Talk:Giants (Greek mythology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Gigantes were born from Gaja, Mother Earth. Earth wanted to revenge Olimpus gods cuz they killed and imprisoned titans. Article's version Gigantes are wrong. I am from lithuanian wikipedia and saw some mistakes in article pls change them. Thank you. -- 4 July 2005 09:38 (UTC)

I don't think so, it agrees with this. But I will take a look at it. -Falcorian 21:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


Their is some plagiarism from [1]. (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I'll knock out what I can and rewrite later. --Falcorian (talk) 06:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Adaptation from early hebrew stories?[edit]

What does scholarship have to say about this being an adaptation of the nephilim stories (Genesis 6, 3 Books of Enoch, etc.)? An obvious correspondence would link Azazel with Prometheus.

We can also consider the rebellion of the Titans/Giants in the context of Baal (and friends') struggles against Yom.

--Philopedia (talk) 10:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm not aware of any scholarly sources linking the Titans or Gigantes to the Nephilim prior to their use in translating the Bible into Greek. One theory that I know does exist is that the Titanomachy is the Greek version of the Indo-European theme of the overthrow of the Elder (nature) Gods by the Younger (culture) Gods, with parallels in the Norse Æsir–Vanir War, or the eternal struggle between the Asuras and Devas in Hinduism, the Ahuras and Daevas in Zoroastrianism, and the Irish Tuatha Dé Danann and Fomorians. Similarly, the Gigantomachy may also be a continuation of an Indo-European theme of giants contesting the Younger Gods, with parallels in the Norse Ragnarök and Irish Cath Dédenach Maige Tuired (where the Fomorians serve as both Elder Gods and giants). Pfhreak (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The heading should read "Giants (Greek mythology)", vel sim.[edit]

I realize that the ancient Greek term was gigantes, but that's neither here nor there. As far as Aristotle was concerned, his name was Aristoteles, Plato's was really Platon and so on. I'm transliterating from the Greek, but you see my point. Ifnkovhg (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

All the text books and reference books I have related to the subject refer to them as Giants, so this is probably the right thing to do... Of course "all" is two. ;-) --Falcorian (talk) 05:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
That's good enough for me! Ifnkovhg (talk) 07:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Netherworld -> Tartarus[edit]

I removed the link to Netherworld, as links to disambiguation pages should be avoided (WP:INTDABLINK). Since the Tartarus article mentions that the giants were imprisoned there, I changed the link accordingly. However, that article does not have an appropriate citation and I don't know much about Greek mythology. So if the new link is wrong feel free to correct it to a better page. --Robinandroid (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Questions and comment[edit]

1. Gigantes is clearly the Spanish version of Giants. Why are the Giants called alternately in Wikipedia? Why aren't they just called Giants?

2. Reference 5 is way too long. It might as well be part of the main body of the article.

3. This article mentions Alcyoneus, Damysos, Ephialtes, Leon, Peloreus, Porphyrion, Theodamas and many other Giants. This article on Uranus lists 5 Giants: Alcyoneus, Athos, Clytias, Enceladus and Echion. At the bottom there is a list of 13 Giants. Did Uranus have 5 or more Giants? I count at least 19 Giants.

ICE77 (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

How the giants where born[edit]

How were the giants born? From what I have read before this article is that they children of Gaia and Tarturous (sorry if I spelled that wrong because I meant the primordial god of the underworld) However in this article it has them children of Gaia and Uranus. Also in this article it has them born when kronos cuts up Uranus after Gaia gives him the sickle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Citation format[edit]

This article would greatly benefit from using SFN formatting. However, doing it is a lot of work. And we all need to agree on it before anyone should waste their effort only to be faced by a Liberum veto. 7&6=thirteen () 16:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

What is SFN formatting? Paul August 19:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
See, e.g., Thomas James Wise. Click on the blue links, and it takes you to the citation. Very elegant. Note that the books cited have to be properly formatted and use the note "|ref=harv" within the citation template for this to work. If there is more than one author, you need to include him/her. This also permits you to use the sfn, and to add "page=#" to each individual citation. IMHO, very elegant and far prefeeable to the mishmash we have in this article. But it's just a suggestion. I would note that some editors like it, and some don't. I've encountered some real hostility. So I do not want to get into an edit war (or lose the effort) 'over the shape of the table.' My life won't be better one way or the other. I invite you to think about it. 7&6=thirteen () 20:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I see, thanks. Being able to link to the works listed in the References section is nice. One thing I don't like is that it creates named refs, which I find to be a royal pain. Paul August 21:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
It is a way to accomplish what the bot was trying to do, incorporating page numbers into each of the cites, only better. And it lets the computer do the work, with a link to the work itself. 7&6=thirteen () 21:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Scottish art in the eighteenth century which was my version, and which was thereafter undone per the discussion on that article's talk page. You can judge for yourselves whether the before or after is better. 7&6=thirteen () 21:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
this avoids the proverbial. "royal pain" We will leave it as is until there is a consensus. Once burned, twice learned. 7&6=thirteen () 22:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with 7&6=thirteen. The implementation via SVN, HARVB, or any other style is just fine. It is easier for the reader. It is recommend by MOS. It is required for FA articles. I take easier for reader over editors personal preference any day. Bgwhite (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
You are talking about "named refs" yes? How is it easier for the reader? When I'm reading an article with named refs I find it hard to link to the cite and get back to where I was in the text — not knowing which of possibly dozens of letters to click. Paul August 21:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
If you look at the Scottish article of 7&6=thirteen. 1) The reference section is much cleaner with alot less clutter. 2) You can click on the ref and be taken to the corresponding publication in the Bibliography section. In yours, you have to hunt. 3) If you click on the wrong letter, it is not hard to get back to the text, just click the back button in the web browser. Whereas if one is going between the reference and Bibliography as it is now, one has to use the scroll bar... harder to go back and forth. 4) The vast majority of articles use named links, it is commonplace. Bgwhite (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, as I said above, having the cite linked to the entry in the "References" section seems like a good thing, my problem is with named refs, how is that easier for the reader? None of your points above seem to adress that. Paul August 17:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Just finished off Thomas James Wise. FWIW, I think is elegant and economical for the reader. Compare that to the article on his fellow fraudster book thief, Harry Buxton Forman, which uses more traditional formatting. 7&6=thirteen () 14:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Puts the sources alphabetically all in one place. Visually it looks better. Compare Thomas James Wise and earlier version without SFN and EFN and with less inforamtion. I recognize that there is always a trade off. But there are considerations of aesthetics, style, ease of use and taste. If you can't see the difference on your own, I don't know what else there is to say. 7&6=thirteen () 17:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Not sure I follow. For this artical aren't "the sources alphabetically all in one place" in the "References" section? Paul August 18:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
You are right about that. However, one has to manually search from footnotes to references. This is (opinion) a pain. Conversely, sfn electronically and automatically links to the full citation. 7&6=thirteen () 18:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
As I've said twice above, I agree it would be nice to be able to link from cites in notes to references, but I'm not sure it is worth the pain of named refs, for which as yet I see no benefit. But each to his own. Paul August 18:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I know what you've said twice before. There really not individually named references. As when somebody puts in a page number. You use the same sfn reference for each source, and merely add or change the page number if you are doing this. In fact, this obviates the need for the rather baroque creation of individual source names, since the software then ties it all together. 7&6=thirteen () 18:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Daniel Pabst (before) and Daniel Pabst (after). I think this is a better way. But if I can't get consensus, I will not engage in a massive fruitless act. Like when my parents told me "don't touch the sparkler wire." Once burnt; twice learnt. 7&6=thirteen () 18:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
You haven't give any explanation for not liking them. We've given the benefits... less clutter, easier for the reader (not manually search footnotes to references), let software do alot of the work, etc. Sorry, but the benefits to the reader outweigh "I don't like them". Bgwhite (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I started the Daniel Pabst article, and was initially intimidated by the complexity of the formatting. But once it's set up, the benefits are enormous and permanent. To add additional footnotes, I just follow the pattern of the formatted ones. It's not something I would have known how to do, but it is a great improvement. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Are there two Asterius giants?[edit]

For some reason in the greek theoi site that it talks about another Asterius that is involved with another giant named Anax, but it does not explain whether or not this is the same Asterius in this wiki. Some clarification would be greatly appreciated on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 08:46, 1 February 2016‎

As noted in the article (see note 167) Pausanias says:
"Before the city of the Milesians is an island called Lade, and from it certain islets are detached. One of these they call the islet of Asterius, and say that Asterius was buried in it, and that Asterius was the son of Anax, and Anax the son of Earth. Now the corpse is not less than ten cubits." (1.35.6)
Elsewhere he says:
"The Milesians themselves give the following account of their earliest history. For two generations, they say, their land was called Anactoria, during the reigns of Anax, an aboriginal, and of Asterius his son; but when Miletus landed with an army of Cretans both the land and the city changed their name to Miletus." (7.2.5)
Whether this is necessarily the same as the Asterius killed by Athena is impossible to say. In any case Theoi is not a reliable source.
Paul August 11:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

That is diappointing. Most people seem to hold up Theoi as being reliable, and I have certainly found most things I would not normally find on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 01:00, 2 February 2016‎

The sources given by Theoi are useful, and reliable (with the occasional problem), and there is considerable useful content. But there is much that is idiosyncratic and cannot be relied upon. Paul August 02:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)