Talk:Cyclopes/Archive 2

Added more Real-Life Refrences
Just added Artemis Fowl addition to Real-Life References. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.delanoy (talk • contribs) 15:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I object to repeated mass-deleting large volumes of content
This is the third time this month that a form of “mass editing” has improperly occurred, without proper discussion or explanation. (Three times — that suggests edit warring.) There is an ongoing discussion (on this talk page) regarding a fundamental question:  What is this article about? And that appears to be what is behind the mass-deletions. To resolve this discussion may at some point call for some kind of further “dispute resolution”. But I think that would be premature as long as the discussion has been for the most part occurring reasonably, and as long as new arguments continue to be raised. This discussion has involved few editors. Wikipedia discourages repeatedly editing to insist on a certain point-of-view, it encourages discussion and consensus-building when it comes to “controversial” content. The recent deletions are attempts to insist on one point-of-view in the discussion. I have restored the deleted content. - Bitwixen (talk) 13:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Disputes over content are resolved by editorial consensus (see WP:CONSENSUS). Two editors,, and myself believe that this content violates WP:OFFTOPIC, and WP:UNDUE, and is better covered in the article Polyphemus. So there is currently no consensus for your point of view. Please stop reverting to your preferred version of this article, doing so (as you seem to know given your link above) is edit warring. If you continue to editwar against consensus your account can be blocked from editing (see WP:BLOCK). Instead discussion can still take place here, perhaps you will convince us of your point of view, or perhaps other editors will see things your way (see also WP:CONTENTDISPUTE for other things you can try to do to resolve this). In the meantime, by Wikipedia policy, the article should remain without this new content, until there is a consensus for these changes you're trying to make. In this regard you should also read WP:BRD). You need to stop reverting to your preferred version, or an administrator may block your account from editing (by the way I'm an administrator, although I won't block you since I'm involved in the content dispute, but you should understand that I do know what I'm talking about with regard to Wikipedia policies). Paul August &#9742; 15:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The reverting editor was the one who destablised the article after seventeen years of development between agreed parameters. If he feels that its focus should now be widened to include extended treatment of named Cyclopes that already have separate WP articles dedicated to them, it is up to him to gain consensus before adding such material., you're an administrator. Do you consider that this matter should now be taken to arbitration, discussed by a wider forum, or reported as edit-warring against consensus? Sweetpool50 (talk) 14:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * It depends on what chooses to do next. If they heed my warnings above and stop edit warring, then no wider forum is yet needed. Some resolution might come about through more discussion here (which I'm happy to continue with). The involvement of more editors might help. Asking editors at WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome to join the discussion, might be a good idea (i'd be willing to do that). If, on the other hand Bitwixen were to continue to edit war without consensus, then other more drastic steps might be needed. Paul August &#9742; 15:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I've now invited editors at WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome to join this discussion. Paul August &#9742; 19:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Please feel free to move this reply to the most appropriate part of this discussion, since it seems to have trifurcated, and from the look of it, it might continue furcating. I agree with Paul August on this. The disputed content makes much more sense in the article about Polyphemus than it does here; that "cyclops romance" was a theme in some classical literature might be worth mentioning, but considering that Polyphemus' fame rests more on his confrontation with Odysseus than on the wooing of Galatea, it's not a very good idea to focus on the latter before the former has been mentioned. Bitwixen, I've worked with Paul August on other articles, and always found him to be fair and open-minded. He wouldn't be deleting the section if there were a good reason to keep it here. But content generally belongs where it makes the most sense, and while it's okay for some content to be duplicated between articles, sometimes it just doesn't make a lot of sense to go into detail about individual members of a class (cyclopes) in an article about the class in general. I suggest that you may find that a more flexible, collaborative approach to editing makes the encyclopedia better for both editors and users. P Aculeius (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * It is improper to make massive controversial deletions to an article without first proposing the changes, and discussing them. This is according to WP:CAUTIOUS.  This mass removal of content is the topic of a recent on-going discussion on the talk page.  The editor should discuss, and propose, and should not insist on his point-of-view.  I have restored the content.  Please see the talk page section “I object to repeated mass-deleting large volumes of content”.  If the content, which was created by more than one editor, is removed during an on-going discussion, it creates a difficult problem when the content is then mischaracterized, and when editors are then expected to consider the missing content. - Bitwixen (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I have reversed you again since it was clearly against the new consensus of editors with a specialised interest in Classical matters and longer experience of Wikipedia. For an encyclopedia to work it requires co-operation between editors, and that depends on listening to each other rather than insisting on one's own point of view in the teeth of all the evidence. I note that only joined our community in December 2018 and largely concentrated on other and (relatively) more modern matters in his earlier edits. It would have been better if, instead of declaring an edit-war, he had taken up the suggestion to avail himself of mentoring, where he would have been given the advice to walk away from this issue and count it as a learning experience. There has been a clear warning from  of the consequences that will follow on his recent action, which no amount of WP:Wikilawyering makes defensible. Instead of trying to score minor debating points, the editor would do better to read and learn from the guidelines cited so often in these threads. Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I would rather focus on the merits of his argument than on the level of his experience and familiarity with this project. While previous involvement and experience are not irrelevant, they're easily overstated, and the whole point of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it.  If the edits are good edits, or even if the gist of them belongs in this article and can be saved by revision, then they shouldn't be deleted simply because the editor isn't "one of us" (whatever group we see ourselves as).  Now, on the merits I think that this material belongs in Polyphemus, and not here.  Allude to it in brief because it's an important part of cyclops lore, but a detailed discussion of one particular cyclops in various myths and sources is better treated in the article on that cyclops.  Although I will agree with the suggestion that Bitwixen might want to tone it down a bit and try to work with other editors instead of insisting that whatever they do is against whatever policies he can come up with.  Even if you think you're right about a particular point, you can't expect to get anywhere without consensus—and clearly the consensus is against you.  Plus, the material you want to save isn't being deleted, but merged into a more appropriate article.  Is it productive to crusade against doing so?  P Aculeius (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your comment. I respectfully don’t quite agree that Polyphemus represents “one particular cyclops”, because the name Polyphemus is used in a variety of cyclopes characters— from Homer to Ovid.  I’m concerned that if a student or reader comes to this page to look up the unique and obscene Polyphemus that plays a significant role in Aristophanes — that student or reader will find not a single mention of that cyclops in this article.  Nothing at all -- because of the mass deletion that is the subject of this section.  And the same can be said of the cyclops found in Philoxenus of Cythera, Theocritus, and many other works.  It seems incorrect to come to an article titled “Cyclopes” and not find a single mention of important examples.  And that student or researcher may not know to look further in Wikipedia.  They may have come here to learn the name of the monster.  This is why mass editing should not be done without first proposing it so it can be discussed — as suggested in the guidelines. - Bitwixen (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. Just because different stories about Polyphemus are told by different writers doesn't mean that they're all describing different beings.  That's simply absurd.  If we found the names of numerous cyclopes in different myths, then perhaps you might credibly posit that different myths about a cyclops named "Polyphemus" might represent different individuals, since many names from Greek myth were reused for other persons or beings—though rarely is there evidence of two clearly distinct individuals sharing a name within the same group—there could be a river god named "Polyphemus" or a warrior at the siege of Troy, but it's not particularly likely that there'd be two or more distinct cyclopes with the same name, and there would need to be more persuasive evidence than that each source presents Polyphemus with a different character.  But even supposing you could demonstrate that they were different individuals—that our list of cyclopes should read, "Arges, Brontes, Steropes, Pyracmon, Acmonides, Polyphemus, Polyphemus, Polyphemus, Polyphemus, and Polyphemus"—this article still wouldn't be the place for a rundown on the individual myths associated with each one.  That would be like requiring that an article on the Olympians to include a summary of all the major myths associated with each of the Olympians individually.
 * And you still don't get the point: useful, verifiable material is not being "mass deleted". Anything relevant and not purely duplicative is being distributed among the relevant articles—in this case the one on Polyphemus.  That doesn't mean that the material has to be used exactly as you wrote it—just that logical, useful material isn't being discarded from the encyclopedia.  Now there's been a ton of discussion on the talk page, and nobody else seems to think that this article is the right place for the excised paragraphs.  You can't be arguing that the material has to be restored because the discussion took place after it was deleted, because then it could simply be deleted again due to the discussion that's already occurred.  Throwing up roadblocks and tying up other editors' time and energy isn't going to lead to your preferred result.  I strongly suggest that you accept the opinions of the other editors who've weighed in, and focus on improving the content of articles, instead of fighting tooth and nail for results that go against common sense and the editorial consensus.  P Aculeius (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * There are indeed differences, aren’t there? One Polyphemus plays music poorly, another Polyphemus plays music very well, another doesn’t play music at all.  There are differences in sexual appetites, in dancing abilities.  And I don’t think that I have suggested a list or “a rundown on the individual myths associated with each one”, as you mentioned.  I did mentioned “major examples”.  Also we are not discussing material “exactly as I wrote it” — we’re discussing material that I contributed to, but was written also by others.  I’m suggesting that if you do a bold mass deletion, it needs to be discussed, according to the guidelines.  But if instead we all decide not to follow the rules, it doesn’t benefit Wikipedia.  I feel that there have been a lot of various opinions and good suggestions for this article by others here.  You seem to be upset, and I in no way meant for that, I thought I was replying considerately, and respecting and taking seriously what you had to say. - Bitwixen (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There has been ample discussion. You seem to misunderstand the situation. The begining of the BRD cycle ocurred on 10 November 2019 with this bold edit. I objected to this massive addition here, and began a discussion on this talk page above titled "Philoxenus' poem Cyclops". However, in violation of BRD, you simple reverted me. You are now continuing to edit war against the consensus of five other editors. So it is you who are not following the rules. Paul August &#9742; 13:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * What says he wants is covered by the extra section that we agreed to write prior to transferring his content. It is still there under the title "Transformations of Polyphemus" with a redirect from it to the Polyphemus article. Can it be that the editor has not bothered to read it? Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * All modern scholarly opinion, cited in our article Polyphemus, consider the Polyphemus in Homer, Philoxenus of Cythera, Aristophanes, Theocritus, Callimachus, Hermesianax, Bion of Smyrna, Propertius, Ovid, Lucian and others, as various treatments of the same Cyclops, not as 10 or more different Cyclopes. To assume otherwise would be absurd. Paul August &#9742; 13:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Sweetypool, you say you transferred "my content" -- it's not "my content" you transferred, it was content that I may have contributed to, I was not the only one, and in it's final form it is not something I would put my name on. I would've written it differently. Paul August you say "All modern scholarly opinion"?  That is certainly not true.  Paul, can you find a source that supports your opinion? - Bitwixen (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Rewrite of "Etymology" section
As I wrote above, I have been unhappy with the "Etymology" section, which caused me to keep it "relegated to the bottom of the article" (while I dithered ;-) Now, thanks to Frames' book (and ), Thieme's paper (and ), and Bakker's book (and ), I understand a lot more than I did when I first wrote this section. And now I see even more issues with the section than before, and I think that it needs rewriting. I hope to provide some of this rewrite shortly.

In addition, after the etymology section was recently moved to the beginning of the article, wrote above:
 * The etymology section ... 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.

I respect Sweetpool50's opinion. Moreover I think the needed rewrite risks making the the section even more of a "linguistic ramble". So, while we continue to discuss and work on this section, I think it would be best to move it down again to a less prominent position in the article. So that's what I intend to do. Paul August &#9742; 12:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Here, now is my promised rewrite:
 * For the ancient Greeks the name "Cyclopes" meant "Circle-eyes" or "Round-eyes", derived from the Greek kúklos ("circle") and ops ("eye"). This meaning can be seen as early as Hesiod's Theogony (8th – 7th century BC), which explains that the Cyclopes were called that "since a single circle-shaped eye was set in their foreheads”. Adalbert Kuhn, expanding on Hesiod's etymology, proposed a connection between the first element kúklos (which can also mean "wheel") and the "wheel of the sun", producing the meaning "wheel (of the sun)-eyes". Other etymologies have been proposed which derive the second element of the name from the Greek klops ("thief") producing the meanings "wheel-thief" or "cattle-thief". Although Walter Burkert has described Hesiod's etymology as "not too attractive", Hesiod's explanation still finds acceptance by modern scholars.

Comments? Paul August &#9742; 10:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's much better. Thankyou, . What I particularly like is the way this sticks to the subject without overmuch rambling. I can record now my disquiet about some of the academic theories being bandied about, which are largely a matter of speculation. It links with my disquiet over how the policy on reputable sources is put to use. The speculations of scholars remain as speculation, no matter who is author or publisher. In the context of the article on Cyclopes here, all it can be legitimately based on are the texts and ancient scholia - along with recent discoveries of alternative versions which must diminish our trust of received editions. Looking at some of the citations, it is obvious that not enough weight is being given to the fact that we are dealing with oral material to which the application of auteur readings is inappropriate (as in the case of one scholar, at least). It is of passing interest that the origin of the term kuklops may be this or that, but our real focus should be on what Greeks (rather than ancient IE tribes) understood by the term and their subsequent development of the subject. Sweetpool50 (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. By the way, Ancient Greek ops can also mean 'face', and Aithiops is traditionally interpreted as 'having a burnt face', so I wonder why it was never proposed that Kuklops originally meant 'having a round face' and was only secondarily interpreted to refer to a round eye. And even if it meant 'eye' all along, 'having round eyes' is another possible translation. When did people start to insist that Cyclopes had a single eye? (Apparently Hesiod started it, and Homer doesn't say anything specific about the appearance of the Cyclopes?) Just a thought. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Basically, Hesiod's description is very peculiar and not the most natural, literal interpretation of Kuklops. You'd expect something like 'having a wheel/circle-face/eye', which could mean lots of other things. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes you are right Hesiod is the first known mention of one-eyedness, and Homer doesn't say directly that Polyphemus is one-eyed, but the story of his blinding seems to require it. Fowler 2013, p. 55 has something interesting to say on this point:
 * It has long been a puzzle what Polyphemus and his fellow Kyklopes have to do with the smiths of the Titanomachy, and as early as Hellanikos (fr. 88) scholars have declared that these are quite different groups; Hellanikos distinguished also the Mycenaean builders as a tribe unto themselves.212 But as we have seen the Mycenaean builders are not very different from the heavenly craftsman; the real puzzle is the Odyssean lot. We should probably recognize the free invention of the an epic poet. The one-eyed cannibalistic monster from whom the clever hero escapes is an extremely widespread folktale213. which Homer or a predecessor has worked into the Odyssey. The link could have been the name. Perhaps 'Kyklopes' is a Greek calque on some foreign word&mdash;an all-too-easy hypothesis, of course&mdash;but if it is, the name, once invented, would instantly suggest the appearance (already in Hesiod, Th. 143). The appearance once established,214 linking the Kyklopes with the one-eyed ogre of folktale would be easy.
 * 214 The appearance would follow on the name rather than vice-versa, which might explain why early Greek art is uncertain about the appearance of these monsters; they do not always have but one eye. Homer himself is strangely silent about it; it becomes clear only when Odysseus hatches his plot.
 * Paul August &#9742; 14:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the interesting quotation! Okay, but I still think Thieme makes remarkable points (like that all eyes are round; Monops would be a more natural name for a one-eyed monster), and the idea that Kuklopes were not always thought of as one-eyed, and that their name originally meant something different from Hesiod's interpretation, makes a lot of sense and is not pure speculation, pace Sweetpool50. There are definitely difficulties and puzzling points that deserve to be taken seriously. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

“Legends of the Caucasus” Redux
, above in his list “Other matters” wrote: "I think the 'Legends of the Caucasus' section belongs in Polyphemus' article, not this one." I agree with Furius that this content is out of place here. Note however that the inclusion of this section has been discussed above. The most recent discussion can be found here: Talk:Cyclopes/Archive 1. For more context see also (in reverese chronological order) Talk:Cyclopes, and Talk:Cyclopes/Archive 1.

You can read my reasons above, but let me try to briefly restate them here. The "legends" discussed in this section are part of an oral tradition, from the Caucausus, first written down beginning in the 1890s, which contain stories of one-eyed monsters similar to the story of Polyphemus' encounter with Odysseus in the Odyssey. These stories are a small part of a large number of similar tales from all over the world. Here is what our article on Polyphemus has to say about such stories:


 * 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.

Notice that the mention of such stories from the Caucasus are mentioned in passing in footnote 5, which seems about the right amount of coverage to me. To have three paragraphs, on a small part of a tradition of stories related to a specific Cyclops in Greek mythology Polyphemus, in an article devoted to Cyclopes in Greek mythology in general, seems excessive, and in conflict with WP:UNDUE and WP:OFFTOPIC.

To those of you who have participated in the previous discussions above, or who have shown a more recent interest in this article (and of course to any others as well), I invite comments.

Paul August &#9742; 18:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have any strong opinion on whether the content should be included in this article and Polyphemus, or just one or the other, but if we are including it, we should definitely include content on Cyclopes in non-Greek folktales more broadly than just those from the Caucasus – it would be undue weight to privilege the folktales of the Caucasus over those of any other area for no apparent reason. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I think we should avoid redundancy, and only include it here, where it seems more natural, since Polyphemus is not the only example of a Cyclops. We can still add a pointer to the section at Polyphemus. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that the folktales aren't based on Homer, since the common theme is just a variation on the Polyphemus story, and over many centuries Homeric themes would have diffused throughout the old world, with individual details or the context of the story easily lost or modified. But even if we suppose that they could predate Homer, they're still basically the Polyphemus myth.  So it makes more sense to me to cover the details there, and leave a shorter paragraph here pointing to it.  P Aculeius (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with . To go blathering on about a one-eyed ogre not named Polyphemus in the article devoted to him, and only speculatively connected with the Homer story, would be WP:OFFTOPIC. Sweetpool50 (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * However, such information might fit as a subsection of the Transformations of Polyphemus section of the article here, possibly with a bit of rewriting so as to make clear that in both Greek literature and oral traditions elsewhere the story has been varied to fit different cultural and temporal contexts. Would that win your Nihil obstat, and others? Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all for your comments above. Here are some responses:


 * I agree with, that, per WP:UNDO, if we were to keep this section it would need to contain content on all non-Greek one-eyed monster stories, not just the Caucasus versions. Is anyone willing to write this?


 * Although, says we should keep this section here, since "Polyphemus is not the only Cyclops", I would point out that Polyphemus is the only Cyclops having a story similar to these stories from the Caucasus. These stories from the Caucasus, are not just one-eyed monster stories, they are stories about one-eyed cannabalistic shepherds who are tricked by a hero. They are part of the tradition that scholars describes as "Polyphemus legends" or the "Polyphemus Folktale". Here's more of what Heubeck and Hoekstra, p. 19 on lines 105–556 says:


 * "Polyphemus legends were told and retold almost throughout the ancient world; modern scholarship has identified well over two hundred different versions; cf. most recently J Glenn. 'The Polyphemus Folktale and Homer's Kyklopeia', TAPbA cii (1971), 133-85, who gives an extensive bibliography; Germain, Genèse, 55-129 gives the North African parallels. It is of course possible that some of the other versions, which were of course recorded only relatively late are ultimately dependent on Homer; see e.g. ... Most scholars, however, quite rightly reject this view; cf. ... Glenn, loc. cit."


 * I agree with, that all these stories, "are basically the Polyphemus myth". So, like P Aculeius, I think that to the extent that we cover this content at all in one of these two articles "Cyclopes" or "Polyphemus", it should be in our Polyphemus article, not this one.


 * I agree with : "To go blathering on about a one-eyed ogre not named Polyphemus in the article devoted to him, and only speculatively connected with the Homer story, would be WP:OFFTOPIC." But I don’t think that is what either I or P. Aculeius are saying ;-) What I’m saying is that, while adding all this content on the Caucasus versions of these ”Polyphemus legends” to “Polyphemus” would certainly be off topic, it would be even more off topic to leave it here in our “Cyclopes” article. So obsto I’m afraid :-(

Here's my suggestion:
 * 1. Leave the Polyphemus article essentially as is (since I think the coverage there on these non-Greek stories is adequate)
 * 2. Remove this content from this article (since I think it violates WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:UNDU)
 * 3. Find a better home for this content (at Caucasus, or it’s own article?)

Comments? Paul August &#9742; 15:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Still, it's best to avoid redundancies while also keeping the content easily findable for the reader. How about adding a pointer to the content in this article and perhaps leaving a short summary of it? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, if this content ends up somewhere else, we need to consider how best to find it. An entry at Cyclopes (disambiguation) would be appropriate. In addition some sort of pointer at "Polyphemus" and at this article might also be appropriate. Paul August &#9742; 16:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the idea of removing content from this article, when the content is clearly about Cyclopes, and is properly supported. This article should be encyclopedic on the topic.  The Caucasus cyclopes legends are part of an oral tradition like no other — it predates Homer, coincides with Homer, follows Homer, and still continues.  It diminishes this article to exclude it.  A student or reader that comes to this article should find information on the cyclopes of the Caucasus (and of Philoxenus of Cythera, Aristophanes, and Theocritus, to name others), and should certainly not expect to find it hidden away for some reason in a more obscurely title article that seems to be acting as a kind of gutter for this article.  This article needs work.  The lead section, for example, is a randomly cluttered hodgepodge, that includes erroneous and unsourced content.  Wikipedia works best when it the content is strictly sourced.  Other editors have seen the need for a better organization of this article.  I agree.Bitwixen (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The current editorial consensus is against including this content here. Incorporating it elsewhere, in say the article on the Caucasus, or the Polyphemus article, is not "hiding" it, nor are these articles "gutters". Paul August &#9742; 11:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Based upon the above discussion, the current editorial consensus seems to favor removing this content, so I intend to do so. Besides Bitwixen, are there any other editors who have any objections to this? Paul August &#9742; 11:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * There is not a consensus to make such an edit, especially an edit that is so extreme that would delete an entire section. The idea of removing this section has been met with controversy.  This section has been in the article for a long time.  What are the reasons for deleting the section?  Paul August (just above) offers as one “reason”:  That there are stories from Caucasus region that have similarities to Homer’s Cyclopes.  That’s not a reason to delete the section, that might be a reason to keep it.   Next he offers another “reason”:  That having three paragraphs on this topic seems excessive.  That also isn’t a reason to delete an entire section, it’s an argument about how many paragraphs should be in it.  That's it.  So what are the reasons for deleting the section?  I can’t find any in this talk page section.  When he says “Besides Bitwixen, are there any other editors…”  There are others, and there may well may be others who do not happen to be attending this talk page section at this moment.  So, let’s not rush to judgement.  Paul August also misstates the case when he suggests that the Cyclopes of the Caucasus region are all related to Polyphemus.  That is certainly not true.  It would be wrong to delete a section based in any part on false claims.  I don’t have time at the moment to write this, so I am writing quickly, but I have more to say, and I will try to get back to this later.Bitwixen (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * It might have been better to wait for responses to the above before deleting the section—it was gone before I received my notification. In any case, while I find Bitwixen's arguments unpersuasive, I do think that some mention of the topic needs to be in this article, even if it's very brief.  It doesn't need to be a whole section or three paragraphs long, because it's just directing readers to the relevant discussion in "Polyphemus".  But readers who don't realize that the Caucasus legends, at least as summarized yesterday, were nothing more than variations on Odysseus' encounter with Polyphemus—repeated by people who had forgotten the details and context of the story—should have some way of making that connection.  Frankly, it doesn't matter if the variation substitutes "two brothers" for Odysseus and his men, or calls him "One-Eye" or "Fred".  It's clearly derivative, not an independent tradition, which is why it goes under "Polyphemus", and not here.  Now if there were stories about, say, "the cyclops who went hunting for wolf pelts in the mountains and found millions of cats" or "Murgatroyd the cyclops and the magic pearl", then there would be a case to leave an independent section here.  But having moved the discussion to "Polyphemus", there still needs to be a clear mention of the topic here, linking to the relevant section of "Polyphemus".  P Aculeius (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with much of what you say, but, with respect, many of the Cyclopes stories that come out of the Caucasus mountains are not at all connected to Homer’s cyclopes. For example, the cyclopes who for his impudence was chained to the top of a mountain and his heart pecked at by an eagle.   There are other example, including the Circassian stories of one-eyed giants.  It is also suggested by some scholars that some of the stories may share a common source with Homer.   These stories have been neglected by scholars, translators and researchers, and they have been assumed to be random disconnected stories, until recent decades, when enough of them have been recorded — that it is being discovered that many stories can be formed into longer sagas.  A reader that comes to Wikipedia, having heard of a Mongolian cyclopes story, or a Circassian cyclopes story — that come from the Caucasus Mountains, would not think to look under an article on Prometheus.  And why should they? - Bitwixen (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Provided appropriate sourcing for the Prometheus story being told of a cyclops, that certainly would merit some kind of discussion—mostly in the "Prometheus" article, but a pointer here would seem justified as well. But you could easily combine the mentions of Polyphemus and Prometheus and perhaps two or three distinct other examples into a single paragraph here, pointing at the individual articles that discuss them at greater length.  Obviously from its title, this is the principal article about cyclopes, but that doesn't mean it has to be a repository for every fact and tale that's been told—so far most of the details are clearly derivative of Greek myths better discussed elsewhere.  It may be that there should be a separate article about such stories, or a particular group of them—but the section being reduced or removed here gives them undue weight.  As with all things, the key is moderation.  A general article about cyclopes shouldn't contain every detail or reuse of the theme—that can be done appropriately elsewhere, and pointers left here in the form of brief mentions—just enough to steer readers to the relevant articles.  If you can reconcile yourself to that, you should find other editors like Paul August or myself perfectly happy to accommodate a reasonable—read succinct—mention here.  P Aculeius (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything says here. In english there is the proper noun "Cyclopes" (hence capitalized) which refers to the particluar one-eyed creatures in Greek mythology. There is also a common noun "cyclops" which is sometimes used to refer to any one-eyed creature. As currently written this article is about the "Cyclopes" in Greek mythology. It is not about all one-eyed creatures. For a list of such creatures see: List of one-eyed creatures in mythology and fiction. We could expand the topic of the article to include all one-eyed creatures, or more reasonably say, just all such creatures in mythology (and folklore etc., leaving out one-eyed creatures in fiction). I don't think this is a good idea, but if we did, we would have to cover all such creatures in a balanced way, not just cover one-eyed creatures from the Caucasus, and we would have to have reliable sources to write from.
 * As for including some pointer to the Polyphemus-like folktales discussed at Polyphemus, I'm not opposed to that. What about a section titled 'Other "cyclops"', with the following text:
 * Folktales similar to that of Homer's Cyclops Polyphemus are a widespread phenomenon throughout the ancient world. One example, in a story from Georgia in the Caucasus, describes two brothers held prisoner by a giant one-eyed shepherd called "One-eye", who take a spit, heat it up, stab it into the giant's one eye, and escape.
 * Paul August &#9742; 14:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 14:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Given the title of this article I would expect it to cover all cyclopes, even if the main focus is on cyclopes in Greek myth. I'm not advocating for exhaustive sections on every tradition or folk-tale about a cyclops.  But it's appropriate to mention and discuss the fact that they exist in separate bodies of folklore, even if the majority appear to be derived from Greek antecedents—and to refer readers to more appropriate articles for detailed discussions, where they exist.  P Aculeius (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you think about the section I've proposed just above? Is this sufficient? Paul August &#9742; 11:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Unless I've missed something, I think it needs to be a little longer than one sentence referring only to Polyphemus—Bitwixen has mentioned other traditions that seem to be less Polyphemorian and more something else, including a tradition that seems to have transformed Prometheus into a cyclops, and perhaps others. It still might all fit in a single paragraph, with multiple links to related articles, although it may be some of them still need to be created/split off from here (and they might not all need a "main article" header).  But the section should at least cover the bases, if Bitwixen is correct and there is a significant body of cyclopes in folklore who don't appear largely derivative of Polyphemus, and if so then it shouldn't just be directing readers to that article.  Oh, and I would remove "one eye" from the clause, "stab it into the giant's one eye," since you've already said he's one-eyed and is called "One-eye".  Bit redundant, I'm sure you'll agree.  P Aculeius (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm getting a bit restive at this shifting conversation with its proliferating subsections and more than tired of, who seems as monocularly obsessed with his own point of view as the monster under discussion! But to answer 's question about spin-off articles/sections: to my mind Cyclopes is a word of Greek origin confined to giants in a particular mythological tradition. An account of one-eyed giants in other traditions would be WP:OFFTOPIC, unless the word cyclops was actually used in that tradition, or there is a proven (as opposed to speculative) link between them. The List of one-eyed creatures in mythology and fiction is one place where a redirect or link to the many spin-off articles on such creatures can be found. Any Caucasian (and other) legends which scholars have speculated may be derivative of a Homeric corpus might be mentioned as a short sub-section in either article. I've already suggested they might appear in the "Transformations of Polyphemus" section where appropriate, which is why I resisted Paul August's attempted renaming of it.


 * Let's come to a consensus first on the Classical materials, their scope and what goes where. Dragging in a putative new allied article at this stage would blur our focus. Have any others of us looked at the monumental fight going on about the Germanii and like subjects at the moment? One of the editors involved seems intent on fogging that by spawning new articles all over the place and I would not like to see that repeated here :( Sweetpool50 (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * P Aculeius, you say the the Cyclopes stories from the oral tradition found in the Caucasus mountains is “clearly derivative”, and that’s why it should go elsewhere. But I think if you exclude derivative works you’d probably have to exclude Homer’s Oddysey.  Am I right? - Bitwixen (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't buy that theory. The Odyssey is more than two thousand years older than any record of a practically identical story from the Caucasus.  You can make all the fabulous claims you like about nobody from the Caucasus ever having read or been read Homer in all that time and just borrowing bits and pieces, but that's pure speculation and it seems wildly improbable.  You can't prove that Homer based his poems on anything earlier, because if he had literary sources, they no longer exist.  Homer and Hesiod provide the earliest literary examples of cyclopes, or at least there's no evidence of earlier literary sources upon which they might have been based, although I won't exclude the possibility that similar stories might be found in Sumerian or Babylonian legends—although if so there's no evidence that they influenced the earliest surviving Greek traditions.


 * I'm afraid that your contributions to this conversation seem to be veering ever closer to Wikilawyering—a term I find somewhat distasteful, but you seem to be trying to come up with any excuse to achieve your desired result, whether or not there's a legitimate case to be made—this latest example seeming to say, "well, if I can't have what I want, you can't have what you want either. So if you're allowing that, you have to allow mine!"  And the entirely inappropriate edit summary for this article is over the line, IMO.  This isn't going to end well, so I strongly suggest you take the advice of the other editors and accept a reasonable solution, before this goes to arbitration.  P Aculeius (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , thank you for the comments regarding myself, I will consider them carefully. However, to respond to your comments about Homer, when you refer to a theory (that you don’t buy) — I’m not sure which theory you are referring to.  I only was mentioning in my comment (just above) that the Odyssey is considered a story derived from sources and traditions.  If that is the theory you meant, it is not really mine, I’m only repeating what is sometimes said.  I went over to the WP article on the the Odyssey and noticed that there is not much at all about sources or influences that contribute to Homer’s poem.  However that article in the section “Influences on the Odyssey” does happen to mention the cyclops — it says: “The detail about it having one eye was simply invented in order to explain how the creature was so easily blinded.”  That doesn’t sound quite right to me!  Does it to you?  How could Wikipedia be so certain about Homer’s reasoning while he was composing the poem?  So anyway, I thought I’d verify that statement it by looking at the source in the footnote (a book published by Routledge), and I found that what the source is actually saying is not quite the same as it’s being reported in the WP article:  The source in the citation is making perhaps a speculative point about how little might be needed to make the cyclops tale “work” — for example (it says) the “giant doesn’t really need two eyes”, although (it says) the act of blinding is made “more difficult and less credible” if the giant has two eyes.  Should that be corrected?  I notice that article (Odyssey) is edited by a lot of the same editors that are on this talk page.


 * P Aculeius, you also refer to a “fabulous claim” (as you say) “about nobody from the Caucasus ever having read or been read Homer”. I think you and I are in agreement on that, I think we both would consider any such claim to be ridiculous.  And I don’t believe any reliable source (or even any crackpot source) could be found that would make such a claim.  So I think you and I are on safe grounds.  However, what is often overlooked is the fact that back in the day (way-way back) the Caucasus Mountains were indeed a part of Greece — the way Virginia was an English colony.  There were a great many Greek colonies in that area for a long time.  Some colonies (it is said) were completely Greek and exactly like being in a Greek city, and some colonies (it is said) were more integrated with locals and with trading partners.  So, at least in that region any Greek oral traditions and any other oral traditions of the Caucasus Mountains, might well have had an opportunity to share.  This is what I’ve read, and I think it reflects on the thoughts you were expressing.  I’m not all that “into” my own opinions about things like that — I’m mainly interested in what others say — scholars and books, etc.  Enough.  Now I will go back and take another look at your comments about myself, and I will regard them seriously. - Bitwixen (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I was saying that I "don't buy" the theory that the Caucasus cyclops stories that sound very Polyphemorian could have been independent inventions, based solely on someone's observation that similar stories are told in various places that probably all had sufficient contact with the Greek world for stories from Homer or other Greek writers to infiltrate. If the cyclops stories sounded nothing like Homer, except for involving a cyclops, then the argument might seem more credible.  What I said about the legends being "obviously derivative," I think I'm stating what anyone with a decent literary background would conclude: the Caucasian shepherd cyclops who traps people in his cave and has to be blinded by a spit is clearly a retelling—perhaps many generations removed, but a retelling nonetheless—of the Polyphemus myth.  Homer is not derivative in the sense that nobody can point to his version of the story and say anything like, "Homer got that from Tales from the Pelopponesian Woods by Thracian Bob".  We don't know what Homer's sources were; whether he incorporated folk tales, or earlier oral traditions about Odysseus, or whether Athena herself whispered the story in his ear.  So it's absurd to call Homer "derivative".
 * I agree that the statement that the detail about Polyphemus having one eye being "invented in order to explain how the creature was so easily blinded" is silly and speculative—somewhat illogical in the context of Greek myth, which is clear about the existence of cyclopes, and Polyphemus being one of them. Although artistic depictions show cyclopes with three eyes, or two empty eye sockets—I think this might have more to do with the difficulty of visualizing a brow ridge over one central eye (which would have to go above the nose, rather than alongside it), than with a belief that cyclopes actually had more than one functioning eye.  Note that, as far as I know, while all sources that mention the detail seem to assume that the cyclopes had one eye, no sources explicitly state that they had three.  P Aculeius (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I've now added a section on "Folklore" to the Caucasus article, which includes some content on these Caucasian Polyphemus-like legends, see Caucasus. Paul August &#9742; 11:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)