Talk:Orion (mythology)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Compacted paragraphs

I see that the section on modern interpretations has been bundled into a small number of long paragraphs. I fail to understand why the specific choices here have been made.

For example, it began with passages on the astronomical interpretation of c.1895, continued with Rohde and Kerenyi, in chronological order. These three have nothing much to do with each other; and the present paragraph division consists of the astronomers, combined mechanically with Rohde and one of Kerenyi's books; for no obvious reason, his other book begins the next paragraph.

Why? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This is just where experience comes in, and maybe I am wrong here. If the FAR people get interested in your article, they will start to get very specific about issues of paragraph (and sentence) length and variety. Usually they will not tolerate stubby paragraphs. Maybe they will make an exception for you. Sincerely, Mattisse 23:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave them then; but do you genuinely think this clearer or better organized than it was before? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll revert it back to the way you had it. Sincerely, Mattisse 00:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That is really unnecessary; this is a collaborative effort. If I didn't value other opinions, I wouldn't have asked for them. Does that mean I have to agree with every word, or else have none? That is most unwiki. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You have been singularly critical and unappreciative of the massive amount of work I put into your article. The only feedback I have received from you and your other editor who apparently WP:OWN the article has been unpleasant and snide. You have given me no indication that you approved of anything I did. I have every reason to believe you do not value my contributions and want the article reverted. Regards, Mattisse 11:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I fall somewhere along a middle position on this. The old version included some really stubby one-or-two-sentence paragraphs, and too many subsections, I think. The new version probably has a more manageable number of sections and paragraphs, but we might have to reorganize some of the paragraphs and one or two may require being re-split. Also, I think we might have the scope for one more top-level section. And so, progress marches on!--Pharos 21:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no position here; I asked a question because I was puzzled by the new paragraphs, and think the reader may be too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• For reference, Mattise's copyedit is in this diff. I see other small flaws, such as the use of "heros" in the lead; clearly this will have to be reviewed carefully. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Another snide remark

Your last edit summary was another snide remark: "(See talk; it is uncollegial to insist on all or nothing.)" There has been no atmosphere of collegiality in your interactions or that of your fellow editor in interacting with me. There is every indication this article violates WP:OWN. There has been only snide criticism of my efforts. Where do you get the idea I am insisting on "all or nothing". You interpret my actions in the worst possible light. You had given me no reason to believe that you appreciated the copy edit and every reason to believe you preferred your version. Why do you violate AFD? Regards, Mattisse 11:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Just an unsolicited outside opinion, so feel free to ignore, but you seem to be overreacting. IPSOS (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you IPSOS. I am overreacting. Copy editing is hard work and this one has been a particularly unrewarding job. But you are right. That is not an excuse. Thanks for your thoughts. Sincerely, Mattisse 15:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Line numbers

Thank you, Pharos; I suppose we have to jump through any hoops set up by FA; but it is unidiomatic to quote lines of poetry as λ 572–77; one expects selections of poetry to be a few lines, not hundreds. It is harmless, although ugly; so not worth fixing now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to be on the safe side, and honestly I didn't want to have to go through it more than once. For the broader issue, I guess that would be something else to work out at Wikipedia talk:Citing_sources#Citing traditional works.--Pharos 19:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you find this "rule", btw? It's not in any of the obvious places in MOS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, it might not actually exist, though I've heard reference to such a "rule" before. You can even find shortcut page numbering (though not to the point of a single digit) in one place in the Manual of Style itself. In any case, the appropriate place to clarify this would be the last paragraph of Wikipedia:Citing sources##Full citations.--Pharos 20:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I see 211-19; that's two digits, which is what Tony1 wrote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I "corrected" it to the complete page numbers, because Tony1 was being a bit ambiguous.--Pharos 22:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Orion and Oarion

Just checking: there were two Greek versions of the name, but only one Latin transliteration, so I added the 'Oarion' transliteration. Is Oarion genuinely an alternative form of the name? I ask because this form could be even more easily confused with Arion. Carcharoth 19:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Oarion is a genuine form in both languages (although it is rarer in Latin, it does occur in Catullus' "Berenice", for the constellation). It occurs in Homer and Hesiod; there is a metrical problem, that "Orion" with a short i won't fit into hexameter verse. Cicero and some places in Epic just lengthen the i, but Homer and Hesiod usually have Oarion. Oarion and Oarioneus are also the Doric form, according to LSJ. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Carcharoth 19:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Now moved to a footnote - it was getting overly complex for the first sentence. Carcharoth 21:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'll fetch Gk Oarion out. This discussion probably does belong in the article somewhere; but until the article has a place for it, your footnote could be a holding position. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Carcharoth 21:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Gorgon

(Other versions have him born of Euryale the Gorgon, daughter of Phorcys.)

This is from the discussion of Hesiod's version, among all the other classical authorities. I move it here, because I think it misleading. I do not recall any of the ancient sources saying this; I would not be surprised if some modern website had confused the two Euryales.

Even if ancient, it should probably be in the section on variants. It's hard enough keeping this web of stories clear without interrupting Hesiod with variants; there are variants to everything. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Painting - artist and section

Image:Diane auprès du cadavre d'Orion.jpg - the current caption in the article doesn't mention the artist Daniel Seiter. Should he be mentioned in the caption, and the painting mentioned in the cultural references section? I found this source on Seiter: [1] (scroll down to find him), and this on other 'Orion' artworks - includes a nice statue here. Will add them both to the Cultural references section, unless you think the section should be kept small? Carcharoth 21:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. I think that statue was a nice find! Are references to Orion really that rare? Carcharoth 21:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I also read here that the other person in the Seiter painting is meant to be Scorpio. What do you think? Carcharoth 21:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat skeptical. I've never seen Scorpio described as a human; although I am faintly surprised that that no late source does, now that I think about it. Since the website tells a different story of Orion's death, and confuses Dawn with Artemis, it may not be wholly reliable. Is the jar Aquarius? and if not, what is it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, my OR would be that the jar is a winejar, and the figure Oenopion. One of Hyginus' stories is that Orion and Oenopion were close friends; and the website quotes his other story, in which Apollo tricks Diana. Perhaps a communication failure between the scholar and the webmaster? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds convincing, but as you say we will have to remain silent on what the figure is until we can find a source that agrees with you. Thanks for confirming my suspicion that it wasn't Scorpio. Carcharoth 01:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The latest

If anyone agrees with Carabineri's insistence at the FA that we put Servius and Euphorion into text, feel free to say so and to do it. FA has insisted on enough bad writing already that a little more won't hurt. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratuations all

It's an FA! I will post more comments tomorrow (and perhaps my view of the sausage factory); but a job well done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Euryale and Merope identifications

I've been considering some issues of the identification of a couple of ancillary characters. One would think Euryale, Orion's mother, is clearly not the Gorgon Euryale, but that is not the only other Euryale in classical tradition; Gaius Valerius Flaccus also mentions an Amazon Euryale, curiously in the same paragraph with another named Menippe (one thinks of Menippe and Metioche; there is also a Naiad of that name). Also, it seems perhaps more than coincidence that Merope is also the name of one of the Pleiades (this is actually the name of a star, in addition to being a mythological character). I couldn't find any quality sources that clearly make these connections between characters (several random websites do, but I'm not counting those), but it does seem something to keep in mind. But actually several secondary sources do explicitly identify Orion's mother with the Gordon, but no primary sources I've seen, and I'm doubtful.--Pharos 20:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Who says she's a Gorgon? Websites, or reliable sources? If the latter, we should include them. (The retelling of Hesiod simply says Euryale, but the other ancient sources say the daughter of Minos, so Hesiod probably did too.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Cite books

It was an intentional style decision not to use this template; does anyone actively promote changing to it? I find it inflexible and hard to maintain, and I see no point in insisting on surname first with a mixture of ancient, Renaissance, and modern sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There were a few issues with the existing references anyway (some inconsistencies in included elements, notably). Citation templates also generate COinS data that can be gathered by appropriate tools. Circeus 01:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I am here to describe the sources for this article, not to feed the software. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the format used to describe said sources (which I find overly wordy when there are agreed standard to express the information).

And thanks for fixing this. I keep forgetting that the pipe trick does not work inside <ref> tags.02:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem; I don't remember that either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed standard where? Dollars to doughnuts, it's one editor riding her hobby-horse again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Queries

three or four main versions. I would have thought that "main" would imply enough distinction to be able to tell whether there are three or four. Any chance of tightening that up?

matter of definition; how many "main" stories about Artemis are there? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to pick three out in a section above and in the FA discussion. Perhaps some better highlighting of the three or four in the article would help, though this could be difficult to achieve without destroying the current structure. Andplus 07:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll think about it, but this is merely an example of how complicated the web of story is; it could be taken out if it's confusing. We are not dealing with some number of variants of the whole myth, but with several different death stories, each of which is found with various selections of the other elements. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

The article seems to occasionally have trouble distinguishing between scholars of the myths and retellers of the myths. We have one of the founders of the modern study of Greek mythology giving us his own interpretation of the myth. The reasons for that interpretation need explaining in the article otherwise it is a just another author's variation of the myth. I say he was found in a Kinder Egg but I haven't given any reasoning, so I don't expect this to be included in the article either. The examples preceding and following that section give us a little bit of a better insight to the reasoning of the authors. Graves appears to be both retelling the stories (as seen in footnote 22) and commenting on them which is fine, but we should know which he is doing each time he is referred to.

Kerenyi? He doesn't give explanations, he simply declares from his superior understanding; a problem endemic to the field. I'll tweak note 22; all of these are intended to be about the interpretations, not retellings. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. The explanation you've added for Graves helps though. Andplus 07:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The comparison to Tityos and Dionysus is the closest he comes to justification. I hope it is clear that the comparison is Kerenyi's. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Maurice Bowra argues that Orion was a national hero of the Boeotians, as were Castor and Pollux to the Dorians. He also argues that Castor and Pollux were heros to the Dorians, or he argues that Orion was to the Boetians as Castor and Pollux have been established as being to the Dorians?

The latter. Would this be clearer if were' were moved after Pollux? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Your rewording in the article makes this perfectly clear now. Andplus 07:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The blanket attribution to Hesiod when in fact we are talking either about Work and Days (which I assume survives intact) or the later summary of Astronomy by Eratosthenes should be made clearer in my opinion. And why cloak Eratosthenes behind "a Hellenistic writer on the constellations"? A better discussion of the sources at the start of the article would give the readers some context. What was the purpose of Eratosthenes writing a summary? If he was writing on the constellations did this skew his interpretation of Hesiod? How reliable is he generally? Do we know any of this? What are the differences between the two "Hesiod" versions if any? This may be in the article here and there but it is difficult to pick out if it is, principally because of the use of "in Hesiod" rather than the names of the works. Andplus 12:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Because the text we have is almost certainly not from Eratosthenes; it simply bears his name. I'll have a look to see whether anything on Hesiod can be clarified; the Works and Days has only a few lines on Orion, and the only narrative is the simple statement that he is chasing the Pleiades. Everything else is (presumed to be) from the Astronomy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I was assuming "in Hesiod" meant from Works and Days in the main, so clearing that up is helpful. I think some expansion on the pseudo-Eratosthenes (and pseudo-Hesiod?) and reliability of the sources might be good. It's vastly less important than with a historical document, but when we have a main version of the story handed down in summary form from two probably unidentified authors writing centuries apart then drawing the readers attention to that gives them some context for reading the rest of the article. You can pick most of that out of the article now, but it takes more effort than the average reader will be prepared to commit. (The article is excellent by the way, I should have perhaps mentioned that before launching into a critique of some minor points). Andplus 07:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• We thank you; would it help to move the prose of footnote 10 into the text? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the sort of thing I was thinking of, but it is hard to tell how it would sit in the article until you see it in there. A minor abridgement would serve perhaps. I bow to your judgement as I must go to sleep and I'm sure you'll have enough to deal with shortly without worrying about such things. Andplus 23:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have Condos' translation of Ps-Eratosthenes handy. He begins the passage with the statement "according to Hesiod" and then goes on to tell the story of Orion, Oenopion and Cedalion, followed by the death of Orion by the scorpion sent by Gaea. Then in one line at the end, he says "according to others" and tells the story of how Orion wooed Artemis and that goddess rather than Gaea sent the scorpion to kill him. It is not known for sure which lost work of Hesiod or which work attributed to him is referred to. Evelyn-White, in the Loeb edition of Hesiod and Homer, includes it as a fragment of the lost Hesiodic Astronomy. But placing most of the other versions of the story in any sort of historical context is really impossible, since later sources repeat early ones without reference to the original, so the fact that Ovid or Ps-Hyginus present "new versions" does not mean these variants date from their era. Its a problem common to most classical myth with its very patchy selection of surviving texts. --Theranos 09:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm trying to avoid picking out any one version of the myth as canonical; the present text is the result of some doubtful choices at FA. There are only two weak reasons to begin with Ps.-Eratosthenes/Hesiod: it's probably the earliest connected story to survive, and that version does touch on all the major points. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Blacas krater

Someone moved this image at the bottom of Cultural references, but it actually refers to the Cephalus astronomical scene mentioned at the end of Cult and popular appreciation. Can we move it back?--Pharos 23:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I did, after Carcharoth's remarks at the FA about having a good emphatic close to the actual text; upon consideration, I think it was an artificial interruption where it used to be. Please read that discussion before you revert it; would an internal link be just as useful? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Added an internal link from footnote 60. Please move the link out, or move the art, as you see fit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Odysseus

Someone has justified changing Odysseus to Ulysses on the grounds that "the perversity of English usage ought to be respected". I am not disuputing at all that we should respect normal English usage, but this is the first time I have heard the suggestion that Ulysses is the normal English name for this person, in accounts of the Greek myths Odysseus is normal.

The Wikipedia article for this person is Odysseus, Ulysses redirects there. This represents the consensus of Wikipedians that this is the primary name for this person on Wikipedia, if you disagree take it up there. PatGallacher 12:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought that "Ulysses" was the Latin version of the name "Odysseus"? Odysseus is certainly how he is most often referred to in English. María (críticame) 15:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

In my usage, the hero of the Odyssey is Ulysses. Maria is quite correct that, like many forms actually used in English, this is a Latinization; but so are Plato and Aeschylus. I would prefer to use all three of them, not Platon and Aischylos. Please note that this is what the article originally read. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I recognize that English usage is not wholly consistent on these matters. However if we always used Latin forms we would not have articles on Heracles, Zeus, Ajax (mythology), we would refer to them as Hercules, Jupiter, Aius. I don't know what authority Maria has for her claim that he is most often referred to in English as Ulysses, although this might have been the case 100 years ago. My knowledge of the Greek myths comes mainly from Roger Lancelyn Green's version, but he explicitly states that he strongly preferred to use Odysseus, so have other versions of the story I have seen.

• I just wanted to note that I have no "authority" for my claim other than my studies; I thought it would be considered common sense that Odysseus is how the character is most often referred to, since that is what a majority of the current day translations use. I have no sources at hand to back my statement up, however, so feel free to discard it. María (críticame) 17:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Please note that Ajax is also a Latin form; the Greek is Aias. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

More fundamentally, although I am not aware of any formal Wikipedia guideline on this, it strikes me as fairly obvious that once a decision has been taken on the biography article of a real or fictional character what their normal name is in English, this should be followed on any other articles which link to this, in the absence of some substantial reason to the contrary. If people disagree on this I believe we should move the discussion to the talk page for Odysseus, it would be somewhat disruptive of the Wikipedia process not to do so. If people dispute this I may raise a request for comment. PatGallacher 17:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify my comments, I have checked and there are literally hundreds of articles that link to Odysseus/Ulysses, we need somewhere to have a centralized discussion on what this person's normal name is in English, the obvious place to have it is the talk page for the article on this person. PatGallacher 17:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No, we need to be inconsistent, as English is; "we are large, we contain multitudes." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the feedback I got on the Odysseus talk page:- "It's Odysseus, definitely. I don't see a pressing need to standardize incoming links." "I've seen both names in use but in my experience Odysseus is overwhelmingly how he's named in English these days." PatGallacher 17:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat exaggerated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've always used Odysseus (Ulysses has connotations with the James Joyce novel), but then I too read the Roger Lancelyn Green retellings of the Greek myths. What he specifically said was:

"...the true Greek names fling wide the magic casements on the instant. Led by them we step directly back into the Heroic Age, into the bright, misty morning of legend and literature:

And hear, like ocean on a western beach,

The surge and thunder of the Odyssey.

(Roger Lancelyn Green, The Tale of Troy)

Nice quote! :-) Carcharoth 16:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

make a mythology template of some kind or a constalation template

thanks. Tkjazzer 23:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

For constellations, we have Template:Navconstel (though there are many more constellation navigation templates, see Category:Astronomical navigation templates). For mythological figures, the closest thing I could find for Roman mythological figures is Template:Roman myth (major). But for Greek mythology, you have a veritable cornucopia to choose from: see Category:Greek mythology templates. Orion (mythology) is in Template:Greek myth (old), under the Titans. Carcharoth 16:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

drawn to the myth

Everyone has birthmarks, moles, freckles, etc.

When I was learning astrology from an eccentric teacher at my school many years ago I learned of the constallation orion.

That was when I realized that these beauty moles on my arm are the constallation Orion, everyone I know can see it plain as day so I had proof I wasnt seeing things, and ever since I have been fascinated with it. I just never really looked around about an answer or ideas about it.

Anything you might know would be appreciated or u can share your weird coincidences to do with myths and astrology.

10/20/07 Mythgirl

  4.229.210.175 23:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)