what you’re getting at exactly, or why you want to know, or if your reference to “removed content” would include instances of vandalism for example, or anything else. Now you’re asking another question — this is a new one — which involves content that you yourself have edited. Again, you ought to be able to answer this second question probably as well as anybody. To find your answer you could go to the article’s history, and you could browse a bit. But without saying what the point of such research might be, it’s asking of lot of a fellow editor to take on such a task. But again, we’re off-topic. I’m as guilty of going off-topic as anybody as I write this — but I’m trying to respectfully respond to your questions. This talk section should pertain to why you removed the Caucasus Cyclopes section including the references and footnotes — especially when there was a consensus to keep it. Quarterpinion (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

As I’ve tried to explain above, the topic of this article is about the Cyclopes in Greek mythology—the topic is not all one-eyed creatures. The stories of one-eyed creatures from the Caucasus have little to do with the Cyclopes of Greek mythology. Yes they are one-eyed, but except for the Polyphemus story, one-eyedness has virtually nothing to do with the Cyclopes of Greek mythology. These Caucaus stories do have some relevance for the Polyphemus story, so they perhaps could be included at Polyphemus. Paul August ☎ 10:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Paul August, no one thinks or is suggesting the topic is "all one-eyed creatures", and I think you know that without being told. The other stuff you mention, as you also must know, is either untrue or repetition -- it's already been discussed. - Quarterpinion (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cyclops. 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/20110724154505/http://www.indo-european.nl/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=leiden&morpho=0&basename=%5Cdata%5Cie%5Cgreek&first=111 to http://www.indo-european.nl/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=leiden&morpho=0&basename=%5Cdata%5Cie%5Cgreek&first=111
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070219072025/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Hellebore to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Hellebore

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 01:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments and questions

1. "Strabo describes another group of seven Lycian cyclopes, also known as "Bellyhands" because they earned from their handicraft."

This sentence seems to lack something.

2. "These cyclopes also created Poseidon's trident, Artemis' bow and arrows of moonlight, Apollo's bow and arrows of sun rays, and Hades' helmet of darkness that was given to Perseus on his quest to kill Medusa."

It should be clear though that Perseus did not use the Hade's helm of darkness to actually kill Medusa.

3. "Virgil's account acts as a sequel to Homer's, with the fate of Polyphemus as a blind cyclops after the escape of Odysseus and his crew where some cases have Polyphemus regaining his eyesight."

What cases would those be?

4. Under the "Nonnus Dionysiaca", who are the rustic gods?

5. The image with caption "Syracuse, Italy – Museo archeologico regionale Paolo Orsi – Elephas falconeri" should be a little more explanatory in the sense that it should add some information to the description to explain its relation to the text.

6. Towards the end of the "Origins" section at statement says "However, a study of deformed humans born with a single eye all have a nose above the single eye, not below". This seems to be inconsistent with at least two of the examples in the cyclopia article (1793 and 2006).

ICE77 (talk) 06:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@ICE77: A lot of the points you make deal with content that is not sourced - and all Wikipedia article content is supposed to be sourced. This article needs help in that department. To respond to your first point: the sentence seems to have words that are missing, but are implied, or are “understood” to be there; which is not an uncommon usage. I suppose you could add the “understood” words “who were”, before “also known as”. To respond to your second point: I think the sentence is okay, in that it only says the helmet was “given”, and doesn’t imply that it might be a murder weapon. The idea of a helmet being used as a weapon seems not at all obvious, especially without any further explanation, which may be why it doesn’t seem (to me anyway) to need any clarification. After the word “Perseus” you could add the parenthetical phrase “(to render him invisible)”, but I think parenthetical phrases can seem clunky, especially if they’re explaining the obvious. Regarding your third point: I think you should delete the content. In the article the whole passage is unsourced — including the unnamed “cases”, and without a reference or citation it can be removed. I’m not aware that Polyphemus regains his sight in any version (except in a modern French story). It may not be true (or it may), but it definitely needs a citation to remain in the article. Regarding your fourth point: apparently Zeus’s mother summoned all the gods — all kinds. The story may not specify fully, but the call seems to include gods of the woods and rivers, Naiads, and Hadryads. Regarding your fifth point: You make a good point. In fact, I can’t see that there is anything in the text associated with that image. It would be a stretch to connect it to the topic of the article, and it definite would need some source that would do exactly that. Without that kind of source I think the image should be deleted. If any editor wants to add content that would illustrate and source it, that can certainly be done anytime in the future. Regarding your point number six: There does appear to be a contradiction. The examples in the cyclopia Wikipedia article may not exactly contradict the examples in the cyclops article, which is confined to examples found in a particular study. But the use of the word “however” (which you quote), appears to be added by some Wikipedia editor, and seems intended to suggest that the “study” may be used to contradict the previous sentence in the article, as well as the whole idea of an eye in the forehead. Of course the source article (in an issue of the Journal of American Folklore) could not have been written with the intention of contradicting something in Wikipedia. That would be ridiculous, so it looks like that “however” is a bit of editorial spin, or original research. You could try just removing the word “however”. This section seems weak and a bit cobbled together anyway. It could use some work. Gaustaag (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Gaustaag, thanks for the comments.

ICE77 (talk) 08:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Cyclops

Marvel Comics

The Cyclopes of Greek Mythology have been adapted into Marvel Comics. For example in one sotry a cyclops is found frozen in ice

• A man named Duncan found a Cyclops frozen in ice and freed it with its axe. The Cyclops attempted to destroy Duncan only for him to trick the Cyclops into crossing the crevasse enough for the bridge to break under its weight and for the Cyclops to end up buried in the crevasse.
• Huntsman summoned Polyphemus to attack Namor alongside Scylla and Charybdis. In this appearance, Polyphemus was shown to be bald-headed and have a diamond for an eye.
• One Cyclops lived on the Hidden Isle in the Mediterranean Sea and was tricked by Namor into fighting Mister Fantastic. The Cyclops was tripped by Mister Fantastic and fell down a deep pit.

There was a character named Cyclops who is an eyepatch-wearing Nazi during World War II. He and his men were selected to kill four women from the Women's Auxiliary Air Force who were visiting from England to attend a dinner at the White House. He fought against Miss America which ended with him falling into the incinerator that he was going to throw his intended victims into.

The Weapon Plus operative Butler experimented on North Korean Prisoners where he infused the DNA of different mutants with the DNA of Deadpool into them as part of a plan to use them on North Korea. One of these subjects is a North Korean prisoner who was infused with the DNA of Cyclops and Deadpool. The North Korean Cyclops alongside the other North Korean Mutates were freed by Deadpool. Captain America helped Deadpool get the North Korean Cyclops and his fellow North Korean Mutates to China.

During the AXIS storyline, Deadpool discovered that the North Korean Cyclops and his fellow North Korean Mutates have developed bad health and opted to take them to the Jean Grey School for Higher Learning to be treated. When the X-Men were affected by the Inversion Spell, the North Korean Cyclops and the North Korean Mutates were hunted down by the now-evil X-Men until Deadpool in his inverted form of Zenpool came to their aid. Zenpool was able to transfere them to Monster Metropolis and placed them in Shiklah's care. Zenpool believed that they can be treated for their health there.

The London Tunnel Dwellers have their version of Cyclops. This version has one eye and possesses super-strength. When the anti-mutant super-soldier of the Church of Humanity named Mr. Clean attacked their home, Cyclops sacrificed his life to buy his fellow London Tunnel Dwellers some time to get away.

After Storm and the new Extraordinary X-Men track down Mister Sinister's latest genetic experiments and are shocked to witness Cyclops, twisted by the Terrigen crystals, now serving Sinister. This Cyclops, however was soon revealed to be a creation of Mr. Sinister himself who mixed Scott Summers's mutant genetic material with some Inhuman DNA to create a hybrid race able to resist the Terrigen Mist. As the clone began fighting the X-Men, he began mutating further with a more armored body. Mister Sinister realizes that even on a genetic level, the Inhuman DNA is dominant and realizing that the mutant race is doomed. The clone is eventually defeated after Old Man Logan sinks his claws into him which unleashed the clone's internal energies, setting it up to detonate. Young Jean Grey and Storm whisk it away from populated area by lifting it high into the sky before it explodes.

Moved from List of one-eyed creatures in mythology and fiction - it isn;t appropiate to a list article - is any of it useful here ? Xoool (talk)

Not really. Paul August ☎ 23:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I have restored the “legends of the Caucasus” section

A consensus to keep the section had been established, and since there was a consensus the section should not have been removed without discussion. (It was removed on 3 September 2019) The section is pertinent to this article, “Cyclopes”, and is supported with reliable sources. It has been part of this article for a long time, three years and ten months — it was originally added on 12 November 2015 by Pete unseth. There was a discussion on this talk page (beginning 26 January 2017) that resulted in a consensus to keep the article. Discussion of all of this, perhaps including other interested editors, can of course still occur. -Quarterpinion (talk) 01:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I started (here) a new talk page discussion on the "Legends of the Caucasus" section (see above: "I've decided to remove the "Legends of the Caucasus" section"). In my initial statement, as well as in the resulting discussion with Quarterpinion, I've given my reasons for removing this content. However I have been unable to persuade Quarterpinion that the content does not belong here, nor has Quarterpinion been able to persuade me that it does. So, I'm asking the other editors who were involved in the previous 2017 discussion: Handthrown and P Aculeius, who supported retaining the material (at least in part, see P Aculeius' comment above) to please comment here, thanks in advance.

I agree with Quarterpinion that in 2017 there was a rough consensus to retain the material. But of course, consensus can change. I was part of that original consensus, and I have changed my mind. After much research, I've essentially rewritten the entire article since that 2017 discussion. I understand much that I didn't then. I realize now that this content really only pertains to the Polyphemus story (as possible origins and/or as comparative mythology), and would be better placed in our article on Polyphemus (in the "Possible origins" section), and in our article on the Caucasus (in the "Mythology" sub-section). For more details please see my comments in the previous talk sections above. In my view, keeping that section here, without due mention of the apparently more than 200 other stories (see sources provided above) which feature one-eyed ogres whose stories bare similarities to the Polyphemus story, would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. Regards to all, Paul August ☎ 15:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, just reskimmed the article and the section in question. It seems apparent that the stories, or at least the most popular versions of them, are based specifically on the Polyphemus story related in the Odyssey. However, Polyphemus is also the only individual cyclops (apart from the primordial ones, who are literally immortal gods) with any significant degree of individualization in Greek myth (at least as far as I can recall). So this works both ways. The Caucasian folk tales don't specify that it is Polyphemus (any more than they recall that the travelers were Odysseus and his crew). So an audience unaware of the derivative nature of the stories might be expected to look in this article (unless there's a generic cyclops article that would cover it, and which they might find first), rather than going directly to Polyphemus. The section here doesn't seem excessive, and it certainly could be discussed more extensively under Polyphemus, if that's possible. So the potential overlap doesn't seem like a problem. My impression is that it should stay in the article, even if it's also discussed under Polyphemus. P Aculeius (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

It would make sense to also include the other Cyclopes stories mentioned by Paul August. At least briefly. It would be an easy addition, and, as Paul August points out, the stories appear to be well-sourced in serious scholarly books that deal with ancient Greek subjects. Editing suggestions for other articles, it seems to me, belong on the talk page of those articles. This article and others, including the Polyphemus article will always have content that overlaps. It seems common in many articles on all kinds of topics. I don’t think it’s a problem, in fact it’s generally necessary and to be expected. - Quarterpinion (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Philoxenus' poem Cyclops

A section on Philoxenus of Cythera's fragmentary poem Cyclops about the Cyclops Polyphemus' love for the sea-nymph Galatea (see Acis and Galatea) was recently added (here) by Bitwixen. I think that this content would be better placed elsewhere, so I removed it (here), but it was added back by Bitwixen (here) who asked me to explain my removal here on the talk page.

As I wrote in my edit summary, Philoxenus' fragmentary poem is not about either of the three groups of Cyclopes which this article is about (i.e. the Hesiodic Cyclopes, the Homeric Cyclopes, and the Cyclopean wall-builders). Instead Philoxenus' poem is about Polyphemus and his love for Galatea, thus most, or all, of this content would be better placed in our articles Polyphemus, and/or Philoxenus of Cythera, and/or in a new article about the poem itself.

I will add that our article Acis and Galatea would also be a more appropriate place for most, if not all, of this material. Comments? Paul August ☎ 12:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

You need to explain your reasons, Mr. August. On Wikipedia the title of an article is what the article is about. In this case it is about Cyclopes. It is ridiculous for an article with such a good, simple and straightforward title to exclude one of the most noted cyclopes of the ancient world. There are sometimes distinguishing aspects of a subject, which might include your unsupported idea that the cyclopes of only three groups should included and others excluded. But such distinguishing aspects of a subject should be expressed in parentheses after the article title. This is stated here: Wikipedia:Article titles. You need to explain your reasons for violating this convention, or claiming an exception. Your refusal to give your reasons doesn’t support your deleting appropriate and well-sourced content. Bitwixen (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bitwixen: The content you added is well written and valuable, and it should be included in Wikipedia. I'm certainly not trying to exclude it. I think all of this new content should be incorporated into our article Philoxenus of Cythera, which already has a brief mention of the poem:

"[Philoxenus'] masterpiece was the Cyclops, a pastoral burlesque on the love of the Cyclops for the fair Galatea, written to avenge himself upon Dionysius, who was wholly or partially blind of one eye. It was parodied by Aristophanes in the Plutus (388 BC)."

I think one could, with a few slight modifications, simply add the section you added here as a new section titled "Cyclops" to that article. Would you like to do that? Or I'd be happy to work on it together. Regards, Paul August ☎ 12:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The talk page is for editors to discuss the article associated with the talk page. That is according to: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Bitwixen (talk) 04:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bitwixen: Yes, I'm well aware of what this talk page is for. I'm an administrator, and I've been an editor here since 2004, with over 150,000 edits, so you can assume I know all about such things. I can assure you that this discussion, about what to do with the new content you've added to this page, is well within the purpose of this talk page.

But what do you think about my suggestion of incorporating some or all of this content into our article Philoxenus of Cythera? Do you want to be involved in that? If not, I will work on doing it myself. Paul August ☎ 11:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it, the reason the guidelines suggest talk pages should be devoted to the article they’re attached to, is because off-topic content can make the talk page less effective, and I suppose it might also discourage other editors from joining in on what might seem to be off-topic or a personal communication. Of course, as you say, you know what the talk-page guidelines are, so I’m not telling you anything new, and perhaps we can agree that guidelines should be followed, and perhaps you’ll understand if I don’t respond about other articles on this page. Thanks. Bitwixen (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok fine. I'm going to work on incorporating some of the text added here to other articles. Paul August ☎ 21:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bitwixen:, can you please supply page numbers for the Loeb volume on Aristophanes, cited as a source for the following text: "The parody has such an insignificant connection with the plot of Aristophanes’ play, that it is thought that the satiric point may be a humorous criticizing of the older theatrical form, with a demonstration that a dithyramb doesn’t fit comfortably embedded in a comic drama."? Thanks. Paul August ☎ 14:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

References

The particular passage you quoted should be followed by another citation (it should be moved down from above in the same section): Farmer, Matthew C. Tragedy on the Comic Stage. Oxford University Press, 2016. ISBN 9780190630713 The intro and text of the play Wealth (or Plutus) in the Loeb edition starts on page 413 and ends on 599. Those two books are both library books, and one or both are not allowed to circulate, so I would need to go back to the library to be more specific about pages (which I can do). The Loeb citation may be to cite the the reference to the play that’s mentioned earlier in the same paragraph you quote. Bitwixen (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bitwixen: Thanks. I have the Loeb Aristophanes. I've reworked that paragraph. I've moved the Aristophanes cite up, and added a cite to Farmer. It now reads:

The parody of Philoxenus’ Cyclops occurs early in Aristophanes’ play Plutus (Wealth). It is performed by a group of elderly men, who with their movement and voices imitate goats and sheep. The parody has such an insignificant connection with the plot of Aristophanes’ play, that it is thought that the satiric point may be a humorous criticizing of the older theatrical form, with a demonstration that a dithyramb doesn’t fit comfortably embedded in a comic drama.

References

Are you saying that a cite to Farmer should be added to the last sentence? I've read through Farmer but I don't see where he says anything specifically like that, if you can find specific pages for Farmer, I'd appreciate that (see this Google Books search: Farmer 2017) I'm going to the library later this morning, so I can look at Hopkinson's book.

Paul August ☎ 10:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to Farmer's book. I'm going to rework the section using Farmer. I hope it makes sense and is clear enough. Thanks. Bitwixen (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bitwixen: Good. I've reworked your cites to Farmer, removing the repetitive bibliographic information, and adding links to the pages. Paul August ☎ 21:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Bitwixen (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bitwixen: I have a concern about the sourcing for the following sentence:

"Similar ideas regarding mimesis are raised in Aristotle’s Poetics, in which Philoxenus' Cyclops is mentioned as an example."

References

This is what Aristotle says about Philoxenus' Cyclops in the Poetics:

It is the same in dithyrambic and nomic poetry, for instance . . . a writer might draw characters like the Cyclops as drawn by Timotheus and Philoxenus. It is just in this respect that tragedy differs from comedy. The latter sets out to represent people as worse than they are to-day, the former as better. (Aristotle, Poetics 1448a)

And I find no mention of Aristotle on Farmer, p. 218, and although he does mention Aristotle's comments on the Cyclops (p. 215, and p. 219), he does not say anything about "ideas regarding mimesis" in Aristotle’s Poetics. I would like to just remove the sentence, ok? Paul August ☎ 11:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I think your quote from the Poetics may be understating what’s being said by Aristotle according to Farmer regarding Philoxenus. I’ll take another look at the sentence you’re concerned with. As it is, it’s not inaccurate. I’ll look at the sourcing, too. Bitwixen (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bitwixen:: Can you please quote the Farmer text you are relying on to support this assertion? I've read through Farmer and this is all I can find:

p. 215: "That it was the line particularly between dithyramb and comic drama the Poloxenus had transgressed is suggested by Aristotle's discussion of the Cyclops in his Poetics (1448a). Just as tragedy shows men better and comedy worse than they are, Aristotle explains, so other genres of poetry can show better or worse men; despite certain textual difficulties in this passage, it is clear that among the various examples he cites Aristotle presents Philoxenus' Cyclops as a poem that depicts the worse type characters, a typology that aligns Cyclops with comedy."

p. 219: "Philoxenus attempted to borrow elements of drama in his dithyramb Cyclops; Aristotle's comments on the poem and the testimonia portraying it as satire of the tyrant Dionysius suggest that comedy, in particular, provided the model for Philoxenus' generic hybrid."

In particular, I find nothing, about Aristotle on Farmer, p. 218, the page being cited.

I've also searched the Poetics and read several accounts of Aristotle's mention of Philoxenus, in other authors, e.g. Hordern, pp. 448–450; and can't find any support for this. Unless we can find sources for this sentence, I'm going to remove it—it doesn't really add much anyway.

Paul August ☎ 14:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the problem is the first part of the sentence: "Similar ideas regarding mimesis are raised in Aristotle’s Poetics". You're right to want to delete it. Mimesis is a huge topic, that sentence doesn't say much, and I can't find the source either. Bitwixen (talk) 05:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bitwixen: I've now reviewed all your newly added content and I've now copied it to our article Polyphemus (see the next talk page section just below).

@Bitwixen: I've also just now copied the content from the section "Philoxenus of Cythera" to our article Philoxenus of Cythera (see second section below). I would be pleased to know your thoughts on any of this, Regards Paul August ☎ 16:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bitwixen: Since all this new content was copied to Polyphemus, and some also to Philoxenus of Cythera, I've deleted it from this article. Paul August ☎ 10:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Content copied from this article into Polyphemus

I believe the recently added content contained in the sections: "Polyphemus and Galatea", and "Polyphemus' transformation from Homer to Ovid", is more appropriate for our article Polyphemus. Consequently I have copied the content from those two sections, and incorporated it into that article. Any interested editor, should please join the discussion about this at Talk:Polyphemus#New content copied from Cyclopes. Paul August ☎ 15:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Although I said above, that I copied "Polyphemus' transformation from Homer to Ovid", to Polyphemus, I forgot to actually do so, I've done that now. Paul August ☎ 10:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Content copied from this article into Philoxenus of Cythera

I believe the recently added content contained in the section: "Philoxenus of Cythera", is more appropriate for our article Philoxenus of Cythera. Consequently I have copied the content from that section, and incorporated it into that article. Any interested editor, should please join the discussion about this at Talk:Polyphemus#New content copied from Cyclopes. Paul August ☎ 15:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Section: "Polyphemus and Galatea"

I think we should delete the content from this article that was copied to Polyphemus (see above), since in my opinion that is a more relevant place for it. This article is about the three groups of beings, in Greek mythology, called Cyclopes: (1) the Hesiodic Cyclopes, (2) the Homeric Cyclopes and (3) the Cyclopean wall-builders. All of this content is solely about a particular Cyclops: Polyphemus, is thoroughly dealt with in the article devoted to that particlular Cyclops: "Polyphemus", and is out of place here. Having it here is redundant at best. Paul August ☎ 13:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Paul August, this article is titled Cyclopes, and that (and nothing else) is the topic — this is according to Wikipedia:Article titles. If you are interested in a narrower topic, such as the one you mentioned: “three groups of beings in Greek mythology called Cyclopes”, you can write an article on that more limited topic and give it an appropriate title such as: Cyclopes (Three groups in Greek mythology). You should not try to alter the content of an article to attempt to make it fit a title that the article does not indicate. Your editing needs to be supported by the rules and guidelines and not be violating them.

Also if you want to make wholesale deletions of sections and their references you should follow the guidelines, and discuss your ideas on the talk page and gain a consensus.

Your comment just above doesn’t make sense. You say that “All of this content is solely about a particular Cyclops: Polyphemus.” But it’s not clear what content you’re referring to: Are you saying you want to delete any reference or mention of Polyphemus entirely from this article? Or what? You say something is redundant? But you don’t say how it is redundant: Where is the redundancy? Or which particular redundancy? You need to make it clear what you are saying and then try to supported your ideas beyond asserting your own opinion. - Bitwixen (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

When I said that “All of this content is solely about a particular Cyclops: Polyphemus.”, I was reffering to all the content which was copied, that is all the content in the sections: "Polyphemus and Galatea", and "Polyphemus' transformation from Homer to Ovid" (as indicated by the title of this section). I believe it it redundant because since it was copied word-for-word to the Polyphemus, it doesn't need to be in this article as well, since it duplicates content that is in that article. Is that more clear? Paul August ☎ 19:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Part of the reason what you said seems confusing is that you’re using the word “redundant” (which has a commonly accepted meaning when writing is being discussed), but the commonly accepted meaning appears to be not the meaning you have in mind. Dictionaries indicate that of writing the word “redundant” refers to a sentence or passage that is needlessly wordy. (As a possible example: if a writer were to say, “the temperature outside is very remarkably cold, extremely severely chilly, and totally shiver-inducing”.) Moving on from the meaning of the term, you suggest that word-for-word copying is what you consider to be a problem. First, are there any Wikipedia guidelines that you can refer to to support your suggestion? Of course, you’re the one that did the word-for-word copying, and you didn’t need to — an easy solution would be to make changes or rephrase passages so that they are not word-for-word. And in fact, if you compare the two passages you’re referring to — I don’t think it’s strictly accurate for you to claim they are “word-for-word”. In that case, there may not actually be a problem. - Bitwixen (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC) 74.88.12.149 (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

No you've misunderstood me. What I consider to be redundant (i.e. superfluous, duplicative, uneeded, unnecessary, etc) is that this content is in both the Ployphemus (where it more appropriately belongs) and this article. It my opinion it should not be in both places. (The word-for-word copy is not a problem: see WP:COPYWITHIN, I only mentioned it by way of emphasizing that the content that I think should be deleted from this article is also in other (more appropriate places). Paul August ☎ 15:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

My advice would be to revert the article all the way back to its more or less satisfactory state on 28 October this year on the grounds of WP:UNDUE - and then perhaps reduce the Polyphemus material to no more than a single paragraph. I'll come to that in a minute. But first my suggestion is based on good precedent. Neither William Smith's Classical Dictionary (http://allenfisher.edublogs.org/files/2013/02/William-Smith-%E2%80%98Cycl%C5%8Dpes%E2%80%99-28pbuk4.pdf) nor Encyclopaedia Britannica (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Cyclopes) strayed from giving a generic description of the monsters; and that (until very recently) is what the WP article restricted itself to as well. If mention of the individual cyclops Polyphemus is to be justified at all, it should be in the context of how his example fits within the overall picture. For example, he (with his siblings) is generally presented as a herdsman, as distinct from the Hephaestian workmen connected with volcanoes. In the sexual context, if there are no female cyclopes, then how they perpetuate themselves might need a mention. Polyphemus chooses for his partner another semi-divine being - and begets from her various Celtic peoples according to some accounts. However, what we don't need are long accounts of literary works better reserved to the separate article on Polyphemus. Sweetpool50 (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: Yes I agree with all of this. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. What you say about Smith's, and Britannica's entries on "Cyclopes" is an excellent point, moreover, the same can be said for the entries for "Cyclopes" in more specialist reference works, e.g. Oxford Classical Dictionary; Pierre Grimal's, The Dictionary of Classical Mythology; and Edward Tripps's Crowell's Handbook of Classical Mythology. I'm certain the same is also true for Brill's New Pauly (but I'd haven't checked yet). Perhaps a paragraph on Polyphemus, as you've indicated, could be appropriate (but I would say no more than that). As for female Cyclopes, they do seem to exist for Homer, see Od 9.105–115: “Thence we sailed on, grieved at heart, and we came to the land of the Cyclopes, ... and each one is lawgiver to his children and his wives" There is however no hint of any female Cyclopes anywhere else in Greek mythology. Paul August ☎ 20:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Mention of a "wife" does not really prove the point, and lack of female Cyclopes might explain the sexual preference of Polyphemus in the Euripides play! Faced with a Grace (a non-cyclopean female) he declared he never could fancy women. What is the Homeric Greek for a wife anyway - γυναίκα? σύζυγος? Sweetpool50 (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The word being translated as "wife" is ἄλοχος (see LSJ). Paul August ☎ 22:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks...and does Odysseus use the same word of Penelope? Sweetpool50 (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't know about Odysseus, but Homer does at Od 24.294: ἄλοχος ... Πηνελόπεια. Paul August ☎ 00:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Amazing, Google Translate says the word means "hulk"! Sweetpool50 (talk) 08:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

LOL Paul August ☎ 13:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

NOTE: I've now reorganized all of this Polyphemus and Galatea content into it's own first-level section: "Polyphemus and Galatea". Paul August ☎

I don’t agree with the idea of reverting an article to the way it was on some date in the past. It seems arbitrary, unsupportable, and not reasonable — a very bad idea. It would improperly delete in a wholesale manner content and all of the editing work by various editors that his been done since then. It seems irresponsible. I also don’t agree with the idea that Wikipedia should provide a “generic” representation of the topic. It cannot be known what the editor who suggested it means by “generic” (a word that has a few definitions) in the context of this article, or in reference to an encyclopedia article that is more than a century old. - Bitwixen (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bitwixen: I agree with what Sweetpool50 has said above. Wikipedia has an article titled "Cyclopes", covering Cyclopes in general, and an article titled "Polyphenus" on the specific Cyclops Polyphemus. While some content on Polyphemus is appropriate for our article "Cyclopes", not all of it is, that's why we have a separate article dedicated to Polyphemus. And that this is an appropriate way of organizing this content, as pointed out above, Smith's Classical Dictionary; Brittanica (both the 1911 edition, and the current online version); Grimal's, The Dictionary of Classical Mythology (1996); Tripps's Crowell's Handbook of Classical Mythology (1976); Brill's New Pauly (Vol. 3 (Cat-Cyp), 2003, Vol. 11 (Phi-Prok) 2007); as well as others, also have separate articles titled "Cyclopes" and "Polyphemus" so there is good precedent, in reliable sources, for this.

I've given reasons above why this section "Polyphemus and Galatea" should be reomved from this article. Let me restate, and expand on them here:

1. This entire section on Polyphemus and Galatea has been copied to Polyphemus, which is a more appropriate place for it, so it is unneeded here.
2. The content is only peripherally related to the topic of this article which is "Cyclopes" in general, that is the species of creatures, in Greek mythology, who were named "Cyclopes". It is inappropriate to have so much content devoted to a specific Cycylops, and in fact only to a specific aspect of that specific Cyclops, especially when there is already an article on that Cyclops (see WP:OFFTOPIC)
3. Such detailed content on only an aspect of a particular Cyclops, makes the article unbalanced. It is unbalanced to cover the Polyphemus and Galatea story, in such lavish detail, when we hardly cover at all the much more famous story of Polyphemus and Odysseus. Doing so exaggerates the relative importance of the Polyphemus-Galatea story with respect to the Polyphemus-Odysseus story, (see WP:UNDUE). And in fact some of the content, for example the contrast between Polyphemus the lover of sea nymphs, and Polyphemus the man-eating monster of Homer, makes no sense if you we haven't yet covered that Polyphemus.

I've given my reasons for removing this content, but you haven't given any reasons for keeping it. Why do you think this content needs to be in this article? Do you think it is more appropriate to cover the Polyphemus and Galatea story in the article on Cyclopes in general, or in the article on the specific Cyclops Polyphemus? Paul August ☎ 13:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Paul August, I appreciate your comment, but there are a number of things, you’ve said that I think are not strictly aligning with the facts. For example you claim that I have not given reasons to keep the content regarding Polyphemus. That is not true. I have in fact disagreed with your claim (above) that this article is about three particular groups of cyclopes that are found in Greek mythology (called Κύκλωπες). I have responded to say that this article is titled Cyclopes, and that is the topic — this accords with the guidelines found in: Wikipedia:Article titles. That is a very good reason to not remove the content that you want to remove. It seems ridiculous for an article with such a good, simple and straightforward title to exclude some of the most important cyclopes — including the cyclops in the Polyphemus and Galatea stories. (Paul August do you think that the Cyclopes of Ovid is completely unrelated to Homer’s?)

I then pointed out that if you’re interested in an article with a topic more narrow than what this article’s title indicates — you could write an article on that narrower topic and give it an appropriate title such as: Cyclopes (Three groups in Greek mythology). However you should not alter the content of an article in an effort to make it fit a title that the article does not have. These are the reasons I have given for keeping the content, and it is not correct to claim I have not given reasons. This discrepancy between what you want the article to be and what the title says has been pointed out to you a few times on this page, but you seem to be stonewalling, and not responding to that.

Regarding the points you number 1, 2 & 3. First, you say the entire section on Polyphemus and Galatea has been copied to the Polyphemus article. Also not true! You can go to that article and compare.

Your point #2 repeats the claim that this article is not about “Cyclopes”, but it’s about a particular, narrow group of Cyclopes. Again, (as I said above) this article is titled Cyclopes, that’s the topic — this accords with the guidelines found in: Wikipedia:Article titles. If you’re interested in an article with a more narrow topic — write that article.

Regarding your issue in point #3 — I’m not sure I can see the problem. The sizes of the various sections is a bit of “moving target” in the sense that sizes have changed recently due to your reorganizing edits a few days ago. The size of Hesiod is larger than the size of Homer. But then then they each are discussed in other sections as well, so it’s hard to judge. The section on “Kinds” is quite large and detailed. I think that your concern could be answered by developing the Polyphemus-Odysseus story, which I think would be reasonable. But it’s difficult to edit properly with a kind of “edit war” going on like this for so long.

You say you agree with with what Sweetpool50 has said, but you need to be more specific, because you have in fact disagreed with Sweetpool50. For example you disagreed on the question of female cyclopes. And Sweetpool50 who::Paul August, I appreciate your comment, but there are a number of things, you’ve said that I think are not strictly aligning with the facts. For example you claim that I have not given reasons to keep the content regarding Polyphemus. That is not true. I have in fact disagreed with your claim (above) that this article is about three particular groups of cyclopes that are found in Greek mythology (called Κύκλωπες). I have responded to say that this article is titled Cyclopes, and that is the topic — this accords with the guidelines found in: Wikipedia:Article titles. That is a very good reason to not remove the content that you want to remove. It seems ridiculous for an article with such a good, simple and straightforward title to exclude some of the most important cyclopes — including the cyclops in the Polyphemus and Galatea stories. (Paul August do you think that the Cyclopes of Ovid is completely unrelated to Homer’s?)

I then pointed out that if you’re interested in an article with a topic more narrow than what this article’s title indicates — you could write an article on that narrower topic and give it an appropriate title such as: Cyclopes (Three groups in Greek mythology). However you should not alter the content of an article in an effort to make it fit a title that the article does not have. These are the reasons I have given for keeping the content, and it is not correct to claim I have not given reasons. This discrepancy between what you want the article to be and what the title says has been pointed out to you a few times on this page, but you seem to be stonewalling, and not responding to that.

Regarding the points you number 1, 2 & 3. First, you say the entire section on Polyphemus and Galatea has been copied to the Polyphemus article. Also not true! You can go to that article and compare.

Your point #2 repeats the claim that this article is not about “Cyclopes”, but that it’s about a particular, narrow group of Cyclopes. Again, (as I said above) this article is titled Cyclopes, that’s the topic — this accords with the guidelines found in: Wikipedia:Article titles. If you’re interested in an article with a more narrow topic — write that article.

Regarding your issue in point #3 — I’m not sure I can see the problem. The sizes of the various sections is a bit of “moving target” in the sense that sizes have changed recently due to your reorganizing edits a few days ago. The size of Hesiod is larger than the size of Homer. But then then they each are discussed in other sections as well, so it’s hard to judge. The section on “Kinds” is quite large and detailed. I think that your concern could be answered by developing the Polyphemus-Odysseus story, which I think would be reasonable. But it’s difficult to edit properly with a kind of “edit war” going on like this for so long.

You say you agree with with what Sweetpool50 has said, but you need to be more specific, because you have in fact disagreed with Sweetpool50, (who –— full disclosure – in conversation with you has recently made some disparaging comments about a fellow editor, me, on another talk page–the article “Polyphemus”). For example you disagreed on the question of female cyclopes. - Bitwixen (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

If the editor above had ever worked on a commercial encyclopedia, his contract would not have been renewed. WP needs teamwork and respect for guidelines. Disregarding WP:UNDUE and WP:OFFTOPIC, even when pointed out by an administrator whose job it is to make sure they are respected, is unacceptable. Arguing back with strained readings against the spirit of the guidelines, or the plea of not understanding what wording means in the discussion here, is an example of WP:WIKILAWYERING, which is equally unacceptable. I also give notice that it has taken far too long to clean up this article while pandering to the obstructive behavior of an inexperienced editor and will soon make the appropriate changes. It appears that Bitwixen is not really here to benefit Wikipedia. I suggest he avail himself of WP:Mentoring if he does not wish to pay the penalty for his obstruction. Sweetpool50 (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50:, I appreciate what you say, and I know editing can be frustrating sometimes, and I want to be respectful to how you feel. I suggest, and I don’t know if it’s comforting to you or not, but I believe we are all here in good faith for the same purpose — to contribute and to try to improve this article. I also think it’s important to be civil and respectful to one another. You as well. If you would permit me another suggestion, I think it would help people understand what you’re meaning, and help people to respond, if you would be as specific as you can when you express your concerns. I’m kind of waiting to hear from Paul August.

@Paul August:, you’ve indicated a few times over the last few months that you’re interested in an article that would be limited to only three particular groups of Cyclopes (the Hesiodic, the Homeric and the wall-builders). (Would that exclude Callimachus and Euripides?) I‘ve suggested that you might consider creating such an article. I seriously think that might not be a bad idea. Perhaps you could consider it? Or somebody could consider it. - Bitwixen (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bitwixen: No you've misunderstood me. I don't want to limit the article "to only three particular groups of Cyclopes (the Hesiodic, the Homeric and the wall-builders)". It is rather that these are the only Cyclopes in Greek mythology that exist. What other Cyclopes, in Greek mythology, are there? You ask: “Would that exclude Callimachus and Euripides? If you mean would that exclude the Cyclopes written about by Callimachus and Euripides, then no it would not exclude them. The Cyclopes written about by Callmachus, are essentially the Hesiodic Cyclopes. While Euripides writes about all three of these groups of Cyclopes. Paul August ☎ 18:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Paul August: I’m glad that you and I are in much agreement, and I appreciate hearing, as you say, you don’t want to limit this article. I’m also glad I put the question to you about that, and I thank you for responding. I think the grouping of three kinds of Cyclopes is important to this topic, but I also think that the concept of the “three groups” could be strengthened in the article. For example, the section title “Kinds” begins by saying: “Three groups of Cyclopes can be distinguished”. I think that needs more explanation. The citation that follows indicates primary sources, and no secondary source (which it needs) except for Hard who doesn’t really support the idea on page 66, where it says, “…these primordial Kyklopes should be distinguished from some mythical giants of two other kinds…” Which doesn’t indicate that three groups of Kyklopes are being distinguished from all the rest, it only indicates that one group is being distinguished from some others. It doesn’t indicate that there are three groups and three only (not four or five). Perhaps Hard has better support on some other page, or perhaps Fowler can support the idea. You ask, “What other Cyclopes, in Greek mythology, are there?” The answer to that may not be known, there are indications that there were Cyclopes before Homer, and we can only have knowledge about whatever testimony there is that’s extant. A question more pertinent to this article might be: Is there a source that can support the content?Bitwixen (talk) 05:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bitwixen: There are no ancient sources which mention other Cyclopes in Greek mythology besides the ones I've mentioned above—and none of the many modern sources mentioned above, or the many others cited in the article, do so either. So it is not about what I want the article to be about, it is about what the article is about. The article is about the Cyclopes in Greek mythology, of which there are only these three groups. In any case this has nothing to do with the Polyphemus and Galatea story. Why do you think that the Polyphemus and Galatea story—and in such elaborate detail—belongs here rather than at Polyphemus? Paul August ☎ 12:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I see that the editor made a Teahouse query about the shift of Polyphemus & Galatea material to the article dedicated to Polyphemus, where he was told there that it is in line with merge editing. Since he has tinkered a little with the wording at that article since, one might infer that he is in agreement with the move. I will therefore write the one paragraph agreed between myself and Paul August on the grounds of WP:Consensus and will substitute that in place of the WP:UNDUE material in this article, which is evidently outside of WP guidelines. Sweetpool50 (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. Paul August ☎ 17:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Paul August: If I have misunderstood you once again, it’s not intentional. I’m trying to understand what you’re saying as well I can, in what I hope is understood to be in good faith. Regarding your question, I have answered it twice before (above on this page). As I said, this article is titled Cyclopes, and that is the topic — which accords with the guidelines found in: Wikipedia:Article titles. The content regarding the Cyclops Polyphemus and his love interest Galatea belongs in this article because it pertains to one of the most notable Cyclopes. It would not make sense for an article with such a good, simple and straightforward title as it has to exclude this most important Cyclops. @Sweetpool50: You are mistaken — I am not at all in agreement with any kind of merge edit, move or substitution that you are suggesting. You are wrong and you cannot infer my agreement. Bitwixen (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bitwixen: So your argument seems to be that since Polyphemus was a Cyclops then all content about him belongs in this article. That would seem to mean that all the content in the article "Polyphemus" belongs here also. Is that what you are saying? That we shouldn't have a separate article on Polyphemus? Paul August ☎ 10:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Since 2002 the title of the article has been in the plural and it has remained in a stable state, concerning itself with the race of mythological beings as a whole, for all those years until the recent changes made by Bitwixen. Having discussed the matter with Paul August, we agreed that those changes were unjustifiable, in that they were against the guidelines WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:UNDUE. It was further agreed that, since there are references to Polyphemus in the article, a short paragraph dealing with him as an individual might just be tolerable as illustrating the point that mythological accounts vary over time and according to literary genre. Any restoration of the deleted sections now that WP:CONSENSUS has been reached can only be regarded as WP:DISRUPTION and will be reported as such. Sweetpool50 (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

To answer the question Paul August asked: (“So your argument seems to be that…”): Not at all, that’s never been my argument, and I’ve never said anything like that in any way. I don’t object to the separate article on Polyphemus, and never have. My concern, aside from the “edit warring”, is that this article needs to more clearly written so that a reader who is not an expert will understand what’s being said better. Bitwixen (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bitwixen: So since you think we should have separate articles for Cyclopes and Polyphemus, that would seem to mean that you don't think that all the content in the Polyphemus article should be repeated in the Cyclopes article correct? So what content should be repeated? Do you think the content on the Polyphemus and Odysseus story should be repeated here? And why specifically do you think the content on the Polyphemus and Galatea story needs to be repeated here? Paul August ☎ 16:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Paul August, you are (again) claiming that I said something I never said, which you also did just above: I never said that I think we should have separate articles for Cyclopes and Polyphemus, and I never said the opposite. (I believe it falls under the category of "Straw man fallacy" to put words into another's mouth.) - Bitwixen (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

What is this article about?

In a discussion above (“Section: Polyphemus and Galatea”) there appear to be two sides to the question “What is this article about?” One side says it’s about “Cyclopes” the one-eyed mythological monster. The other side says it’s about “three particular groups of Cyclopes” — or as was said on this talk page: “The article is about the Cyclopes in Greek mythology, of which there are only these three groups”.

One reason I think this article is about “Cyclopes”, is because that’s what the title indicates, and that follows the guidelines in Wikipedia:Article titles, which states: “The title indicates what the article is about”. I don’t agree that this article should be restricted to “only Greek mythology”, because (for one reason) the first sentence of the lead says that the article includes “Greek and Roman” mythology, and it has said that for years. Roman mythology should not be excluded because the article would then lose Cyclopes stories that occur in great works of literature, works by Virgil, Ovid, and others.

The concept of the “group of three Cyclopes in Greek mythology” was only added to the article recently — last August — with no discussion. The same editor who added the concept is now claiming that that is what the article will be about. The concept of “group of three” is not discussed in this article, it is simply stated as though it is a currently held belief. In fact the sourcing in this article (as it stands now) indicates that it is an idea that is thousands of years old. There is no indication in the article that anyone still believes that concept (except in a historic context). Thousands of years ago people believed in the Greek gods in a way that is vastly different from today. So the concept needs to be explained, put into context, and perhaps be stated as: “According to…” But it should not be claimed that this new content is now going to be the topic of this article. - Bitwixen (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I see the editor is now attempting to shift the goalposts and (typically) has not attempted to follow up the article's edit history. When it began in 2002 it was a stub but clearly was about Cyclopes (in the plural, dealing with them as a race). By December 2004 the theme of three types of Cyclopes - the Hesiodic craftsmen; the Homeric hersmen; the wall-builders - had already emerged. Nearly all expansions since then have scrupulously kept to the theme of writing about the race (or genus, from whence comes the term 'generic') as a whole. As Paul August has explained, there are no more than these three classes of Cyclopes. The function of the lead is to sum up what is in the body of the article and it is perfectly legitimate, in so summarising, to make that point. This is not arbitrarily limiting its scope but a piece of responsible editing.

Bitwixen, in attempting to force through his extended treatment of a single Cyclops against all guidelines, appears to be deliberately muddying the waters by arguing that the article should not be limited to Greek mythology - which it never has been, since Roman and other ethnic treatments have been considered over the years. It would not matter if there were a dozen Cyclopic functions, that would not alter the fact that the article is about multiple beings and not named individuals among them, except by way of short example. His repeated attempts to reinsert such material count as disruption and will be reported to the appropriate forum just as soon as Paul August advises. Sweetpool50 (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The article is, and has always been, about the Cyclopes in Greek Mythology. Yes the Greek Cyclopes were written about by the Roman poets Virgil and Ovid, and as such the Greek Cyclopes can be regarded as being included into Roman mythology. Nevertheless they were still writing about the Greek Cyclopes: Virgil wrote about the Hesiodic and the Homeric Cyclopes, while Ovid wrote about the Homeric Cyclops Polyphemus. There are no Roman Cyclopes separate from the Greek ones. And, for clarification, the article's title is "Cyclopes", which is a plural proper noun; it is not about "cyclops", the singular common noun, which might refer to any one-eyed creature. But I don't see how this discussion about the topic of this article is related to the content dispute about the Polyphemus and Galatea story. That the article is about the Cyclopes in Greek mythology, does not preclude content about Polyphemus, since he was certainly a Cyclops in Greek mythology, and in fact Polyphemus is mentioned many times in the current article. However, it's Sweetpool50's and my view that that story does not need to be treated in such elaborate detail here, when it is adequately covered elsewhere. Paul August ☎ 16:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a massive wall of text at this point... It is a difficult problem, because Polyphemus is so far and away the most prominent of the cyclopes in Greek myth and its subsequent reception (in fact, he is the only 'Homeric Cyclops' that we ever encounter 'on stage' and I think the 'Homeric Cyclopes' section could be more explicit about that fact). I think it is reasonable to have a sentence mentioning Polyphemus and Galatea in the Homeric Cyclopes section. If nothing else it is relevant to the characterisation of 'Homeric' Cyclopes as shepherds that the Cyclops-in-love becomes a way of parodying Bucolic poetry, and it is relevant to their characterisation as uncivilised that he and she begat Celtic peoples. Maybe the 'Transformations of Polyphemus' section could be turned into a Pastoral Poetry sub-section among the "Principal Sources"? But I also see that more than that would be placing undue emphasis on Polyphemus (detailed discussion is what his article is for).

Other matters, while I;m looking at this:

• I'd move the 'etymology' section to the start / into the lead.
• Redon's image does not belong in the Hesiodic Cyclops section. It has nothing to do with them.
• Why is the altar of the Cyclopes at Isthmia in the 'Hesiodic Cylopes' section rather than the 'Homeric Cyclopes' section? It doesn't seem obvious to me that we know which set of Cyclopes (if just one) that that cult was associated with.
• The 'Principal sources' section is a bit awkward. Many of the quotations are very long (especially, the Callimachus section) and the prose largely repeats what is said in the Kinds section above. It is not clear to me what is meant to be included in the section (is Nonnus really a 'principal source'?). Some more explicit statement of what the section is for seems desirable to me.
• I think the 'Legends of the Caucasus' section belongs in Polyphemus' article, not this one.
• The article lacks a section on the development and reception of the Cyclopes since antiquity (such a section would be the place for Redon's painting, for example).

Hope that helps! Furius (talk) 12:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Furius: Thanks for your helpful comments. As for your 'Other matters', I will try to respond to your very welcome suggestions soon (perhaps in their own section). Paul August ☎ 13:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Couple of responses to Furius: I think the Redon image is okay where it is, as an illustration that somewhat fits the divine nature of the initial cyclopes. Perhaps a better image could be found, and then this one could be moved as you suggest, but I think it's fine to use it to break up a wall of text here, since it's not identified as a particular cyclops. Since only Arges, Brontes, and Steropes were actually gods, presumably any altar built would be to them, at least in the absence of anything suggesting otherwise. I can certainly see the potential to confuse the groups, but in theory these first three were divinities on par with the Titans and the Hundred-Handed Giants, while Polyphemus and the Wrecking Crew were just huge, rustic shepherds—technically demigods, but not on par with the immortals. P Aculeius (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

As for the altar: The cited sources, Robin Hard, and M. L. West, seem to make the assumption that it was the Hesiodic Cyclopes’s altar. Hard (p. 66), mentions the altar, in connection with the Hesiodic Cyclopes, before he has even mentioned the Homeric Cyclopes, whom he regards as distinct. While West, discussing Hesiod’s first mention of the Cyclopes, at line 139 of the Theogony, says simply: “There was an altar to them on the Isthmus, in the area sacred to Poseidon” citing Paus. 2.2.1. When I wrote this section, it seemed reasonable to me to suppose that there would be a cult for Hesiod’s divine sons of Uranus, rather than for Homer’s monstrous shepherds, who as the article notes: live in the "world of men" (quoting West) rather than among the gods, as they apparently do in the Theogony. Paul August ☎ 15:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hard and West are good sources, so that stands in the article. But unless there's some other evidence, I'm not convinced. Greek cities were full of altars to demigods and heroes (the sanctuary of Isthmia included a shrine with altar for Melicertes, a human baby). An altar for Poseidon's Cyclopian sons in his sanctuary would be characteristic of the second sophistic... Furius (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

It's true that heroes sometimes had altars—and being a demigod was pretty much a prerequisite for that. Maybe some non-heroic demigods did too. But logic alone favours Arges, Brontes, and Steropes being the subjects of worship: despite their fearsome aspect, they were literally gods of the first order, and Zeus' dominion over the universe was due in no small part to their support. Apart from Polyphemus, who's not likely to have had an altar devoted to him—and would probably have been mentioned by name in connection with it if he had—the other "rustic" cyclopes barely figure in Greek myth. Perhaps there are some stories we don't know about, but it's pretty obvious which group is more likely to be worshiped. P Aculeius (talk) 05:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is all rather sprawling at the moment, but two quick points:

• I agree that an in-depth treatment of Polyphemus in a general article on the Cyclopes would be undue weight. Yes, he is by far the most notable Cyclops, and probably the only one that any non-specialist can name, but there's so much general stuff to cover – the differing traditions of Cyclopes as craftspeople versus uncivilised shepherds; the ancient sources which discuss Cyclopes; naturalist explanations for the origin of the myth; related legends from elsewhere... – that there is no need to have an in-depth treatment of Polyphemus, especially when he is notable enough to merit his own article.
• As for the idea that "three groups of cyclops can be distinguished" is limiting the scope of the article, I don't see it. The lead has said "In Greek mythology and later Roman mythology" since before the present dispute, so I don't see that anyone can reasonably argue that Roman mythology is being excluded. "three groups of cyclops can be distinguished" is a description of the content of the article, and a perfectly accurate one. It might be possible to argue that the division of all Graeco-Roman cyclopes into three groups is inaccurate or unhelpful, and the article should be rearranged, but as it currently stands, the lead seems like a reasonably accurate summary of the article body. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto: You say that “The lead has said ‘In Greek mythology and later Roman mythology’ since before the present dispute, so I don't see that anyone can reasonably argue that Roman mythology is being excluded.” However, I'd like to point out — Roman mythology was actually deleted from the lead section by Paul August 23 July 2019 (with the time stamp 10:44 23 July 2019) with no discussion. The next talk-page entry after the deletion of Roman mythology was by Paul August on 3 September 2019. It regarding another deletion, and stated in part: “this article is about the three groups of beings called Cyclopes in Greek mythology.” And Roman mythology stayed deleted from the lead for a while — until 16 October — when it was noticed. (@Paul August:) - Bitwixen (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Furius: I was reading your comment. I resist considering Polyphemus as one particular character, because the character with that name varies depending on the work of literature — from Homer to Ovid. In fact, in this article, as it is written, I feel there’s almost a kind of reification fallacy when the focus is on the cyclops — as though this is a zoology article — and also when mention of certain important texts is so easily deleted. In fact, I think an organization of the article that is more “text centered” should be considered. I am not sure that people realize how severe the deletions to this article are. If you put yourself in the shoes of a non-expert reader, who comes to this page to look up, say, the obscene Polyphemus found in Aristophanes — that reader will find not a single mention of that Cyclops in this article. That’s also true of the Cyclops found in Philoxenus of Cythera, Theocritus, and so on. If anyone comes here to an article titled “Cyclopes” they should expect to find a mention of these important examples. That is why Wikipedia guidelines say that mass-editing should not be done without first proposing it, and discussing it — according to WP:CAUTIOUS. Also, I may not agree with your suggestion that the “Legends of the Caucasus” section should be in a Polyphemus article — because those legends are numerous and varied, the connection to Polyphemus is there, but not fully pinned down, and they may not use the name Polyphemus. - Bitwixen (talk) 03:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Redon image

Furius has commented that "Redon's image does not belong in the Hesiodic Cyclops section. It has nothing to do with them." I support him in that. While its French title is Le cyclope (1898), not Polyphème, it is perfectly obvious that it is a portrayal of Polyphemus since the sleeping figure of a naked Galatea is shown to the lower right. So as is commented, it does not belong in the Hesiod section. I agree that it is a splendid, even haunting figure, belonging to the period when Redon was using images in a Symbolist way to portray psychological states. In this case it is love obsession, longing - as in the 50s do-wop song by the Flamingos, "My love must be a sort of blindness, I only have eyes for you". In view of its subject, and what has been argued over three other sections about WP:UNDUE, it properly belongs to the Polyphemus and Galatea section of the article devoted to him and sends all the wrong messages by being included in the generic article on Cyclopes. Sweetpool50 (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: Ah, I had never really noticed "Galatea" there, thanks for pointing that out. So yes, I agree with you and Furius the image should be removed. Unfortunately, as P Aculeius notes that leaves an ugly "wall of text", as I know of no better image to replace it with. Paul August ☎ 11:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Was going to say it was still okay as a general image of a cyclops... but I didn't realize it was meant to be Polyphemus and Galatea. The caption should probably say so, even if the extended discussion of them is removed from this article and fully merged into Polyphemus (as I believe it should be). The image can certainly stay in the article, but obviously doesn't suit as an illustration of Arges, Brontes, and Steropes. Can we find an out-of-copyright image of a cyclops forging or wielding a thunderbolt? P Aculeius (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Found some old images that should be out of copyright. I think that this one is the best of them, since you can clearly see that the one facing the viewer has one great eye (notice how many other illustrations show one eye centered above two normal eyes, or an eyeless brow ridge). The fourth figure is clearly Hephaestus: you can see he's got some sort of special shoe to minimize his limp. Other examples: some three-eyed cyclopes with Hephaestus and others; can't really see their faces well here, but also look to be "triclopean"; clear view at a nice size of the same subject, but rather poorly drawn compared with the others; this mosaic is period, but it's hard to see their faces and it has a lot of damage. All these images should be out of copyright, and might be worth adding to commons, and including in the article. Although the first one would be my pick for the section on Arges, Brontes, and Steropes. P Aculeius (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I too was looking at possibilities before I had to leave my PC a while back. There are several other images that might do, although the 1st century wall-painting that would have been a clincher is too faded to be useful. There is however a Classical sculpture of near date of Hephaistos casting the armour of Achilles that would do. I'd prefer an ancient example if possible. Actually that sculpture group was adapted to the 1969 Greek stamp which is probably still in copywright, otherwise it would have been nice to have some Greek script. The 'poorly drawn' design - which I liked for its simplicity - turned out to be by the renowned Wenceslas Hollar. What's more it is already on Wikimedia. Sweetpool50 (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps my words were poorly chosen. But the image is a good deal more cartoonish than the other illustrations. An ancient design would be preferable, but as we've both seen, many of them are badly faded or damaged. And most importantly, even in the relief you linked, you can't really *tell* they're cyclopes, even at full size. They look like normal bearded men with two eye sockets under a wide brow ridge. I can't even see a third eye. But in any case, would greatly prefer a one-eyed cyclops rather than a three-eyed example. P Aculeius (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Furius, P Aculeius, and Sweetpool50: So I think we are all agreed that the Redon image ought to removed from that section of the article. I would much prefer an ancient image. So the mosaic appeals to me, in that regard, and it’s “poor” condition does not bother me, and in fact, by my way of thinking, may even be a plus. I don’t think that the function of the image is necessarily to show exactly what the Cyclopes “looked like”, but rather that they were portrayed, and how they were portrayed and thought of by ancient Greeks. The images of the Cyclopes as Hephaestus’ assistants are fine, and could be included in that section but a circa-Titanomachy, pre-Hephaestus, image would be much better as the first image in that section. The mosaic at least does not seem to show Hephaestus, so might be Titanomachic. Of the Hephaestus images, the one I like best, by far, is the one described by P Aculeius above as: some three-eyed cyclopes with Hephaestus and others. For me it better captures the awful fury of Hephaestus’ Aetnean forge. I don’t really think they are “three-eyed”, rather I think that, like the Tischbein image of Polyphemus shown in the lede, they have one eye with two empty eye-sockets below. The relief linked to above by Sweetpol50, is worthy of consideration because of it’s earlier provenance, but here the "Cyclopes" to me, seem clearly normal-eyed. So if it were up to me—and importantly copyright were not an issue— I would be inclined to use the mosaic as the first image, and the "Three-eyed" Cyclopes further down in that section where the Cyclopes as Hephaestus’ assistants are described. However the easiest thing to do in terms of copyright etc, would be to simply replace the Redon image with the already uploaded Hollar etching. Thoughts? Paul August ☎ 13:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The mosaic is nice, but I still think it's preferable to have an image that people might recognize as cyclopean—if you can't see their faces clearly, if they appear to have two normal eyes, or nearly as bad, three—then readers will simply be confused. I've been aware of cyclopes all my life, and I still find images where they have three eyes, or two empty eye sockets, disconcerting. Perhaps this is because modern illustrators have figured out how to portray one-eyed cyclopes in a way that looks more natural, while ancient artists struggled with it—some evidently doing better than others. I think the Hollar image is preferable to three-eyed cyclopes, even if the style is more primitive than the one I preferred, and which you don't seem to like. But all of them should be well out of copyright, since they're well over a century old. P Aculeius (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I must confess to having fallen for the '3-eyed' cyclopean workers and their energetic presentation. That print too, as it turns out, is on Wikimedia. I was wondering how its tilted perspective might look on the page and have uploaded it for the time being for the rest of us to have a look at. Other substitutions ought to be considered too. I find the instrusive modern statue from the Natural History Museum extremely naff. In addition, isn't the insistance on a monocular image a bit fundamentalist? If late Classical statues and paintings pictured cyclopes differently, then surely that should be noted (and illustrated) in the article. If I remember rightly, Paul August mentions somewhere way up above in one of the threads that it is nowhere asserted by Homer that Cyclopes have only one eye but that it can be inferred of Polyphemus from the Odysseus story. On the other hand, apparently Hesiod does credit his Cyclopes with only one eye (μοῦνος δ᾽ ὀφθαλμὸς μέσσῳ ἐνέκειτο μετώπῳ) so I guess that's a reason for iconographical correctness! Sweetpool50 (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@P Aculeius and Sweetpool50: Yes, Homer never says that Polyphemus is one-eyed, but Odysseus' stratagem for blinding would seem to require it. Hesiod of course does say so, and perhaps, while considering images for his Cyclopes, we should remind ourselves of his description (Theogony 139–146):

" ... the Cyclopes, who have very violent hearts, Brontes (Thunder) and Steropes (Lightning) and strong-spirited Arges (Bright), those who gave thunder to Zeus and fashioned the thunderbolt. These were like the gods in other regards, but only one eye was set in the middle of their foreheads; and they were called Cyclopes (Circle-eyed) by name, since a single circle-shaped eye was set in their foreheads. Strength and force and contrivances were in their works."

To me the Dutch engraving better fits these violent-hearted, strong-spirited, godlike Cyclopes whose work was the epitome of strength, force and contrivance.

I'm fine with also including any of the other images being proposed here, as they all have merit and the article can certainly stand more images (the mosaic anyone?). Also the Polyphemus image does not have to be in the lede, and I'm not particularly fond of the modern statue either. Paul August ☎ 11:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to having images of three-eyed cyclopes in the article. Just would prefer to lead with one-eyed ones, since that's what most people expect to see from a cyclops. And it's also the most obvious way to portray Arges, Brontes, and Steropes—although I happily admit that the image both of you prefer is a very dramatic image, more so than my choice, I still like the one I recommended because you can tell they're cyclopes without needing a caption explaining that "in many depictions, cyclopes are portrayed with two normal or sightless eyes, or empty eye sockets, in addition to a large, central eye", or something like that. Which obviously should be noted at least once in both the article and the first picture showing such a depiction. I don't mind the modern statue, since it shows that cyclopes continue to influence modern art—and it's not as if the Greek or Roman depictions were taken from life—we assume—or as though modern sculpture is inherently unworthy compared with say, a Renaissance woodcut or an impressionist painting. Years ago I might have insisted on "period" artwork like the mosaics and frescos—and I think it's fine to favour them in general, when they're good illustrations—but I'm becoming less pedantic with time and experience, and while they're lovely ancient art, you can't really see the faces of the cyclopes, which, after all, is their defining characteristic. So those pictures are less useful than most of the modern examples, IMO. On a related note, would an image of Turanga Leela fall under "fair use" as an illustration of cyclopes in modern culture? I believe there's already one somewhere on Wikipedia based on that doctrine. P Aculeius (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I've devoted an afternoon to looking at the history of images. The 'Dutch print' is all that survives of a mural by Titian in the now destroyed Brescia town hall; it says almost as much in the scroll at bottom left. I wondered what that lion was doing there; it's the symbol of Venice, and Brescia was then part of the Venetian empire. I also found where Tischbein got his image: acccording to Philadelphia Museum it was copied from an antique sculpture, which seems to have been the Colosseum head - happily also on Wikimedia. What is not is the Boston MFA monocular head, which P Aculeius would have preferred - and it's two centuries older too. Unfortunately photos of three-dimensional works, however ancient, are protected by copyright, so we'd need someone to go to Boston and make his own photo...unless those with more experience know another way. Anyway, I've substituted that in the lede for the time being. And since we seem to be in agreement on the Titian print, I don't think we need consider the fragmentary mosaic any more; one group of forge workers is quite enough.

I take the point about modern examples but wonder how independent from ancient sources they are. Tischbein was (relatively) modern but, as we have seen, was only reworking an architectural fragment. If we want something truly new, we'd logically go for something from (or derivative of) the Marvel comic. P Aculeius dismissed the Wenceslas Hollar print as being comic-like, I know, but at least it was of the Hesiodic workers, rather than a comic-book statue of Polyphemus with his pine-tree staff dependent on Virgil, like that horror from the Natural History Museum. I think, too, that we need to limit the representations of Polyphemus in the article. I'd hold out for the Pompeii mural of Polyphemus receiving a letter from Galatea, for its novelty and as illustrating the drift of the section it's paired with. We already have a vase painting of his blinding, which is probably enough. Otherwise I'd be tempted by Guido Reni's painting of him wresting up a rock to throw at the departing Odysseus, or the ancient statue of him drinking wine, both of which are in the Polyphemus article. Variety is what we need in this article and it's in short supply. Does anyone know of a picture of Cyclopes building? The best I found in a search was this Banksy style mural. That at least is impressive evidence of the modern influence of the myth! Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

You can stop bashing me for "dismissing" this image as cartoonish compared with this one just because it claims to be a Wenceslas Hollar. According to the Library of Philadelphia, the second image is by Wenceslas Hollar, and obviously the two are not by the same artist. In fact I think it's pretty obvious from looking at his article in Wikipedia that he made the second one, not the first. P Aculeius (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Whatever... Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@P Aculeius and Sweetpool50: Leaving aside the discussion about the "Hollar" images (I have no dog in that fight), I do very much like the Colosseum head found by Sweetpool50, and now in the lede. I like it better than the Tischbein painting, since it's ancient, and not necessarily supposed to be Poyphemus (though, of course, it probably is). The [MFA head, might be better since older, even though it is described as being Polyphemus. I'd be happy to go to the MFA to photograph it (I live in Cambridge, just a short subway ride away). But I'm know nothing about the legalities or MFA policies regarding such photographs. I also agree we should limit the number of explicitly Polyphemus images. Paul August ☎ 15:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

That's very generous of you, Paul August. I looked at the MFA website and found a request form] that seemed more interested in film than photo; it seems there'd be a fee too, and there's certainly one for their own image. Looking at the smaller version on the Greek Mythology site, the policy there looks like permission for use of anything on the site is granted free provided there is acknowledgement of its provenance. On the other hand, if you and others are happy with the Colosseum image, we may as well stick with that. Though you're right that both the Boston and Colosseum heads have been identified as Polyphemus, without a sculptural context that can only be speculation. Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what U.S. copyright law says about photographs of sculptures, but you can't acquire copyright over a two-dimensional illustration merely by taking a picture of it. To the extent that an image of a print or woodcut from the 19th century or earlier is a "faithful reproduction" of it, i.e. doesn't have mustaches or Coca-Cola cans inserted into it, thereby making it original, there's no copyright in the U.S., and not in most other countries. Which doesn't mean that you can't ask permission to use an image from another web site: just that the site owner can't really forbid you from using it or demand a fee for using it. I think the Boston head would be ideal as a lead illustration, actually, although you might need permission to use a photo of a three-dimensional sculpture that you didn't take yourself—or get it released to Commons. I'd have to check the relevant U.S. law on that otherwise, but Wikipedia does have some guidance on that. I don't think it matters that the museum calls it a "head of Polyphemus" even if it is one, but since they don't know what context it was in, whether with Odysseus or Galatea, there's no way to confirm the subject in the absence of writing on the sculpture, which doesn't seem to have any. I think it's just as valid as a generic cyclops. P Aculeius (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@P Aculeius:, there's probably a Wikimedia admin that specializes on copyright matters. Once I had an exchange with one on whether it was permissable to use an image of an 18C plate if it was cropped so that the painted image on it appeared flat. Borderline, s/he thought, but no one has challenged it since. Though the case is different this time, admin expertise would save you checking the law yourself and maybe suggest some tips. Sweetpool50 (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Unlike 2-dimensional objects, a photographer does have a copyright interest in a photograph of a sculpture in US law (because while the point of a photo of a drawing is to faithfully copy exactly what the drawing looks like, when it comes to photographing sculpture the photographer makes artistic decisions in the angle they take the photo from, the lighting, and so on, and two equally skilled photographers would not necessarily end up with fundamentally identical images). Therefore, the MFA's image of the cyclops is in copyright, and not usable by wikipedia. The best thing to do would be go and photograph it yourself; alternatively you could ask the MFA nicely if they will release a photograph under a free license... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50, P Aculeius, and Caeciliusinhorto: thanks for your thoughts and clarifications. I will try to either photograph the MFA sculpture myself or get a license-free photo from the MFA. However since we all seem happy with the current image in the lede, this may not happen very soon ;-) Paul August ☎ 13:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Etymology section

I re-added the phrase “mythological monsters” to the etymology section, and supplied citation to support it: Robin Hard on page 66 first refers to the Hesiod’s Cyclopes as monsters, and then refers to them again using the adjective “monstrous”. This edit replaces the phrase: “Cyclopes were called that”, which seems blunt but awkward, and since the Cyclopes are called so many things (Kyklopes, armorers, shepherds) it’s not immediately clear what “that” is referring to. To say the “Cyclopes were called Cyclopes” would be just as flat-footed. I think it’s okay to use a synonym, exactly as Hard does. And I can’t agree that the word “mythological goes without saying” — especially as a reason to delete it from a section as fundamental as etymology. In fact, before this entry the word “mythological” “goes without being said” in the entire article — it is never used, not once. It’s an important word, and essential for the reader to keep in mind. It seems imprecise to omit such a context.Bitwixen (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Well I'd prefer the original wording of that sentence: "Hesiod, in the Theogony, provides an etymology for the name Cyclopes, explaining that they were called that "since a single circle-shaped eye was set in their foreheads", which you objected to saying: "incorrect unsourced OR that claims Hesiod provided and etymology. He did not." Although Hesiod's seems clearly to be providing an etymology, which Burkert 1982, p. 157 n. 30, refers to saying "The ancient etymology 'wheel-eye' (since Hes. Theog. 145) is not too attrative".

Describing the Cyclopes as "mythological", especially so late in the article, seems unecessary and out of palce here, since this article, as the first line says, is about Greek (and Roman) mythology. Describing them here, again so late in the article, as monsters, seems out of place to me also (and yes Hard describes them so), but I see no reason to emphasise there monstrousness here in the 'Etymology' section.

Paul August ☎ 13:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree with P. August; Hesiod is plainly giving an etymology, and the original sentence seemed better to me, but I thought I'd defer to other opinions rather than reverting it. I don't think anyone is confused about whether the topic is mythological—certainly not if they've gone past the lead. And the word "monster" generally implies lack of humanity to me—the only difference between the original Cyclopes and the Titans was the number of eyes, and that doesn't suggest the word "monster" to me. I'm sure we can find better ways to avoid repetition. P Aculeius (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I see Bitwixen has learned nothing from his suspension: he stubbornly persists in pushing his own point of view and editorializing. Paul August, I know you added that etymology section as part of a reorganization back in September, but what precisely did you reorganize? Everything there merely repeated information already given in the Hesiod section and was summed up in the lede as well. I hope you'll pardon the deletion of what seemed superfluous. Sweetpool50 (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: While the now deleted section does repeat some of what can be found elsewhere in the article, It does contain some additional information, specifically that:

Hesiod's meaning of the name Cyclopes as "Circle-eyes" or "Round-eyes" is supported by a number of scholars, though other possible meanings, such as "wheel thief" and "cattle thief", have been suggested.

References

and I think that a separate "Etymology" section is probably warranted (and probably could be expanded upon, see below). But, in any case, the above sentence should be included somewhere in the article, and an Etymology section would seem to be the logical place for it. I think Furius seemed to agree that the Etymology section was useful since he suggested above that it be moved up to the beginning of the article, or into the lede. If there is agreement to keep such a section, then I’d be fine with moving it up, but I guess the reason I’ve kept this section "relegated" to the bottom of the article is because, and I’m not entirely happy with that section as it is and etymology is not exactly an area of expertise.

When I first turned my attention to this article in a serious way, I found this sentence:

The Greek word cyclops literally means "round-eyed" or "circle-eyed".

References

I have been unable to find Beekes s.v. Cyclops (neither of the links given in the above note work for me), nor do I have access to, and would be hard pressed to read, Thieme's paper (any help with either of these sources would be appreciated). Burkert, p. 157 n. 30 (you should probably be able to read it with the link provided above, If not let me know I can copy it here) does mention Thieme's paper, and his "cattle-thief" etymology (as well as Scmitt's "wheel-thief" etymology), but does not directly support the derivation from "PIE pḱu-klōps". I have also been unable, so far, to find sources for the assertions: "As with many Greek mythic names, however, this might be a folk etymology" (although of course I suppose this is obviously true), and "Note that this would mean that the Cyclopes were regular giants, and the depictions with a singular eye, secondarily motivated by the folk etymology". So, in the absense of better sourcing, I decided to replace this sentence with the now deleted “Etymology” section, all of whose content and sourcing I could be confident about.

Thoughts anyone? @Furius, P Aculeius, and Sweetpool50: ? Also @Florian Blaschke: As I now see, you were the editor who added some of the content I removed (apologies for not asking you about this before I removed it), can you shed some light on any of this, in particlar what Thieme says.

Paul August ☎ 15:06, 2 January 2020‎ (UTC)

The word etymology has a couple of definitions, one is a study of word origins. (The “logy” indicates “study of”.) The section, being formally an “Etymology” section, seems to be referring to that meaning in the section title. Hesiod did not “provide” a study of anything. The other meaning of the word etymology is different and more casual — it breaks from the word “etymology”’s own origin by ignoring the “logy”. And it can be used to refer to a single word or an example. However, in this particular case, the section should not switch meanings the first and only time the word is put to use within the section.

Oops! After writing this, I read more of the comments, and realized that the entire etymology section has been deleted. The note to explain the deletion says that the section “merely repeats what is already available in the Hesiod section (and lede)” That’s one way of dealing with a discussion, I suppose. So now the article doesn’t contain either the word etymology or the word mythological. I respectfully disagree with that deletion. I did feel that the section was under-written and could have been expanded. But the idea of etymology does occur often enough in the sources, which indicates that scholars out there consider it a worthy topic. Also, removing a section while it is being actively discussed doesn’t seem right. - Bitwixen (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

That's really splitting hairs. If Hesiod explains what the word means and why, then that's its etymology (according to Hesiod). Nobody else is going to restrict the word to a formal study setting forth evidence and reaching a conclusion. Hesiod supplies an etymology, and to the extent that other authors have supplied different meanings or commented on what Hesiod or others have said about it, that goes in any etymology section that might exist (although if it's short, it might simply be merged with the lead, or become first paragraph of the body after the lead). If it stretches beyond a paragraph, it should probably be a section or subsection. P Aculeius (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd like a separate etymology section, rather than having it tucked away in the Hesiod section. The derivation of the word applies to all types of Kyklops and there is more to say than 'Hesiod says...' anyway - as the references to Thieme and Beekes show. I don't think it is right to remove sourced material without looking at the sources or at least being confident that they are wrong. Given that scholars have cited Thieme as plausible, I think it should be mentioned as a modern conjecture (It's also mentioned without judgement by Egbert Bakker The Meaning of Meat and the Structure of the Odyssey CUP (2013) p. 69, with the peku component translated as 'cattle' rather than 'sheep': he links it with the Polyphemus story, another reason for having a separate etymology section).

Beekes is also responsible for the Etymological Dictionary of Ancient Greek (2010), which is an important work on Greek etymology and... was meant to have an entry on 'Κύκλωψ' (there are even cross-references to it), but infuriatingly it does not appear in the text! (An example of Brill's uselessness as an academic publisher). It is also missing from the online edition. It does have an entry on κύκλος, in which Beekes maintains that cognates in other IE languages indicate that the primary meaning of the root was 'wheel' not 'round'.

Montanari The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek (2015), sv. Κύκλωψ gives the etymology as [ κύκλος, ὤψ ?] which indicates that he has some doubt about the Hesiodic etymology. Furius (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year, everyone! I'm not a foe to etymology as such. What I dislike is disorganized repetition. I once spent most of two years sub-editing that out of an immense encyclopedia translated from the Chinese (which appears to be stylistically repetitive). Procedures on WP with anybody chipping in any-old-how make it difficult to maintain an encyclopedic tone and organisation, but perhaps an editorial "meeting" like our present discussion can help us arrive at some satisfactory vision. My reading of the progress on the article since about the middle of last year is that Paul August had some idea of what the article's shape should be before he got side-tracked. Where he'd arrived was a double consideration of both Hesiod and Homer, and the inclusion of etymological information split between the lede, one of the Hesiod sections and a short etymological snippet left dangling at the end. Can we all agree first, without subjecting the article any more to a death by a thousand cuts, about what belongs in an etymology section; and then, second, agree not to have any superfluous repetition of that material in the rest of the article? Sweetpool50 (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Felix sit annus novus! to us all. I agree with Sweetpool50, that disorganized repetition is a bad thing. However, I also think that a little organized repetition can be just the thing ;-) For example I have no problem with the lede repeating, by way of smmarizing, some of what's in the body, and I'm fine with the Hesiod quote being given both in an etymology section, and in as part of a longer quote in the "Hesiod" section. I'm fine with Sweetpool50's suggestion, of trying to come to agreement here, on the talk page, on the text of an "Etymology" section. My proposal for the starting text for this would be the paragraph I originally wrote, plus some of the modifications made by Bitwixen:

Hesiod, in the Theogony, provides an etymology for the name Cyclopes, explaining that they were called that "since a single circle-shaped eye was set in their foreheads". Hesiod's meaning of the name Cyclopes as "Circle-eyes" or "Round-eyes" is supported by a number of scholars, though other possible meanings, such as "wheel thief" and "cattle thief", have been suggested.

References

@Furius: Please add to this any content based on the informtion you've given above. I'd be happy about the addition of any new text that I could feel confident was well sourced. I'm still hopeful that Florian Blaschke will be able to contribute to this discussion.

Paul August ☎ 14:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly how it's supposed to work. The lead introduces important concepts in brief, and the body expands on them in detail, or introduces concepts too minor to be worth cluttering the lead with. Etymology is an important subject, worth mentioning in the lead, but only very briefly. If there's a widely-accepted etymology, or one in ancient sources (i.e. Hesiod), that could be mentioned without commentary in the lead, i.e. "'circle-eyes' or 'wheel-eyes', according to Hesiod", and then one of the first sections after the lead (or if it's not too long, a paragraph *in* the lead) could explain what the major theories about the etymology are (naturally indicating whether Hesiod's explanation is widely accepted or rejected by scholars). P Aculeius (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, sorry, I misremembered 'cattle' as 'sheep' in 2011. Unfortunately, I don't have access to Thieme's paper at home. See, however, this Google Books link to indirectly verify that Thieme proposed the reconstruction *pku-. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Here's a relevant quotation from Thieme's paper (kind thanks to Austronesier!): "Das Griechische scheint keine Spur des idg. *pek̑u aufgehoben zu haben, und Specht, o. LXVI 49 hat deshalb das Wort zu jenen gestellt, die nur den „Schnurkeramikern" eigentümlich gewesen seien und somit im Griechischen und seinen Vorstufen von je gefehlt hätten. Aber könnte nicht ein altes *pk̑u- in κύκλωψ, welches also eigentlich „Viehdieb" wäre, stecken?" --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: Thanks very much for this. I will probably have more to say about this later ... Paul August ☎ 13:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Nihil est; et felix sit annus novus omnibus. (I may have been confused by Italian pecora 'sheep' back then.) As a curious aside, the Google Books link above does work for me, but Burkert's footnote – while giving the suggested meaning as 'cattle-thief' – misreports Thieme's proposed reconstruction as *gʷu-klops (with a short -o-, which would yield Greek **γύκλοψ), with the noun that means specifically 'cattle, Bos taurus' rather than general 'livestock' – reminding me that the correct translation of Viehdieb is 'livestock-thief'. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

While I agree with the policy of requiring a reference for statements, the simple provision of one is not an automatic guarantee of their rightness. There has to be scholarly agreement as well. I mention this because there appears not be be general agreement on the origin and meaning of the name 'Cyclops'; indeed, some of the alternatives offered appear to be highly speculative. The etymology section therefore risks becoming a linguistic ramble right at the start of an article supposedly meant to cover the natural history of mythological beings and therefore appearing off-topic. Consequently, I do not agree that such a section should appear where it has now been moved; the article should begin with the literary accounts. Etymological speculation strikes me as being of the same kind and belonging with speculation that mammoth skulls may have originally suggested a race of one-eyed beings to the Greeks. It struck me, in addition, that the etymological section should not degenerate into a embroidered list of alternatives. Surely it will be sufficient to record that there has been some disgreement with Hesiod's explanation of the name and then to write a footnote detailing some of the (dubious) alternatives offered. It has been said more than once in these threads that Cyclopes are not 'real' creatures but are the stuff of legends subsequently recorded in writing. Greater weight should therefore be given to the accounts of Homer and Hesiod than to academics seeking to justify their tenure by showing off their argumentative skills. Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I’ve now gotten a copy of Thieme’s paper (I'd be glad to send a copy to anyone who wants one) and can verify that the quote given above by Florian Blaschke is accurate. For those (like me) whose German is not so great (I supposedly passed a so-called German test for my PHD many many years ago but alas ...), here is a Google-translate version:

Greek does not seem to have picked up any trace of the idg. *’’pek̑u’’, and Specht, o. LXVI 49, therefore put the word to those who were peculiar only to the "cord ceramists" and were therefore missing in Greek and its preliminary stages. But couldn't there be an old * pk̑u- in κύκλωψ, which would actually be a "cattle thief"?

This doesn’t quite make sense to me, any help interpreting this would be appreciated — I’m assuming that “idg.” is the German equivalent for “PIE”?

Burkert 1982, p. 157 n. 30 says:

The name 'Kyklops' should be revealing, but it is open to different interpretations. The ancient etymology 'wheel-eye' (since Hes. Theog. 145) is not too attractive; R. Schmitt (Dichtung and Dichtersprache in indogermanischer Zeit [Wiesbaden 1967] 168, cf. E. Risch Gnomen 41 [1969] 323) suggested 'wheel-thief,' *kyklo-klops, H. Thieme ZVS 69 (1951) 177f., g^u-klops, "cattle-thief' [where "^" is some symbol I can't make out, but which Florian Blaschke above reads as "ʷ"].

So there does seem to be some kind of error in Burkert's note, as Florian Blaschke has said above. I'm not quite sure yet what to do with any of this. I'm so far inclined to simply keep the current section the way it is.

I agree with Sweetpool50 that it's not necessarily sufficient that a single scholar has made an etymological speculation, rather there should be some sort of "scholarly agreement" in order to be included here. But, that's why Burkert's 1982 note seems important to me as the best source we currently have for the present state of scholarly opinon on the matter. Sweetpool50's concern also speaks to part of my issue with the new etymological speculation provided by Bitwixen (see the section just below here). As to the placement of the "Etymology" section, at the moment, I'm indifferent. I'm more interested in getting its content correct.

Paul August ☎ 23:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Nobody has ever claimed that Thieme's proposal is accepted as definitely correct or as fact by anyone, but it is taken seriously in academia and often mentioned, so it makes sense for us to mention it too. None of the suggested etymologies is obviously correct, and there is no agreement on the origin of the Cyclopes myth, so we can only list proposals which are mentioned or discussed in the relevant literature. The etymology is, of course, relevant to narrowing down the possibilities for the origin of the myth.

Let me provide a translation of the Thieme quotation:

"Greek does not seem to have preserved any trace of PIE *pek̑u, and Specht [...] has therefore placed the word with those which were peculiar to the Corded Ware people and were therefore missing in Greek and its ancestral stages from the beginning on. But could not an old *pk̑u- be hidden in κύκλωψ, which would then originally mean „livestock-thief"?"

The Corded Ware part is difficult to understand, but seems to refer to a theory in which a certain number of branches of Indo-European, but not Greek, derive from whatever dialects the people associated with the Corded Ware archaeological culture spoke. (It is considered virtually certain that the Corded Ware is primarily associated with prehistorical Indo-European dialects, and that it included an ancestral stage of Germanic and most likely further branches, but further specifics are uncertain.)

After this part, a detailed supporting argument follows, lifting the proposal beyond mere speculation, but it's too much work to copy and translate for me right now.

As for the symbol in question, it is a superscript ⟨u̯⟩, but I rendered it, for simplicity, with the IPA symbol ⟨ʷ⟩, which is now more commonly used in PIE reconstructions. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: Thanks for this. Yes, as you say, Thieme's proposal (more than just a mere suggestion, as I now see) is taken seriously. That was the point I was trying to make by citing as an example Burkert's mention of Thieme's etymology. And that's why I think Thieme's "cattle-thief" is worth mentioning in the article, as we do in the current section. Do you think we should say more than we currently do about Thieme's proposal? If so could you please suggest a rewording of that section? My one concern would be not to emphasize Thieme's proposal over the later suggestion (proposal?) of Schmitt’s “wheel-thief”. So if we were to mention Thieme by name, we should probably also mention Schmitt by name as well. One possibility would be to expand our note which currently reads:

"See Burkert 1982, p. 157 n. 30, which describing Hesiod's etymology as "not too attractive", gives other interpretations."

to read instead:

"See Burkert 1982, p. 157 n. 30, which describing Hesiod's etymology as "not too attractive", mentions other suggested etymologies: "wheel-thief", citing "R. Schmitt (Dichtung and Dichtersprache in indogermanischer Zeit [Wiesbaden 1967] 168, cf. E. Risch Gnomen 41 [1969] 323)", and "cattle-thief", citing "H. Thieme ZVS 69 (1951) 177f.".

Paul August ☎ 12:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Paul August: Looks good to me! However, note that, as mentioned, Burkert's translation 'cattle-thief' for Viehdieb is inaccurate, and it should be 'livestock-thief' instead. PIE *pek̑u- means 'livestock (German: Vieh)', only PIE *gʷow- means specifically 'cattle (German: Rind, Hausrind), i.e. Bos taurus'. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: I now have access to another work: Douglas Frame, The Myth of Return in Early Greek Epic, Yale University Press, 1978 (see the section just below this one, Frame's book can be borrowed for 14 days from the Internet Archive here) which discusses Thieme's proposal. This is some of what Frame, p. 68, has to say:

Paul Thieme has proposed a third derivation.⁵⁸ He posits an original form *Pku-klōps, meaning "cattle-thief." In this case, the first element of the compound would descend from Indo-European *pku-, a zero-grade of *peku, "cattle."⁵⁹ Thieme argues the existence of the Indo-European zero-grade on the basis of Vedic and Avestan compunds, in which the meaning "cattle" had been forgotten, but for which Thieme's reconstruction is convincing.⁶⁰

58. P. Thieme, "Etymologische Vexierbilder," Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 69 (1951): 177-78 [= Kleine Schriften (wiesbaden, 1971), 1:62-63].

59. The meaning in Indo-European seems in fact to have been "movable property" rather than "cattle"; cf. n. 64 below.

60. In addition to the article cited above (n. 58), see also P. Thieme, Beiträge zur Vedaexegese, 2. śurúdh," Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 95 (1941): 338 ff. [= Kleine Schriften 1:42 ff.].

Paul August ☎ 12:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, 'cattle-thief' is definitely inaccurate for Viehdieb. (Thieme mentions a Rinderdieb too, but referring to a Latin myth about a figure called Cacus.) Thieme adduces, among another things, the fact that the Cyclopes "besitzen große Herden von Schafen und Ziegen (pek̑u), i. e. 'have large herds of sheep and goats (pek̑u)', clearly distinguishing between Viehdieb and Rinderdieb and between cattle (*gʷow-) and livestock in the wider sense, including sheep and goats (*pek̑u-). I'm not sure how to make it any clearer that 'cattle(-thief)' is plainly an erroneous translation here, pace Burkert and Frame. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: Despite Burkert and Frame, I'm now convinced that "livestock-thief" is what Thieme meant and wrote. But I'm not yet sure what exactly we should do about it.Paul August ☎ 13:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Paul August: How about a clarifying footnote? I don't think using a dictionary qualifies as OR. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: Would you like to suggest a rewording of that section? Paul August ☎ 13:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Paul August: I was thinking of something like a footnote after "cattle-thief", saying, roughly, "Thieme gives German Viehdieb as his suggested translation, which is accurately translated as 'livestock-thief'". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: Yes, but I think we would need to cite a source for the translation of 'livestock-thief'. Paul August ☎ 14:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

German is not exactly an obscure language. I think this observation is in WP:BLUE territory, but a dictionary could always be referenced. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: No, not exactly obscure ;-) But I was thinking more of a source which interprets Thieme (as you do, and now I do) as using Viehdieb to mean "livestock-thief" as distinct from "cattle-thief". In fact, I'm now of the mind, that the distinction may not really be very important (which could explain Burkert and Frame).

As for dictionaries, I'm so far not finding them particularly useful. My 1962 New Cassell's German Dictionary (a German to English dictionary) gives: Vieh, n. cattle, beast, livestock ... -diebstahl, m. cattle-stealing", with no entry for "Viehdieb" itself. Several online dictionaris give "rustler" as the first meaning (which seems equivalent to the generic "livestock-thief"), but also give "cattle-thief" as another meaning, while some give "cattle-thief" as the first meaning. Paul August ☎ 15:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: There is also (thanks to Furius who pointed this out above, but I've only just now seen) Egbert J. Bakker, The Meaning of Meat and the Structure of the Odyssey, CUP (2013) p. 69:

"The name Κύκλωψ (kύκλ-ωψ) is known to the Hesiodic tradition as referring to the single κυκλοτερὴς ὀφθαλμός, 'circular eye', lying in the Cyclopes' foreheads (Hes. Theog. 143-5). Modern comparative liguistics has proposed a different etymology: kύ-κλωψ, derived from *pku-klōps (with otherwise unattested reflex of Indo-European pek̑u): "cattle-thief."²⁹

²⁹ Thieme 1951: 177-8.

Pace indeed. Paul August ☎ 18:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, fair, in the grand scheme of things it's probably not that important. But *pek̑u- definitely refers to non-bovid domesticated animals as well, or even primarily – rather, sheep, especially, also in light of the etymology – the lexeme is derived from *pek̑- 'to pluck (wool, hair)'. To my mind, that's a relevant difference. Shrug. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: I agree that the distinction has relevance. Shall we write a paper together? Paul August ☎ 12:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Paul August: I can comment on a draft of yours and suggest changes and additions; they might end up extensive enough that you may consider naming me as a co-author. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: Not anytime soon I'm afraid ;-) As I've said above not really my area of expertise. By the way what do you think of the current rewrite (see below)? Paul August ☎ 12:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

"Wheel of the sun" in the etymology section

I added a possible suggestion of the derivation of the name “Cyclopes". It is added to other possibilities and ideas in the section. It comes from a reliable source, author Douglas Frame in his book The Myth of Return in Early Greek Epic. Yale University Press. 1978. It is an etymological idea that has been discussed by other scholars. The content was deleted with the request that it be discussed on this page. So I have opened this section for that discussion.Bitwixen (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

No objections from me—it seems reasonable on its face. Maybe one of the others sees an issue? Oh, and perhaps it would be a good idea to note that "wheel" may be an interchangeable concept with "round" and "circle" in the etymology, if any of the sources make that connection clearer. Presumably that's where the idea of "wheel thief" comes from, even if we don't necessarily find "thief" in the word. "Wheel eye" makes as much sense as "round eye" or "circle eye" to me, so it seems like a logical possibility. Do any of the sources support this? P Aculeius (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bitwixen: Could you tell us please what exactly Frames says? And point us to the other scholars who discuss this idea? Thanks, Paul August ☎ 20:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Paul August, I will try to respond to your request, however, the passage in Frame is lengthy and complex with meanings interwoven, and it would be a huge undertaking to report exactly on everything Frame is saying. But bear with me, and I’ll do what I can — though I certainly won’t do it justice. His book itself is findable (with an interlibrary loan in my case).

Frame in this chapter of his book considers the symbolism of the sun as it occurs in three episodes in Homer: The Ciconians, the Cyclops, and the Laestrygonians. Frame considers the Cyclops episode to be most important in light of his theme (the sun). He compares and contrasts these episodes with two other ancient sources.

Frame says that the role of the sun is important in understanding the Cyclops, but how it is important is disputed. The question of the role of the sun centers on the etymology of the name Kúklōps. Recent scholars have proposed three derivations, and each of these, in one way or another, involves the sun. Frame discusses one derivation by Paul Thieme (“cattle-thief” as mentioned by editor Florian Blaschke) and another by Rüdiger Schmitt (“robber of the sun’s wheel”).

Eventually, Frame says that philologist and mythologist Adalbert Kuhn (in Die Herabkunft des Feuers und des Göttertrankes) suggests that the first part of the name kúklos be considered in connection with the idea of “wheel of the sun”, which is an Indo-European expression for the sun itself, to judge by the similar phrases cakrám sṹryasya in Vedic Sanskrit, sunnan hwéol in Old English, and kúklos hēlíou in ancient Greek. The connection with the sun would explain why the Cyclops has only one eye — he represents the sun itself. This feature is otherwise left unexplained since eyes (all eyes) generally are circular. Plus the description “circle-eyed” does not imply one eye as opposed to two. Kuhn’s argument has been attacked because it seems to have little to do with the Cyclops as depicted by Homer. (see R. Schmitt, Dichtung und Dichtersprache in indogermanischer Zeit & H. Frisk, Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch). But these attacks are not justified (Frame says). The fact that the Cyclops is a murderous monster accords well with the sunset aspect of solar mythology. Presumably, it is this that has eluded scholars, otherwise the Cyclops, entering his cave by night and leaving it by day, is an apt symbol for the sun. Frame considers Kuhn’s explanation is probably the correct one. I hope that helps, Paul. Bitwixen (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

If we're to search through Primitive IE for a solar cattle-thief (morning clouds being "the flocks of the sun" in ancient Indian hymns), then we need to chase the Cyclopes through the Sanskrit of the Vedas, the Mahabharata, and the Puranas (the Indian Theogonies). It has long been recognised that the oldest strands of Ancient Greek myth are also to be found in ancient Indian texts. So if we're looking for scholastic confirmation, that's where we ought to find it. And don't forget too that for Hesiod the Cyclopes are artificers rather than herders - and there's definitely a divine smith (Tvastr) in the Vedas whom they might be found serving. Sweetpool50 (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bitwixen: Thanks very much for your account of some of what Frame has said. This makes me more inclined to include some mention of this idea. I will try to get Frame's book. Paul August ☎ 12:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Paul August: So if I restore the information, that seems to make sense, and of course it can always be edited if anyone sees fit to do that. Bitwixen (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bitwixen: Fine. I've now gotten a copy of Frame's book. It has been very revealing. Thanks again for finding that and making me aware of it. I now have a better understanding of several points, and I now think that entire section needs rewriting a bit. I will try to get to that as soon as I can. Paul August ☎ 12:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)