Talk:Ganymede (mythology)

Comments
Ovid's realistic poetic details were being presented in this entry as images thought to represent the attitude of the masses towards same-sex love even in Roman times. This isn't very good: it smacks of modern disapproval and wishful thinking. Anyone want to put it back? Wetman 01:26, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * But it's been outdone by the following addition to the caption on the Rembrandt illus: he uses the work as to denounce the same-sex love of his day. As he would have it, the men are rapacious animals, represented by the aggressive eagle, and the youths vulnerable children, here represented by the squalling toddler pissing in fright, his rear turned to the viewer to underline the heinousness of the act. We owe User:Haiduc this penetrating interpretation, so in tune with the best Rembrandt scholarship and so splendidly in the Wikipedia tradition of "NPOV". Hats off to Haiduc for making Wikipedia the respected information source it has become today. --Wetman 07:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the florid prose, but the interpretation is not original. Richard G. Mann, writing in glbtq.com (European Art: Baroque) sees it as mocking of sodomy, and Kenneth Clark (in a piece I have mislaid) also sees deprecation in it, unlike Saslow who engages in critical contortionism in an effort to explain it away. It is always touchy, to try to render another's [here, Rembrandt's] eloquent interpretation in neutral terms. What do you suggest? Haiduc 13:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * What I suggest, and am doing, is adding

to the External links subsection. It will be up to Haiduc to give a brief report on the article, without personal spin. Wikipedia's image caption can return to its more mainstream content. That's what I suggest? Fair enough for anyone. --Wetman 03:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Peter R. Griffith on the subject of Ganymede from a GLBT point-of-view


 * I have followed your link and found it to be a less-than-perspicacious analysis of the work. I have revised the caption based on Mann's analysis. It might clarify the waters if you were to express the reasons for your apparent disagreement with the interpretation of this work as one critical of sodomy. Haiduc 05:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * (Not my link of course, but the one apparently offered by this person just above. This person's POV must prevail. ) --Wetman 05:32, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Renaissance and Baroque
Please reference all analysis or criticisms of these works that describe them as "critical of" anything. Unless a good reference can be found, all works of art should simply be described as the artist's depiction of a shared fable. In particular, unless there is very good reason, please do not burden the Rembrandt image with commentary about how some people view it. Just describe what it is and when it was produced, and leave any well-referenced analysis to the body text of the relevant section. --Sj

Hera abandoning the Trojans
The section in the text about Hera's hate for Ganymede seems to be incorrect.

[Her hate of him was applied by mythographers to account for her abandoning the Trojans, an otherwise inaccountable shift in the alliances of the Trojan War, for the Troad was part of the homeland of the Great Goddess, of whom Hera was the main Olympian representative.]

The reason for the war was the decision of Paris in the famous contest between goddesses Hera, Athene and Aphrodite. Hera was sure to take the other side in the war, as she wasn't the choice of Paris.SYS64738 02:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's right, Hera sided against the Trojans because she was jealous when Paris gave the golden apple to Aphrodite. Ganymede is totally irrelevant. (Huey45 (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC))

Myth Disclaimer
I just noticed the disclaimer about the use of the word "myth" to describe the tale of Ganymede. I don't know how many other pages it appears on, but it does not seem as if it is appropriate for an encyclopedia, rather being an excess of political correctness. Would anyone be wildly angered if I removed it? (And, if not, could someone assist me in finding other pages where it has been placed?) —Cuivi é nen 03:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * We have to thank User:Haiduc for this. --Wetman 06:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Homosexual being used in the text
This article originally used the term homosexual "In poetry, Ganymede was a symbol for the ideally beautiful youth and also for homosexual love, sometimes contrasted with Helen of Troy in the role of heterosexuality." It was later changed to "pederastic love". While Ganymede may indeed be used as a symbol of pederastic love, Ganymede is indeed a symbol of intense attraction between men. In the passage above, Ganymede is being compared to Helen of Troy who many men lusted over. The correlation is to make note of Ganymede being a strong symbol of homosexuality, as he is. Without this passage, the article makes note of the pederasty but fails to mention him as an iconic homosexual figure. Particularly since this article is "within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia," I felt it appropriate to revert the passage back to its original wording.--Mfalber 07:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Reverting is not really equivalent to editing. Perhaps you'd provide a more nuanced view, even with a reference. That would move the article forward rather than backward. --Wetman 08:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hera's abandonment of the Trojans
This part seems to present a problem:

"All the gods were filled with joy to see the youth, save Hera, Zeus' consort, who despised Ganymede. Her hate of him was applied by mythographers to account for her abandoning the Trojans, an otherwise inaccountable shift in the alliances of the Trojan War, for the Troad was part of the homeland of the Great Goddess, of whom Hera was the main Olympian representative."

Wasn't Hera's abandonment of the Trojans accounted for by her rage after she was spurned in favor of Aphrodite in the Judgment of Paris? Who are these "mythographers" and why hadn't they heard of the Judgment of Paris?

Let's get rid of the sentence starting with the bold text...

Link Error
The "Homerica" link under "Ancient Sources" directs to a page about a cruise ship. This obviously isn't right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.93.179.195 (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The photo at the start of the article
Didn't anyone notice that the bust actually says "Paris" at the bottom? What makes you say that this guy is Ganymede, not Paris? Paris was certainly a more important character in the story, so it's more likely that the bust was meant to be Paris. (Huey45 (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC))
 * I noticed this too. What's the source of the photo? Can it be positively identified as Ganymede and NOT Paris. All I can think is the "Paris" enscribed at the bottom refers to the city and not the character? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.11.30 (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Paris was, after all, a prince of Troy (and Ganymede's nephew, or great-nephew), and therefore can be expected to be portrayed with a Phrygian cap. I suggest finding a representation that is Ganymede, shown with his usual Neoclassical signifiers, a cup and the eagle. 72.49.43.222 (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ‘Paris’ and ‘Ganymede’ are often conventional names given to any sculpture of a young idealized young man wearing a Phrygian cap in the absence of any sign for identification. In this case, the head belonged to a statuary group representing Ganymede and Zeus as an eagle; the type itself derived from a statue by Euphranor representing Paris. I you can read French, please refer to the description in the Louvre database. The inscription 'Paris' on the lower part of the bust is modern. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That did indeed address my confusion with the attribution of the image. 74.83.14.59 (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Reversion of date formats
As stated in WP:ERA, there must be discussion and consensus reached on this article's talk page before the date formats are changed. As I cannot see any, which constitutes a flagrant violation of the policy, I move that the date format be reverted from BCE/CE to BC/AD to rectify the violation. Objections and reasons against the reversion are welcome. Dalek (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What violation, exactly? I can find none; the earliest use of an era system in the article dates to February 2004. BCE was used then, and is being used now. So, nothing to revert. Haploidavey (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Remnants of pederastic agenda
This article still contains remnants of the pederastic agenda associated with a banned editor (who may or may not be responsible for all of it). I've tried to fix some things, but it really is quite a mess. It isn't so much that it's wrong as that the POV stands in the way of a more structured, capacious approach. It's also sorely lacking in sources. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ganymedes as a deity...
I have sources to support the fact that, in some extensions of Greek mythology, Ganymedes/Ganymede, after being taken up to Mount Olympus to serve Zeus, was worshiped as a god of rain and the rain cloud. Should I just go ahead and add it? I feel like that is also a significant portion f his mythology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandyS0725 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What are your sources? Paul August &#9742; 22:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Who's the daddy?
Puzzled as to how Hyginus can suggest both Erichthonius and Assaracus as parents, since they are both male. But I am sure there are stranger things in Greek mythology, and given Ganymede's association with pederasty, perhaps it appropriate. Or is it just that Hyginus misplaced his writers guide to Greek mythology and couldn't keep his backstory straight between different fabulae. Solipsist (talk) 09:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)