Talk:Minotaur/Archive 1

Archive 1

Miscellaneous

Since this is an article about the Minotaur, I am going to remove all reference and stories after its death. Reference to Theseus, Dadaleus, Icaras, etc., in an article about the Minotaur should only be refrained to when these characters had their encounter with the subject. Other discussions and further details of these characters should therefore be found under their own articles and links, to elaborate their individual biographies. After the Minotaur's death, I found only the writer now simply going off track with unrelated stories. This is not a story afterwards about Theseus and his further adventures, or about Dadaleus and his son flying on bird feather to escape Crete. It is about the Minotaur - if I wanted to know more, then I would look up the respective characters or locations through their own links. I wouldn't get this if I looked up the Minotaur in a World Book or Brittania encyclopedia, why should it be the same in Wikipedia?

---

(I realize this is just a stub, but I don't want to make any mistakes with spelling, names, or facts, so I would be grateful to anyone who can help me or perhaps finish this article)

---

..."had relations"...? I hope we're not going to have to repeat the discussion in talk:SNAFU about trading clarity for prudishness in an encyclopedia.

I just replaced "relations" with "sexual intercourse". I struggle to see how anyone could find the phrase "sexual intercourse" offensive. --Robert Merkel

I could - the late Mary Whitehouse

Um, well, no offense: Wikipedia is not censored for such things. Point made. BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 18:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Minotaur(s)

Something I've had no success digging up, so perhaps some clever Wikipedian can help and fill in: When did the transition in fantasy fiction occur from The Minotaur, a single individual, to a group of beings or species called minotaurs? Was this an invention of early RPG's, or had it occurred in some earlier fiction? I've never managed to find any occurrence of minotaurs-as-a-species before ca. 1980, but I'm not entirely sure where to search for such a thing. -FZ 23:36, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thomas Burnett Swann was writing about a race of minotaurs as early as 1965, although as noted they have some physical differences from the classical description.... Lee M 09:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

C. S. Lewis in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, published in 1950, has several minotaurs fighting for Jadis, the White Witch. "Call the Ghouls, and the Boggles, the Ogres and the Minotaurs." Jadis, Chapter 13. The general of her army is a minotaur named Otmin.True2 ao (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Dont know where else to put this, but SHAG aka Josh Agle a "retro" pop artist also has a minotaur character. Picasso aint the only one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.22.36 (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

the original greek myth states there is only one minotaur that guards the labyrinth

Restoring paragraphs on swann's stuff, the movie and role playing games

The paragraph about swann's minotaur's explains that they are an inteligent race, which is important and useful for understanding the current fictional view of minotaurs. The stub about the movie is obviously relevent to a section titled Fictional appearences. The para on role playing games needs work - it does read somewhat fancrufty at present, but it does present fictional appearences and it can and should be expanded to explain why minotaurs were used as monsters in role playing games and how that affected the fictional view of minotaurs. Please respond on the talk page before reverting, if you feel you must. Or better, add more material of the type I outlined. ;-) JesseW 06:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have a question. Does anyone understand what the moral in this myth is? /Greateful for answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.1.143 (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Citing Sources?

Hey Guys, I was wondering if whomever wrote this article concerning The Minotaur would also, please, cite his-- or her-- references for those of us wishing to further investigate this topic; particularly the Intro., "The Story," and "Interpretations".

Thanks a lot!

Especially that bit about the Minotaur being an aspect of Baal-Molech. I just finished my thesis work on the Minotaur myth, and I haven't seen head or tails of other scholarly work claiming this connection between them, though there are obvious connections in iconography and so forth. [[User:Threskiorn 22:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)]]

Fictional Appearances

The Fictional Appearance section is getting horribly glutted up with any ridiculous appearance of anything that even resembles a minotaur. Is is necessary to know that something was "based on" a minotaur. Anyone want to clean this up? If no one does, I'll jump in and do it some time. Maybe.

Sparsefarce 20:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

nevermind. i did it. Sparsefarce 22:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The list grew again in the past 2 years since the previous comment was written. I have removed it. --MartinezMD (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for new picture

This is completely my opinion only, but I think this article could benefit from a much better picture of a Minotaur, such as a nice painting for example. What do you all think? I think the current picture of this article is "weak". --JOK3R 18:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

i agree. change it. i just don't want to go trying to find one that fits the picture use policy Sparsefarce 19:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to begin searching for one now. If I find one that meets the fair use policy, I'll add it on. :) --JOK3R 20:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

OK I added a new picture. I think it more accurately portrays the general depiction of a minotaur. What do you think? --JOK3R 20:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well someone disputed it, so I will continue to search for a new canidate. --JOK3R 21:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

yeah, i would have disputed it too. no video game images, please. let's at least keep the top half of this article somewhat academic. and remember to read the image use policy. Sparsefarce 21:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have read it. Thanks. --JOK3R 21:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I could sketch one and scan it for a more human view of the minotaur, you make it sounds so mythical.--Knowledgeabletome (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Video Games vs Role Playing Games

There seems to be some confusion on which section to file electronic role-playing games under. I don't know which of the RPGs are which to tidy it, any help? Grey Knight 22:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The article says "Mortal Kombats character Motaro becomes a Minotaur because of a curse placed upon his race." Motaro is a Centaur, not a Minotaur. 91.109.158.146 (talk) 08:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Labyrinth V. Maze

A labyrinth is not the same thing as a maze. Basically, a maze had many paths and is supposed to be hard to navigate. A labyrinth has one path and isn't. I propose changing "maze" to "structure" in this article. See the WP articles on labyrinth and maze. Matteboy2001 23:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

right on. Sparsefarce 23:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That part of the story has always bugged the hell out of me. The Labyrinth of Daedalus is THE canonical labyrinth, but for Ariadne's role to make any sense, it had to have been a MAZE. If it were a labyrinth, Theseus could have just kept walking after defeating the Minotaur. But what do you expect in a story that supposes a bull-headed man is more intimidating than a man-headed bull? That's the equivalent of a mermaid with legs and a fish's head. Asat 17:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Chicken?

I'm no expert in Greek mythology, but I feel quite confident that the Minotaur was a man-bull hybrid. In the opening sentence of the article, I had to change "chicken" to "man." Any objections? Carpe diem 11:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's repeated vandalism, and it's getting really old. Some stupid internet movie probably said that the minotaur was half-chicken and some kid thought it was funny. Change it back when you see it. Thanks for your help! Sparsefarce 15:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, looks like "the kid" is back. I'll keep watching it and change it as needed. I'm new here but very glad to help.

he's also hitting Minotaur (disambiguation) if people want to watchlist that one too. Sparsefarce 02:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm on it. Carpe diem 14:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

To clear a few things up, you are entirely incorrect regarding my age. Although the prank itself is obviously a Jr. High style prank, I, myself, am a student at an Ivy League University. Why do I do this? Simple, it causes ruckus. If this IP gets blocked, so what? It's so worse than getting turned aside in swordfighting. I just go back in with an alternate IP. Now, what are my goals? Easy, I have no goals. There is no rhyme, reason, or purpose to this. It's merely a gratifying way to spend my free hours on a weekend. I also sprinkle scatological references to Weis Markets all over the internet, and help a dear friend of mine (girlfriend, I suppose?) engage in creating virtual graffiti on the VR Troopers Mutants and Cyborgs in the Virtual Dungeon page. Depending on my mood, I make constructive edits or stupid edits. This isn't a confession, this is braggery. My deletion from Wikipedia would be a crime, however, I've inserted high-quality material into many articles. Getting rid of me would be like having a good, loyal, well-behaved dog destroyed because it occasionally soils the carpet. Oh, and have a nice day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.72.224.118 (talk) 06:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

it doesn't matter how many constructive edits you've added or which ivory tower you spend your time in. if you continue with this, we will permanently block every IP you use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparsefarce (talk • contribs) 16:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Not possible, sorry to bust your bubble, but you don't KNOW every IP I use. So what if you ban the Verizon ones? I've got a whole slew of MSN IPs, and don't forget good ol' AOL. Oh and there are tons of IPs from my little "Ivory Tower". So your act of gonads-dot-com comes to naught. :-P

PS: You might want to reconsider your act of toughguy-dot-com, because there will be tons and tons of VERY pissed off people finding their IPs blocked permanently, and all because you let this harmless prank get to you. It's much like the guy who throws a fit because someone used a whoopee cushion. They won't know who to blame, either, they'll just know that YOU blocked a whole chunk of Verizon, AOL, and "Ivory Tower" IPs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.72.224.118 (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Oh, my PS note wasn't lined up properly with the rest of the message. Sorry about that. Anyways, here's one of many "Ivory Tower" IPs. Guess what? There's MANY more where this came from. This single area here has 25 different IPs, and this is just a teeny tiny sample of the myraid of IPs I can use. Don't worry though, I'll get bored with this eventually and be on my merry way. Until then, the Minotaur is a clucking, snorting, forelegs-as-vestigal-chicken-wings, walking-upright chicken/bull hybrid. Or else, a man/bear hybrid, also known as a backwoods beer drinker.

You're a condescending jerk. You suck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.248.249 (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect

I semi-protected the article because of the above vandalism. Let me know if people disapprove. Sparsefarce 02:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Fully approved Wereldburger758 18:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

that was from October. Do we want to re-protect it? I'm not sure it's been frequent enough to warrant it. Sparsefarce 18:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The Page History reveals that vandalism is currently being reverted more than once a day. Semi-protection does not interfere with the improvements being made to the article. No one is denied the ability to read it. How much wear-and-tear on editors is acceptable? --Wetman 19:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Coincidence or foul play?

Is it possible that Minos imprisoned his foster father and thus helped create the myth? it's quite a coincidence that he and the bull both had the same nameBrallan 12:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's usually considered to be evidence that Pasiphae's and Europa's stories stem from the same source, because their kinsfolk have much in common, including their names. <Andrews, P. B. S. (1969, April) “Myth of Europa and Minos.” Greece & Rome. Ser. 2, Vol. 16, No. 1: 60-66.)> [[User:Threskiorn 22:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)]]

Unclear sentence

I'm sorry to complain, but could someone explain this sentence: "The queen came back inside the wooden cow and the bull confused by the perfection of the costume he was conquered." Is something to the effect of "The queen disguised herself inside a wooden cow and mated with the bull" intended?

I guess so. Vultur 16:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-adding cultural material

As per recent discovery that User:Varlak is one of a number of sockuppet accounts that have been used to delete content, I am selectively restoring references to the minotaur from literature and art (while skipping role playing games, which seem trivial, and in one case a human / cow hybrid that did not seem to derive from the minotaur). Because the minotaur is a powerful and a myth / cultural archetype, it is an encyclopedic subject to cover the place it has in our culture.

Bullet point lists are discouraged, and citations are always helpful, so if you have a moment it would be good to improve the article the usual way: prose-ify the list, add citations where necessary, and put it in context. Wikidemo 14:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The moral of this Myth

Hi does anyone understand the moral of this myth. What is the moral? Can someone plaese tell me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabbebabbe91 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it has one. It is a story without one as far as I see it. Much of Greek mythology is about bad things happening to people from the capriciouness of the "gods" - ie being at the wrong place at the wrong time... --MartinezMD (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Fables have morals appended to them. Myth and epic don't have any such tidy interpretation. If you can understand that a (lost) Minoan meaning of the myth of Asterion and the Greek imagining of the minotaur are two quite separate interpretations, you'll have a sound beginning. --Wetman (talk) 06:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose there are several morals:

1) If the gods give you a bull to sacrifice to them, you'd better do it, or they'll have the bull cukould you.

2) Don't lose a war against someone who owns a man-eating bull-monster.

3) Don't abandon your girfriend on an island, or the gods will conspire to cause your father's suicide. Iapetus (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Biblical reference

Someone posted a theory suggesting the biblical demon Baal could have been a source of the Minotaur myth. The book of Leviticus was written c. 1400 BCE, but Minoan civilization ended around that time and had actually started 2700 BCE. So, if anything, the story of the Minotaur influenced Leviticus and not vice versa. Someone else removed the section in article, but I agree with it after doing some reading tonight and I think it should be left out. --MartinezMD (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Since Leviticus was compiled in the seventh century BCE, and since there were bull-worshipping cultures closer to Judah than Crete, and since Baal's Phoenician context is well established, the fancied connection is not based on any serious understanding of cultural history.--Wetman (talk) 06:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Minotaur Д

I don't know with Minotaur.But,I like With Legend about Minotaur.Where,When,How,The Minotaur from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.163.220.109 (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

How Pasiphaë get pragnent? 70.91.178.186 (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Color of the sails

Aegeus killed himself when he saw the black sails. But I thought Theseus forgot the sails because he'd been cursed or something? OneWeirdDude (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

According to Catullus 64, Theseus abandoned Ariadne on an island after promising to marry her. Ariadne had Theseus, causing him to forget, although the gods (the fates?) ultimately cause him to forget. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.143.90 (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Interpretations

The entire section is unreferenced. It needs to be referenced or deleted. --MartinezMD (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

I've heard it pronounced Mine-otaur and Minno-taur. Which is closer to the original Greek? Savager (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

MINN-o-taur is standard in English. In English, attempts to be "closer to the Greek" often result in pretentious gaffes like "kinema", rightly derided by those native English-speakers who keep their Greek close to the chest.--Wetman (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No...MINE-otaur is standard in English...The only people who say MINN-otaur are the same people who say croy-SANT for croissant... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.64.253.96 (talk) time, 12 October 2017 (16:29)

Oxford gives only Minn-otaur. Miriam Webster gives both, but says Minn-otaur is more common. -- Elphion (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I have heard people say it both ways, but, in my experience, MINN-otaur is, by far, the more common of the two. I think that MINE-otaur may be the British pronunciation and MINN-otaur may be the American pronunciation because everyone I have heard that says it "MINE-otaur" is British. Since I am from the Midwestern United States, everyone I have ever spoken to in person says "MINN-otaur". --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know whether Mine-otaur was originally a British variant, but it certainly is not THE British version. As I noted above, OED gives only Minn-otaur. I hear both pronunciations on both sides of the Atlantic. -- Elphion (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

As I said, I am not British, so I would not really know, but the MINE-otaur pronunciation does not seem to be common at all where I come from. My suggestion above is really just a guess. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

As a Brit, I am used to Mine-otaur. Not sure I've ever heard Minno-taur, although it's not exactly an everyday word. Johnbod (talk) 04:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Right now, the articles lists both pronunciations, which I think is probably the best course of action. What we are seeing here looks like simply a matter of regional differences in pronunciation. My guess is that our anonymous friend here (IP user 62.64.253.96) is probably from a region where the Mine-otaur pronunciation is common; whereas myself and Wetman are both from regions where the Minn-otaur pronunciation is more common. --Katolophyromai (talk) 10:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Any losses with the trivia?

Her is the diff where all modern uses of Minotaur were pruned away: any baby in this bathwater?--Wetman (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I pruned it out. If you see something relevant, make a suggestion and I'll put it back in, or you can too. Perhaps the Picasso reference, but the vast majority were computer game references.--MartinezMD (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What an elegant turn of phrase, Wetman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.196.43.74 (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What was a thing that "Theseus" of used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.156.121 (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Maze picture

the picture of a "minotaur" in the labirinth is a centaur not a minotaur —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord loss210 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As pointed out in the article, it is not "a minotaur", but "THE Minotaur". The idea that minotaurs (small m) come from an entire race, and necessarily with heads like bulls, is a modern invention. When the representation was created, it would certainly have been recognized as the Minotaur; the way the two halves were assembled was immaterial. (And if you look closely, the hooves are bovine, not equine.) Elphion (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Greek transliteration

I'm inviting User:Notpietru to explain what he objects to in the transliteration of Μῑνώταυρος as Mīnṓtauros, instead of just wiping it out entirely. Elphion (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Its inclusion is the problem. "Minotaur" is already a transliteration and Anglicisation - where's the sense in including a (laughable) attempt at transliteration (macrons and all). This is not common practice across all articles with Greek text, nor is it common to articles with text in other non-Latin alphabets. Transliteration is generally a poor idea. There should be a translation, there should be the undefiled, original text. That is all. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a pronunciation guide. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There are several should's in your response. What WP policies are you following? Minotaur is not a transliteration; it is the English version of the word. Why is it inappropriate to include a transliteration? (There are many in WP.) As for the "laughable" transliteration, it conforms to standard English practice for transliterating Greek. Why do you call it laughable? Note that it is not a guide to pronunciation but a transliteration of the Greek letters. Elphion (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think my comment might have been a little complicated. Minotaur is indeed a form of transliteration, which has been Anglicised. It is not a "translation" of the sense behind the word. And I am suggesting the inclusion of a pronunciation guide. Is that easier to understand? Regarding common practice, you'll find that it is non-standard (I'm afraid that attesting "there are many" doesn't cut it). It's laughable because it assumes ignorance on the part of readers who would gloss the word if they cannot understand it (and hopefully seek to expand their knowledge) or simply refer to the English word. Transliteration is by its nature pernicious. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Minotaur is not a transliteration of the Greek; it was Anglicized from Latin. A transliteration would preserve the nominative ending and the length of the vowels, which is what Mīnṓtauros does. It is not inappropriate to include it, as you seem to be arguing. And while you may wish that everyone were familiar with the Greek alphabet, and so could gloss the word for themselves, unfortunately this is not the case in the real world. In effect, you are hiding information, rather than being helpful. By calling it "laughable" you are in effect laughing at people's ignorance and even more at the attempt to ameliorate it. I think we should instead be trying to do something about it. And as I said, the transliteration is absolutely standard -- you can look in any Enlish dictionary and see exactly the same system.

I wouldn't call transliteration pernicious -- it's not an ideal way to represent the original language, but we can't all be familiar with all writing systems.

By all means add an IPA pronunciation of the Greek if you think the article needs it. But that doesn't answer whether the transliteration should be present.

Elphion (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Being familiar with Greek is not "all" systems. It's foundational to Western culture. And I would never laugh at ignorance - I find it pitiable, not funny. We should better ourselves, for such is the purpose of education. Re. Anglicised from Latin; the Latin form (Minotaurus) could be included as sufficiently glossing the Greek. Arguing that people's inability to understand something justifies further obscuring their path towards true comprehension isn't really valid. It's just so distasteful, I don't quite know what to say to somebody who can't understand that. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, all I'm seeing here is your sense of aesthetics and cultural values. You may regard Greek as foundational to Western culture, but so is Hebrew. And Latin. Yet the vast majority of westerners (not to mention others who may be reading here) are completely ignorant of all of these. Again, most people do not have the luxury of time to learn all these languages. I'm still looking for a reason why the transliteration is inappropriate. I disagree categorically that the transliteration is "further obscuring their path towards true comprehension". And I do apologise for being so ineducable. Elphion (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

We are using the Latin alphabet right now. Re. Hebrew, where it was important, it had sufficient translation in Greek/Latin to be of relevance. But yes, knowledge of alephbet would be helpful to most people. If you don't know the Greek alphabet, I suggest you learn it. It's fascinating. Also; if all you've understood from my comments are aesthetic propositions (Nietzsche had lots to say about that, in relation to Classical culture btw) I suggest you reread them. If you haven't the time to learn, you're probably not living much of a life. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

One might, with equal justification, say mutatis mutandis: "Re. Greek, where it was important, it had sufficient translation in English to be of relevance." By that argument, we should simply delete the Greek references altogether. (And the translations from Greek are in general more accurate than the translations from Hebrew -- which is one reason Hebrew is still of interest.) But some people might be interested in the Greek, so I would err on the side of keeping them.

They might also be interested in knowing how to read the Greek, so on the whole I would err on the side of keeping the transliteration as well. I'm still looking for your justification in removing it. You suggest that I reread your remarks to understand your reasoning, so I have gone back over them. This is what I find:

• It's laughable; evidently because trying to help people with no knowledge of Greek is pitiable. As I've said above, I disagree with that view.

• It's incorrect (per one of your edit summaries). But it conforms precisely to a well-established convention for transliterating Greek into English, so this is manifestly false.

• You have something against macrons, or perhaps against preserving them in transliteration. Would you care to elucidate?

• Some articles in WP don't provide transcriptions of foreign scripts, so it's not appropriate here. This is the so-called "Hasty-Generalization Fallacy". Since there are many articles in WP that do provide transliterations, the same argument could conclude that we should instead be providing them in articles that do not.

• Representing the text in a form that the majority of users might understand somehow defiles the text. I agree that transliteration is not ideal, but it's more helpful than nothing. I disagree that the text is "defiled"; that's quite POV.

• People should just learn Greek. This is a normative, POV, one might even say elitist argument.

• I should learn Greek. I'm not sure why this is relevant, but in the event I know a fair amount of Attic, Homeric, and Κοινή. I do, however, appreciate your concern for my education.

• Nietzsche had a lot to say about aesthetics. True, but totally irrelevant.

• I'm probably not leading much of a life. I wouldn't disagree, though I think it has more to do with time spent arguing logic with people on WP.

And that's about it. Unless you can provide a more concrete reason for not including the transliteration I shall have no compunction about restoring it. Elphion (talk) 04:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Meh. I haven't the time or the heart to continue this. Restore the transliteration - inevitably, they shall be removed because the entire idea behind transliteration is flawed. I've made various other edits, if you'd like to characterise those as elitist, POV etc. please don't bother telling me; save your sarcasm for those who know you. We ain't amused.

Also... I have nothing against microns, per se. It's circumflexes that really get my goat. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Names

Re this edit by User:Notpietru: I prefer the previous wording ("known by the name Asterion") to your wording ("known by its proper name, Asterion"). You object in the edit summary that "Minotaur is not a proper name, it's simply descriptive". But it is a proper name, as well as being descriptive. Many (most?) proper names are descriptive in their original context. Asterion itself is descriptive ("the starry one", referring perhaps, as Kerényi suggests, to the Minotaur's role as consort to the moon goddess). While English employs the article for one and not for the other, this is a peculiarity of English; our ambiguity about articles and descriptive names is evident elsewhere as well (e.g., Poseidon and the Ukraine — which Ukrainians are trying to educate us out of — are both descriptive; the article is mostly a matter of historical usage than anything inherent in the names). And of course in Greek the difference does not arise at all, since the article is used for both. So Asterion (or Asterios; the sources differ) in this case is no different from Minotaur; both are proper descriptive names used to refer to our subject.

But the real reason I object to "its proper name" is the clear implication that he has one unique definitive "proper name". This is silly; the Minotaur is a mythical being. He's not like, say, Cyrus, of whom it makes sense to ask "what was his proper name?" The Minotaur has appeared as a cultural artifact for millennia; he has various names in various cultures, and none is more "proper" than another. The historical texts (all late Classical sources, and hardly independent) suggest that he was known in Crete at one time as Asterion — but deducing from this that Asterion is his unique proper name has no warrant. Certainly it was not his original name, since that would not have been a Greek word at all. The phrase "known by the name of Asterion" says concisely what the sources tell us, with no additional assumptions.

Elphion (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Applying your own mis/preconceptions to the subject is doing the article no favours. The name is referenced in the context of what the Ancient Greeks believed - not what you might consider a cultural artefact (by whatever parameters). I'm all for disregarding assumptions; hence my edits. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Very well then, what source do you have that Asterion was the primary name used throughout Greek antiquity (not to mention for the Minoan antecedent)? And rather than impugning my "conceptions" could you answer the argument? Elphion (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Seeing no response, I've restored the previous text. Elphion (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Notpietru has reverted my edit, crying "vandalism". (I would be interested in knowing just which criterion of WP:VANDAL he thinks applies in this case). I have tried to engage him in discussion of the point here, but he continues to avoid answering any of the points I've raised. Elphion (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

General note: mediation case

A mediation cabal case has been opened here for discussion of the issues in this article. I invite any editors interested in the recent discussion that has taken place here to also check the status of that page before joining this discussion. — æk^Talk 10:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Minotaurs in Modernism

The trivia section was rightly removed. However, I consider it important to add a section on the myth of the Minotaur as seen by Modernists such as the Surrealists and Picasso, since it was a recurrent theme during the XXth century and the new interpretations brought by them are part of the current cultural meaning of the myth. 88.0.165.28 (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixes, rearranging and questions

I fixed some minor errors and rearranged the position of some of the images. I have a few questions:

1. The article says "Pasiphaë nursed him in his infancy, but he grew and became ferocious; being the unnatural offspring of man and beast, he had no natural source of nourishment and thus devoured man for sustenance." Is it man or men? I assume it should be men.

2. Who first wrote about the Minotaur? Was it Ovid?

ICE77 (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Seven youths and seven virgins every year (or every nine years, depending whom you read). But the passage you cite might be intending a collective noun (as in "Primates subsist on fruit.") "Men" would work; "human beings" might be better.

2. Several refs earlier than Ovid. The earliest might be Euripides or Isocrates. Somewhat earlier depictions survive on vases and coins. The myth was certainly well known: even Homer mentions Theseus and Ariadne.

-- Elphion (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the infomation Elphion.

3. "Androgeus, son of Minos, had been killed by the Athenians, who were jealous of the victories he had won at the Panathenaic festival. Others say he was killed at Marathon by the Cretan bull". Who are these "others"? A more specific source should be provided.

ICE77 (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Lists of companions

I recently deleted ([1], as "far more detail than appropriate") a long section with various versions of the roster of of young men and women who traveled as sacrificial victims with Theseus. Phlyaristis (talk · contribs), the editor who contributed that information, left a friendly note on my talk page wondering why the detail was not appropriate. My answer is WP:IINFO: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The boundary, of course, is fuzzy, and may vary from user to user. To me it seems clear that these miscellaneous lists of arbitrary names who do not contribute as individuals to the myth do not belong here. (It is perhaps worth noting in the article that such lists do exist, giving the Classical sources and referencing Wilhelm Roscher's Lexikon, but the names themselves are of no interest whatever.) Other users are invited to weigh in to clarify the boundary in this case. -- Elphion (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I see now it's a matter of principle rather than a misunderstanding. Well, I understand and respect your position; now let me try and provide a couple of reasons in defense of mine.

• Say, a character named Antheleia does not contribute to the myth as individual (as you put it), but the Danaids, the grouping she belongs to, is a prominent one in Greek mythology. The grouping known as "sacrificial victims sent to Minotaur" or "those who accompanied Theseus on his voyage to Minotaur" appears to be just as notable and well-connected (maybe just slightly less). There is a list of individual Danaids on the respective page; why there shouldn't be a list of the "sacrificial victims"? OK, maybe they are not relevant enough to the figure of Minotaur himself and should appear on a separate page, that could be reasonable in fact. But you seem to insist that the individual names are too unimportant to appear on Wikipedia at all. Well, then, for the sake of consistency, would you suggest that pages like List of children of Priam, Suitors of Penelope, Nereids, List of valkyrie names in Norse mythology or, say, List of minor planets: 168001–169000 be deleted? Each of these contains a list of names or items that are not notable enough on their own, yet make a, so to say, collectively notable body of items.

• Another argument I can think of is: Just because a minor character's name seems unimportant to an average modern reader of a mythological work, doesn't mean it was as insignificant to an ancient mythographer, or would seem that to a specialist in historical mythology. Let me cite a personal experience quite relevant to the matter. I was referring to a scanned copy of Roscher's Lexicon when I created the section; some of the names in question were highlighted with a pencil by someone who had once worked with the physical copy of the book before it got scanned and got to me; they obviously were of interest to that person. If he/she lived several decades later, he/she would probably refer to Wikipedia for the same purpose.

The bottom line is: I can agree that the list in question does not belong on this particular page (and I actually was not sure whether I should add it here or someplace else), I can't agree it does not belong on Wikipedia at all. But, since I don't want our discussion on the matter to turn into a war of personal opinions and approaches to the subject, I think we should better wait for others to weigh in, and seek compromise. As you correctly pointed out, the whole issue is quite subjective, and more individual voices may matter. Later, Phlyaristis (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your last paragraph here.MartinezMD (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Phlyaristis' proposed list article is probably the best course of action, but I think that, if this article were fleshed out with a bit more coverage of the Athenian significance, the list, supported by commentary from reliable sources, would have a place here. I haven't looked into the lists too deeply, but Servius' names imply a specific relevance for Attic cult (children of a Celeus, a daughter of a Polyxenus, a Melite), and the affair also provided the aition for the funeral games of Eurygyes (~ Androgeos) in the Kerameikos. So maybe a list article that could develop into an appropriate merge back into Minotaur? — ^[dave] cardiff | _chestnut — 15:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly the point I was trying to make: the names, however poorly preserved, still seem to be relevant to genuine Attic mythology and therefore may pose an interest. However, I still feel that, in case we agree to have it restored, the info is best kept on a separate page with a "see also" link from Minotaur, i. e. no need to merge it back, since I do acknowledge that it can be seen as deviating from the main subject of the current article, the figure of Minotaur. Roscher's Lexicon actually had these lists as part of the article on Theseus, not Minotaur, but here on Wikipedia, I don't think they would fit on Theseus' page either, again for the reason of being not quite relevant to the main subject.

And speaking of "collective notability", the term I came up with in my previous reply, please refer to Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, where it says, among other things, that establishment of notability of individual items on the list is not required if the title grouping as a whole is deemed notable.

For now though, it seems reasonable to wait for some more input from other editors before making a final decision. Phlyaristis (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Erroneous source

The following edit by 75.165.40.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is moved here from the article. Elphion (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Re the passage from the article: Literalist and prurient readings that emphasize the machinery of actual copulation may, perhaps intentionally, obscure the mystic marriage of the god in bull form, a Minoan mythos alien to the Greeks.[9]

R.F. Willets is wrong or has it backwards. Mystic marriage of the god in bull form was alien to the Minoans not the Greeks. Zeus and others took the form of bulls to mate with human women in many Greek myths. We have no evidence of this in Minoan myth and really only scant evidence that they worshipped bulls. We have Minoan pottery and mosaics depicting bull-jumping as a sport but we don't know what purpose this served or to what god it was attributed. We have limited evidence of indigenous Minoan gods and no evidence of a indigenous bull god, although there is possible evidence of Ba'al worship imported from Phoenician and Carthaginian sources. Also Willets book is a poor source since it postulates on a connection to the Atlantis myth that is generally not accepted by archaeologists. No one can say with certainty that Thera inspired the Atlantis myth and to do so without direct evidence is unprofessional. I read this same citation when I was 14 and knew he was mistaken. It's common knowledge I don't need to cite a source for that do I?

-- 75.165.40.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

In popular culture

The section "In popular culture" has really gotten out of hand. We have arrived at something that WP:POPCULTURE would characterize as "indiscriminate collections of trivia or cruft". I have no real interest in this material, so I'm probably not the right editor to plunge in here, but what we currently have is not particularly useful or enlightening. -- Elphion (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Revisiting this, I propose deleting the entire section. -- Elphion (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Unless there are strong objections, I will delete the entire section. Is there anything there worth saving? -- Elphion (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Hearing none, they're gone. -- Elphion (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Move this paragraph to a different section?

I didn't want to make the change because I'm new to this, but under "Birth and Appearance" there's this paragraph:

Nowhere has the essence of the myth been expressed more succinctly than in the Heroides attributed to Ovid, where Pasiphaë's daughter complains of the curse of her unrequited love: "The bull's form disguised the god, Pasiphaë, my mother, a victim of the deluded bull, brought forth in travail her reproach and burden."[8] Literalist and prurient readings that emphasize the machinery of actual copulation may, perhaps intentionally, obscure the mystic marriage of the god in bull form, a Minoan mythos alien to the Greeks.[9]

I'm not an expert on the Minotaur (hence why I'm reading this article), but isn't this language non-neutral? Certainly we can't verify whether or not there is a more succinct expression of the "essence of the myth", not to mention it assumes a consensus on what the "essence" is in the first place. As for the second part, about literalist readings etc., I don't have access to the source cited, but it seems like this is taking a side in a debate over interpretation (and also implying nefarious intentions of the opposing argument... "perhaps intentionally"?). If this bears inclusion, shouldn't we simply describe the opposing views? Again, I'm new, and I'm not sure how ongoing debates are generally framed in a Wikipedia article. Maybe this is a case where the source should be mentioned in the text of the article: "According to Professor So-and-so's book..."

If I'm reading this correctly (which I doubt), it's like the author is anticipating the reader's interpretation of the myth and attempting to head it off at the pass: "I know what you're thinking, you think this is all about bull-on-lady action. Don't go there, pal!" I think if it stays, maybe the whole of it ought to be moved to the section titled "Interpretations". No?

Brymc210 (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Asterius

This article indicates that the Minotaur was known as Asterion. I also read in at least two other entries (Asterion and Minos) that another name was Asterius. This article should add that information.

ICE77 (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The major dictionaries seem to be in agreement on the pronunciation being this, [2], while also allowing for the long "I" pronunciation outside of the Americas. I personally feel like I've mostly heard a "tar" ending rather than "tor" in the US (although never the "minnow" bit suggested by Gilgamesh~enwiki), but I'm still of the opinion that we should leave the versions we have now unless someone produces a reliable source saying otherwise. -- Fyrael (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

A reliable documented source is ideal, so I can understand its present removal. But when I said it was a near-homophone of "minnow tar," I meant that the "o" is pronounced as a weak vowel. It's not purely a long O /oʊ/, but it's certainly not purely a schwa /ə/ either. Wikipedia's IPA for English used to have a symbol for this (/ɵ/), but it seems to have been deprecated. I know personally that when the vowel is pronounced, it's like the onset of a long O, but interrupts before the vowel can be completed. I'd read (I think on one of John C. Wells' blog posts) how the weak vowel was once indicated /o/ when the long O was still /oʊ/ in his part of the world, but mostly merged completely with /ə/ when their long O became /əʊ/. But for me, the weak vowel is still rounded in most situations, except in a handful of words like theory or geographic where the syllable is all but deleted. So I think that, while the pronunciation of "Minotaur" has at times been likened to "minnow tar," this is only a near-exact match, and it would be more accurate to say "minno' tar." If I had to give it a narrow pronunciation of my own, it would be [ˈmɪ̃.ɵˌtʰɑɻ]. I gave it the broad alternate pronunciation of /ˈmɪnɵˌtɑːr/, but the template simply turns /ɵ/ into /oʊ/ now. - Gilgamesh (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Found some references, largely from Google Books, largely from the early 20th century.[3][4][5] The "min-o-tor" pronunciation always struck me as artificially prescriptivist in North American usage, and it's refreshing to know that the "min-o-tar" pronunciation is actually a very old and traditional one, and it's not just my imagination that it's nearly the only one I hear in North American media. - Gilgamesh (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Interpretations: Greek gifts

The section "Interpretations" states, without a reference:

A historical explanation of the myth refers to the time when Crete was the main political and cultural potency in the Aegean Sea. As the fledgling Athens (and probably other continental Greek cities) was under tribute to Crete, it can be assumed that such tribute included young men and women for sacrifice. This ceremony was performed by a priest disguised with a bull head or mask, thus explaining the imagery of the Minotaur.

The inference "it can be assumed" seems to suppose that this was a normal way of paying tribute. (In addition, presumably, to useful things like gold.) I wouldn't like to assume this without evidence. Wikiain (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)