Jump to content

Talk:Orion (mythology)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

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)
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)

Too Complicated

Leaving aside the other, above criticisms (particularly the speculation throughout the article), I think that this article is perhaps too complicated/specialized for an encyclopedia entry. It would be nice if a more succinct explanation of the myth(s) were provided. I'm not saying that the article as it stands should be deleted, but a more compact distillation of the the myth might be given in the first paragraph, before the in-depth analysis, so that the lay-person can readily find what they are looking for.--MS Also, the parenthetical statement in the first paragraph didn't make sense to me; I think it should be clarified.

The phrase in parenthesis is
"("mountain man" if the name is truly Greek)".
It gives the standard etymology of Orion, and expresses a reservation, without entering into speculation, which the current stripped-down version of the article is avoiding. The subject is inherently complicated, as there's no single "correct" Greek literary version of the Orion myth (as the article states), which would make the myth apperar "simple". The Simple English Wikipedia should be routinely consulted for simple and succinct answers. The article does need a summarizing first paragraph. --Wetman 06:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I came here for a little info on Orion, and have noted the comments here. As has been stated elsewhere on this page, there are many different sources for the myth, which complicates things. I think that rather than explaining them as an amalgamation, it might make the article clearer and more orderly if each version had its own section, where the entire myth were stated. So if you had three sources, Smith, Jones, and Johnson, for example, you could have a heading for the Smith version of the myth, followed by a Jones heading, then ending with a Johnson heading. Lkusz
The sources, many of which are given in notes and references, are very fragmentary, sometimes just a passing remark or a phrase. The article is complicated, because no ancient "biography" of Orion exists: see the Orion references at www.theoi.com, linked in the references, and you'll see. Odysseus, by contrast, makes an easily-told narrative. It's a relief to see someone take this seriously. --Wetman 03:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed by Scholars

The article omits (going off on a Greek tanget) what all scholars agree, that Orion is the Osiris of Egyptian mythology and so his story is around in Egypt 2,000-3,000 years before there were ANY Greek myths.

HE IS ALSO Horus of the Horizon... etc.

And he is the beginning of ALL father figures in all religions including the Christian Holy Trinity of the Father, the Son & the Holy Spirit.

/s/ trireem nautonier , GM of PS ~/` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.73.244 (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Meanderings and speculations

The core of this article should really deal with Orion in mythology like any proper encyclopedia. The material presented is mostly speculation and opinion, which at best, should be placed under a minor sub-heading "Interpretations" and be considerably condensed. I attempted to make some minor amendments which were mostly editted out of this closely guarded article. 1) Orion as a giant. No classical author describes him as a Titan, a title reserved for the sons and grandsons of Ouranos. 2) Hyria is a town near Aulis and Tanagra. There are historical references to the settlement, including its incorporation into the Tanagran polis in 338 BC. 3) Euryale, daughter of Minos. How can one justify associating her with the Gorgon of the same name? Classical writers never did. They share a name, but then so did many characters of myth. 4) Why discard the king Hyrieus? Ovid, Hyginus and Antoninus Liberalis are all authors who source their material from older Greek texts. As for the rest, the entire page needs a major overhaul. Theranos 21:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Replaced

As many have noted above, the text of this article consisted of highly "speculative" (or rather made-up) divagations on Enkidu, phony etymologies, "modern" interpretations, and bogus "Neolithic myths" (n.b., a recorded myth of a preliterate society is a contradiction in terms). I attempted to whittle it down to the basic story of Orion, but there was little enough of that and nothing trustworthy. So I excised it all in favor of material based on (not copied from) two public-domain mythology encyclopedias. It would be better to go back to Apollodorus and Hyginus, but I don't have those authors available to me.RandomCritic 03:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Everyone has pseudo-Apollodorus' Bibliotheke and Hyginus— if Fabulae seem like a dependable and thoughtful source— available to them: they're on-line, and linked from the Wikipedia with a single click. Lazy. The two "references" are William Smith, A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, (1867) and Oscar Seyffert Dictionary of Classical Antiquities, (1894). This is a bold editor indeed: why not base the article on Thomas Bulfinch?

Two versions, for the reader's comparison:

Compare the two, paragraph by paragraph, reference by reference, and see: incompetent" is a strong word: is it undeserved? --Wetman 06:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Genuine reservations

If any reader has misgivings about a phrase, that it might not be supported in literary Greek or Latin myth or relate to published commentary, please insert {{fact}} after the offending phrase. Readers editing in good faith will be unlikely to pepper the article with more than a half-dozen such citation requests at an edit, one supposes. Thank you for your patience. --Wetman 07:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I see the crap has been restored. Every single sentence in this article would demand "citation requests". The problem is not primarily an absence of citation. The problem is an absence of relevance or fact. RandomCritic 13:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ancestry, origins, birth

According to Hesiod,[1] Orion was a son of Poseidon and the beautiful and awful Gorgon Euryale, in this context said to be one of the daughters of King Minos of Crete. Her name means the "wide-ranging" one, she of the "wide salt sea", eureia halys.[2].

The etymology is really irrelevant, even if valid. Note that two incommensurable etymologies are given!

Boeotians said[3] that Orion was born instead in Boeotia

A tidbit of fact

, the fertile heart of civilized Hellas, whose folk the Boeotian poet Hesiod described as farmers in the winter and sailors in the summer season.

Followed by irrelevancies

(Did the Boeotians sail but not swim, that they disputed whether Orion waded the Aegean from island to island or merely strode through the waves?).

Followed by meaninglessness

Though some said Orion sprang directly from Gaia, the Earth Mother, others make his father Gaia's grandson, the Titan Atlas, who equally has his great feet planted in the sea.

If this article is so well sourced, why do we have "some said... others make...?"

Orion's Boeotian birth took place at Hyrai

It's a small town. Why make a big fuss about it?

, an ancient place mentioned in Homer's catalogue of the ships that set forth to fetch Helen home from Troy. There a childless king "Hyreus", who had prayed to the gods for a son. Zeus, Poseidon and Hermes, visitors in disguise[4] responded by urinated on a bull's hide and burying it in the earth produced a child. He was named Orion—as if "of the urine"— after the unusual event.[5]

Anything that cites Graves is instantly risible. We do not even seem to be able to spell "Hyrieus", either the first time...

Though the tale creates a fanciful etymology for "Orion", in archaic times, no "Hyraeius"

Or the second.

dwelt at Hyrai.

In standard gravesian mode, actual myth is shoved aside for "authoritative" statements of nonsense.

Like some other archaic names of Greek cities, such as Athenai or Mycenae, Hyrai is a plural form: its name once had evoked the place of "the sisters of the beehive". According to Hesychius, the Cretan word hyron meant 'swarm of bees' or 'beehive' (Kerenyi 1976 pp42-3). Through his "beehive" birthplace Orion is linked to Potnia, the Minoan-Mycenaean "Mistress" older than Demeter—who was herself sometimes called "the pure Mother Bee". Winged, armed with toxin, creators of the fermentable honey (see mead), seemingly parthenogenetic in their immortal hive, bees functioned as emblems of other embodiments of the Great Mother: Cybele, Rhea the Earth Mother, and the archaic Artemis as honored at Ephesus. Pindar remembered that the Pythian pre-Olympic priestess of Delphi remained "the Delphic bee" long after Apollo had usurped the ancient oracle and shrine. The Homeric Hymn to Apollo acknowledges that Apollo's gift of prophecy first came to him from three bee-maidens.

Totally irrelevant pseudo-etymologies that have nothing to do with Orion.

The article continues in this vein for some while, but need I go on? It is crap from beginning to end, based on pseudo-scholarship. It's like writing an astronomy article based on Velikovsky. At least my 19th-century encyclopedists had respect for their material, and did not attempt to force false meanings on it.

It gets better, though...

—Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomCritic (talk • contribs) 07:02, 2 October 2006

Primordial Orion

The Titan Orion...

Not a Titan
Thought-free. Son of the Titan Atlas. Titan of a Titan lineage. If not a titan, then what? Hero? [[]Gigante]]? Perhaps, though, there is actually no focused picture in this interjection at all. --Wetman 22:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

...then, literally "mountain-man," (compare orogeny) embodies some primeval aspects of untouched nature.

"Embodies some primeval aspects" -- this is verbiage futilely going in search of meaning. This kind of bloviation occurs throughout.
Obtuse. "Master of the Animals" is one primeval aspect of a primordial hunter. If one can't tell that Orion is an example of "untouched nature", then his successive "acculturation" in a series of encounters will naturally seem incoherent to the reader. --Wetman 22:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Readers may find a useful parallel of Orion in the valiant Enkidu, the opposite/brother and rival-made-friend and helper of Gilgamesh. Like Orion Enkidu was "tall in stature, towering up to the battlements over the wall," as his urban chroniclers described him. "Surely he was born in the mountains," the shepherds cried out, when they first saw him. There is no suggestion of a direct transmission from the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh (we have it in a late Babylonian version) which remained untranslated into Greek until modern times, and there was no direct knowledge of the Enkidu of the Gilgamesh story in the Achaean world, though pieces of tablet with fragments describing Enkidu's death have turned up at Megiddo in Canaan and at Emar on the upper Euphrates River in Syria, areas on the edges of the Mycenaean world.

Enkidu is interesting, but there is no reason for long divagations about Enkidu in an article on Orion any more than there is a reason for introducing a long discussion of Britney Spears. Both are equally relevant.
Unlettered. Walter Burkert, The Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in the Archaic Age (Harvard University Press) 1992 might take the bloom off perfect ignorance in this area. --Wetman 22:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a question of the figure of Enkidu influencing the myth of Orion. Both were survivals of a Neolithic Master of the Animals, surviving from the Neolithic hunt as the Ice Age waned. The Mother Goddess created Enkidu, just as Gaia gave rise to Orion.

This is of course b.s. There is no such thing as (known) Neolithic myth, and any attempt to "reconstruct" such a thing can be no more than deliberate fraud.
"Deliberate fraud" is a pretty stiff personal accusation up at my end of the trailer park. Without descending to such personal attacks, let me inform my sarcastic correspondent that the "Neolithic Master of the Animals" is a familiar figure to the rest of us, as is the Great Hunt of the late Ice age. Even Joseph Campbell would help lift the fog here: I recommend The Masks of God: Primitive Mythology.--Wetman 22:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Edits made in good faith are edits. Cumulative editing provides good articles. Creating an unreferenced parallel article out of one's opinions mixed with half-remembered Greek mythology from seventh grade is a too-familiar tactic: compare the vandal attacking Poseidon in just this same way. --Wetman 22:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Orion and Side

Orion's first episode, represented as a "marriage," associates him with Side

This is the extent of the factual element in this entire section

, quite literally the "pomegranate", in a consecration to that aspect of "The Goddess" of the pre-Indo-European peoples of the Aegean and the Fertile Crescent who later evolved into Hera. The union appears purely mystical, a civilizing rite for Orion the representative of Nature:

Absurd speculation.
(Unaware that side is "pomegranate". Unaware of the pomegranate in the hand of Hera in the Arvive Heraion. A little reading would take the edges off this misplaced self-confidence.--Wetman 22:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

we hear of no offspring; we know of no named place where Orion presided as Side's consort. The Boeotians simply used the word side as the name for the pomegranate. Other Greek dialects call the pomegranate rhoa; its possible connection with the name of the Earth Goddess Rhea, a name inexplicable in Greek, proved suggestive for the mythographer Karl Kerenyi, who suggested that the consonance might ultimately derive from a deeper, pre-Indo-European language layer.

Dubious etymologies
Karl Kerenyi is a writer on mythology whose very name is unfamiliar apparently. --Wetman 22:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
For the layman who comes here, Karl Kerenyi's name may indeed be unfamiliar. It is the point of Wikipedia, isn't it, as it is of any encyclopedia, to assume that the reader of an entry knows nothing on the subject? If that is the case, it would be helpful to the layman (such as myself) to let us know that Kerenyi is, in the circles of mythologists, a well-known writer on mythology. Lkusz

The wild pomegranate did not grow natively in the Aegean area in Neolithic times. It originated in the Iranian east and came to the Aegean world along the same cultural pathways that brought The Goddess whom the Anatolians worshipped as Cybele and the Mesopotamias as Ishtar. The myth of Persephone, the dark goddess of the Underworld also prominently features the pomegranate.

Irrelevant details.
Not to the reader. Enough of this time-wasting.--Wetman 22:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Several "pomegranate" places called Side existed in the Greek world, though not in Boeotia. One stood in the Peloponnese, north of Cape Malea. Another Side, daughter of Taurus, gave her name to a place in Pamphylia, a country only marginally Greek during classical times and now part of modern Turkey. Still another Side committed suicide at her mother's tomb, to escape advances made by her father. She became transmuted to a pomegranate tree and he to a kite, emblem of a robber in the Greek mind. Because of the legendary connection, kites allegedly never land in pomegranate trees.

And on, and on in the same vein. None of this belongs in this article. It's not merely questing for a citation; it's gotten lost and is in the wrong neighborhood. Oddly enough, the miniscule story of Side is never given in this whole section!

I could continue, but that's enough for now. It is appalling that this article is on Wikipedia at all.RandomCritic 14:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh but please do continue. Most enlightening. --Wetman 22:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This is appalling and is a clear candidate for deletion

As someone said above, this article shows everything that can go wrong with Wikipedia (but thankfully rarely does)

A straightforward piece of reference for readers is all that is required from an encylopedia - an intelligent structure, summarising the main points in good, simple English. It is NOT a forum for spouting your own incomprehensible personal pseudo-theories. Please understand that.

This article should be deleted. And I think there is a strong case from preventing whichever idiot keeps re-posting this dreadful verbiage up here from posting elswhere on Wikipedia. Whoever you are, if you can't even begin to see how bad this article is then I'm sorry but you really shouldn't be here.

For a start, it is minimal courtesy to sign your posts. Articles are not deleted from Wikipedia because someone just doesb't like them. Any "personal pseudo-theories" should be flagged [citation needed]. Articles in Wikipedia are not flattering mirrors of one's own incompetence. They are informative and sourced. --Wetman 21:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm seeing a lot of rhetoric, but nothing that deals with the central problem that this article is full of illogical, unscholarly associations with irrelevant matters that have nothing to do with the central subject of the article: the mythological Orion. The farrago about "Ice Age mythologies" is only the most obviously nonsensical of these digressions. But even nonsense theories can be fairly covered in a Wikipedia article -- in a subsection which gives them no more prominence than they are due and clearly states that they are disputed. This article, however, in a clearly NPOV move, states these opinions as if they are fact. Worst of all, there is no clear and straightforward statement of what the myths about Orion are. This article is neither accurate nor well-sourced; if we are dependent for our mythology on Graves, Campbell, and Kerenyi/Jung, we are in bad shape. Maybe some classicists rather than "mythologists" could be consulted. RandomCritic 05:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Graves is remarkably useful, if his data are distinguished from his personal theories. He makes this simple, by relating the myths, in Pausanias' voice, separately from his interpretations. Beyond that, RC clearly atates the neutral approach, although I would not start with "Show me why this article should not be deleted!"; although Kerenyi and Campbell's views should of course be explained. (I have not checked on practice here.) Septentrionalis 14:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed compromise

Set forth the mythological data first, and then explain the modern interpretations (which do not agree perfectly with each other in any case) sepqarately. When there is consensus, this should be noted; where there is not, neither Kerenyi nor Burkert should be given Wikipedia's voice. Stating where the explanation is Graves, where Nilsson, where Farrell, is more useful to the reader in any case. Where the moderns do achieve consensus, say so. What do the two of you think? Septentrionalis 15:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

For the chop: Primordial Orion

At the moment, this appears to be WP:OR, since no one is sourced as originating the idea that Enkidu and Orion are somehow linked. Does the idea come from a reliable scholarly source? If not, the whole section just has to go.

DanB†DanD 17:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it Kerenyi? (I'm sure someone has said it; it's not OR = unattributable.) But do take it out; it shouldn't be asserted in Wikipedia's voice as consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Isn't. Appears to be Fontenrose, although Graves links Orion to Gilgamesh. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

2007

I came to this same page on Orion and it seemed very informitable though now it seems that the info that i once saw has been completely gutted out and now seems much more opinionated. if someone knows more about orion please correct this huge rewriten opinion please. in the meantime i think i'll go to the library instead, that seems to be a more reliable resource.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.163.20 (talk • contribs)

And again, I agree; most of this lacks adequate citation; none of it should be in Wikipedia's voice; and it should begin with an account of the actual myths. The last step seems simplest; and I will begin shortly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What Kerenyi actually says

Gods of the Greeks, all retellings:

  • "In beauty, [the Aloadae ] were second only to the famed hunter Orion." (154)
  • Kedalion, a Kabeiros, the tutor of Hephaistos.(156, citing scholia to Ξ 294, and to Aen. 10,763]
  • Pleiades band of Artemis, pursued by "wild hunter Orion" until Zeus changed them all into stars. (161)
  • Orion seen by Odysseus (248)
  • Myth told at length (201-4); interpretations:
    • related to Zagreus, wild hunter of Crete; Minos, lover of Britomartis because Euryale d. of Minos.
    • Oinopion and Oineus with oinos; Hyreius and Hyria with hyron "beehive".
    • Interprets ourein as semen. Earth-born giant. (source Ap. 1.4.3) -could be pun.
    • Penalty of blinding suggests Orion violated his own mother. Cf. Antonius Liberalis 5.4; Hyginus, Fabulae 132. Aegypius; Lycurgus
    • Merope:Orion::Semele:Dionysus::Elara:Tityos (although otherwise born)
    • Side = "pomegranate" = Queen of the Underworld = Merope. Mother/wife figure.
    • Artemis's Arrows fatal: Horace 3.4.70
    • Opis = Artemis
    • Orion in Underworld claimed by "those who refused to accept the story of his metamorphosis into constellation."
  • Variants
    • Pursued only Pleione, not the other Pleiades (Pindar, fr.239)
    • Euryale, d. Minos (sch. Σ 486.0
    • Oineus. sch. ε 121, ach. Aen. 1.535
    • Merope w. of Oinopion sch. Nicander Theriaca 15
    • walks on sea: Hyg. 2.34
      • Kerenyi suggests Orion, as a giant, waded to Lemnos; unsourced.
    • Artemis sent forth scorpion; Aratus 638
    • Orion challenged Artemis to discus-throwing Apoll. 1.4.5.
    • Apollo tricked Artemis; Hyg. 2.34 (Kerenyi calls "unique";but most of these are.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Poetaster

For those with a taste for such things, I preserve here the link to a versicle contributed as a link:*LINK REMOVED*, a narrative poem by Michael J. Farrand. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Burkert

Walter Burkert notes that the hunter figure on cylinder seals, a precursor also, he asserts, of Heracles, "is generally identified as Ninurta or Ningirsu, the son of the storm god Enlil" (Burkert 1985:209) On the Minoan level, he has been dedicated to the Great Goddess of Crete. On the Classical level, he has become a threat to the reformed and Olympian Artemis and must be destroyed. His myth survives only in fragmentary episodes and references.

The reader would suppose that Burkert was saying something about Orion; he is not. The quotation, from Greek Religion (1985 is the date of the English translation) is about Heracles; it may, however, be useful in the context of the Mesopotamian origin of the constellation. The rest of this paragraph is original research, as far as I can see. While consistent with Graves, it is not his interpretation, which I will add soon. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

I have moved the closing quotation mark, formerly at the end of the paragraph; I assume this was a typo. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ox-hide conception

Do any of ancient sources really point to the ox-hide being from a "bull", that is a male cow, rather than a "heifer", a female cow? Because the latter would make a lot more sense. Also, is there any reason to suppose that the gods would have conceived Orion by urinating rather than ejaculating, other than some possible 19th century bowdlerizing?--Pharos 23:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Same verb in Greek: ourein. The Latin is quod fecerant urinae in corium infudisse As to the cow's hide, I'm not sure. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Itaque quo facilius petitum impetraret, bovem immolasse et his pro epulis adposuisse. Bos is ambiguous, and this is the chief source; but remember the mother here is mother-earth. I think bull-hide is Kerenyi; but I could go for cattle-hide. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for checking the Roman original. I think some of the medieval sources said "heifer" (at least in translation), but cattle-hide is quite satisfactory.--Pharos 06:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware the word has more than one meaning, as many words do, but surely the meaning in this context is quite clear. This is after all an (albeit mythical) act of procreation, and it would be bizarre in the extreme if urination was supposed to be the means of this. Do any modern scholars actually support such a meaning? I am not of course arguing that we remove the possible etymological connection to "Orion", which is highly relevant regardless.--Pharos 06:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I recall some of the modern sources as taking pains to reflect the ambiguity in Hyginus' text, which is genuine. None of the sources I have consulted have been Victorian. As far as I am concerned, this is the sort of thing the reader should be able to figure out for himself; but feel free to rephrase. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I was wrong. Please see the etymological footnote on page 28 of this JSTOR article. Considering my ignorance of Greek, you'd probably be able to handle this better.--Pharos 21:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Clearly an argument that ourein is "urinate"; worth including, I think. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Natalis Comes

Are we sure that Comes doesn't include the "philosophical child" as well, because otherwise the account does seem rather similar to Maier and Pernety. Perhaps if your Latin is good enough, you could have a look at this online version, which has a topical index. Thanks.--Pharos 21:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you have the right volume? The inex on the left has an entry for the daughters of Orion, which is the story from Liberalis linked to under relationships. (I find trying to read the text very difficult, because it insists on displaying at 52%, but I'll give it another try.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain it's the right text. See here. If you're looking at page 51, you should be able to see it right here. It's possible I suppose the Orion origin myth is just not in the index for whatever reason.--Pharos 23:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
And if you still find it difficult to read, you can browse it by page or download the whole PDF from here (it's a bit of a process, though). Or I could just e-mail it to you if you want (it's 73.6 MB).--Pharos 00:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've found the section; it's on pages 457-459. Just click on "Texte Seul" at the top if you're having trouble making it out. Hope that's good for you.--Pharos 01:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The internet is not behaving for me; but I've laid hands on a translation (which says "bull", btw.; is the citation of Euphorion in Greek or Latin?) in which the section on Orion is Book VIII, chapter 13. If this is the same text, the answer is no. First the myth, with some ancient sources not yet cited; then the storm interpretation, then a paragraph of morals (terrible things will happen if you act unlawfully; arrogance is both distasteful and despicable to the immortal gods. Credit and prestige should go to God alone.) Add the moralizing if you like, the source is Natale Conti’s Mythologiae, VIII, 13 translated and annotated by John Mulryan and Steven Brown; Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2006. Vol II, p. 755. ISBN 9780866983617 I'll be adding some of the sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Great. That's the same section I was looking at. Euphorion is quoted in Greek. I've managed to extract a three-page PDF (this type of document manipulation is a bit new to me) of this too which might be easier to e-mail.--Pharos 01:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Got it finally; the text looks like βοὸς βύρσαν/ pellem mactati bovis, so Comes thinks it's a bull. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What would you say to using Natalis as a principal source for the article, like Graves or Kerenyi? His translators think him no less reliable; in fact for us more so; he doesn't quote his sources, he copies them. I'd like to include that list of dogs.

Yes, we'd have to steer around his interpretation; but that's equally true of Graves. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... my Latin is almost nil, and I haven't had a chance to take out the English translation. Where's the list of dogs (certainly sounds interesting)? Anything that's quoted from an ancient source in Natalis should certainly be doable, I'm just not sure about stuff that isn't attested in ancient sources being in the 'Legends' section though (I can't really read it myself, so I'd have to be enlightened on what is there anyway)—but that doesn't mean we can't include it somewhere else if it's especially interesting.--Pharos 21:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The list of names, and Orion's sister Candiope, are at the end of p 457 in the online edition; I am not able to verify either anywhere else. If I recall correctly, the translators suggest that he compiled both from various sources, but they have no note for either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. But please mention the translators' comments in the footnote.--Pharos 02:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Not their comments; their interpretations of Comes' Latin. I hope the footnore is clearer than I seem to have been here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Plan for this article

I redesigned this article to say exactly what the ancient sources say, and then modern interpretations. This was a reaction, possibly an overreaction, to this state of the article, which is a polemic for Kerenyi's interpretation. Most of the complaints by other editors above are to the old version. But this is why I left the ambiguity of ourein in the text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Theranos's edits

I have reverted these; my reasons follow:

I put these here for discussion; if anyone agrees with Theranos, do note it here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The name of Oenopion's daughter is variously given as Merope, Maerope, Maero and Aero. The last from the Parthenius MS. appears to be simply a corruption of Maero (the suffix -opê = face, being dropped in this form -- not uncommon with such names). Re; the sacrifice. A single bull is traditionally offered a god (as in this story of the three), whereas a heifer is for a goddess. Therefore in the context we can safely assume its a bull. The point of the Taurus connection was that Orion was for the Greeks first and foremost the constellation -- the myths are closely interconnect with this. I still think the Parthenius digression is a bit superfluous to an Orion article. Yes, Vatican Mythographer & Servius are best in the footnotes. Perhaps rearranged slightly to indicate which refers to which. The sentence as it stood were a little awkward. But they were just a few minor edits. Otherwise the article is excellent. Surely one of the best in Wikipedia's mythology series. --Theranos 19:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you; have you said that at FAC? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I have read Servius and he makes no reference to Minos, so I assume that variant comes from the Vatican Mythographer, who I understand is a rather suspect source for myth. Do you know if the Latin text of this is online? --Theranos 09:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
BTW Maerope (or more properly Mairopê) is a dialect variant of the name Meropê. The masculine form of the name, Merops, similarly occurs as Mairops. --Theranos 19:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Please cite your source for this claim; which dialect? the MSS of Parthenius, according to both editions cited, give 'Αιρω Haero; this has been variously emended, and Maero is one of the proposed emendations. I really fail to see how Μεροπὴ and Μαίρω (an i stem like Sappho?) can possibly be the same word. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The Smith Dictionary of Classical Biography & Mythology lists both variants but does not specify which dialect -- presumably Mairope is the Aeolic form. The usual etymology of the name is marmairô (also marmeirô), "to sparkle", which is more readily recognisable in the name Maira, a poetic for Sirius, the dog-star of Orion's neighbour Canis Major. Another star, in the Pleiad group, is is likewise named Mairope/Merope "she with sparkling face." See the LSJ lexicon entries [2] and [3]. The Merope form might simply be a play on words -- merops is the bee-eater bird. Something similar occurs with Orion's daughters Koronides, properly comets, lit. "the curving ones", but also interpreted as "crows". --Theranos 09:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The existence of a root mair-; from IE *mary- (with consonantal y which disappears in Greek, and compensatory lengthening) is not in question; what I doubt and request a source for is that Merope, with no a, can derive from it. Coronis has two meanings; outside of the fantasies of the mythographers, so what? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
You could similarly ask why the word merops becomes eirops in the Boeotian dialect [4]. I don't know enough about Greek dialects to offer an opinion on the subject. However the main point was that the two forms of the name Merope / Maerope, and similarly of its masculine equivalent Merops / Maerops (father of Phaethon) both occur in ancient texts. As I mentioned before, the Smith dictionary attests both forms occuring amongst its list of sources. --Theranos 11:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't demand an explanation; I do request evidence for the existence in Greek of Maerops and Maerope, which I have never seen, and (more important) a source that Maero and Merope are the same word. The only relevance of the etymological problem is to show that the difference is not (as it might appear) trivial. In mediaeval Latin, it would be a trivial difference, as would Moerops; but I judge that that is off-topic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Bold, Revert, Discuss

General Note: I hold to the Bold, revert, discuss pattern of editing here. Please be bold until reverted, as I will be, and then discuss, as here. I have been persuaded by some of this discussion, I think Theranos has been by other pieces; that's how it should be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Lots of things go on concerning names and there are debates as to what is the real meaning(s) of a name and what are the acquired meanings (ie Catherine originally being a form of Hekate rather than meaning pure or lugaidh acquiring the meaning "famous warrior", which it doesn't technically have, because of it is often anglicized as Louis). There are also meanings acquired as the result of punning and blasphemizing (making fun of the name or title of one's enemy) - which was a common practice. Whatever source you quote will be guessing. But it is probably best, of one is to have a section on name origins to put the most likely one's first and to try to say where you got the idea from.

The "maira" argument doesn't wash because you are comparing Greek and Scottish - the word Metis means something completely different in Greek (wise), Old French (mixed blood) and Canadian. The Scottish maira and the greek maira/maera seem to share nothing but a similar spelling - the latter, along with marmairo/marmairein, being a niece ancestor to the english word "marble". Maira/Maera seems to be a short form of marmara (the female form of marmaros) and the name of a sea, rather than of Merope.

Still trying to figure this out between dizzy spells but figure that "meros ops" (eyes turned, face turned) is probably the original, with the debate over whether the eyes are turned towards or away from the sun or represent stars or planets themselves (odins eyes are said to represent the sun and moon and daisy the "eye" is believed to be the sun). Then came (mar)mairo ops (sparkling face) - which lead to the concept of sparkling words, since the mouth is part of the face. I think that "bee eater" is probably a red herring and that the merops was just the name given the bird we call the "bee eater" or the bienenspecht because of its sparkling feathers - or possibly because someone credited the bird's eating of bees for its appearance of character. Then again, I could have a different theory tomorrow.

- / - maira, maera (greek)=the sparkler, the glistener, faithful hound of icarius, name of the dog star; Maira is also the arabic word for "moon." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.37.48 (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Armenian mythology

File:Kingcommunion.jpg
The Armenian king in communion joined hands with Heracles, symbol represented with a man with the upraised club. Stella from the Nemrut pantheon.

This is a fascinating image; but the description requires a source; and I think it may be off-topic for this article, which is about the myth named Orion. This, like the Burkert quotation above, belongs in an article on the Middle Eastern mythology of the constellation, which I am not qualified to write. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if the figure is misidentified. The lion-skin cape (barely noticeable) & club would normally suggest a Hercules. The piece probably dates from the Imperial Roman period of Armenian history.
BTW Does Orion actually appear in classical art? The Beazley Archive at least produces no results - although the many "huntsman" figures on pottery are impossible to identify. E.g. a hunter + dog figure could be an Orion, but equally a Pandareus, Cephalus or Hippolytus, or just a generic hunter for that matter. Furthermore the Artemis & Orion story seems to be superceded by Artemis, Apollo & Tityus in art, and the Eos & Orion story from Homer becomes displaced by the Cephalus version in Athenian art. But how about constellation representations of Orion in Roman art? --Theranos 19:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The relief is from Mount Nemrut, and is Hellenistic. I couldn't find any reliable source that identifies it with Orion (I agree the lion-skin seems like quite a tip-off to Hercules). I've done searches of articles on classical art, and I couldn't find any that are really definitively tied to Orion. The clearest claim is John Beazley and Humfry Payne's identification of a pottery fragment at Naucratis, apparently on the basis of the figure being a hunter with a club, which they also compare to some other examples in classical art (see below). There's a photograph, too, which you can see at JSTOR (I haven't uploaded it because it may still be copyrighted). The temple at Thermon mentioned here is somewhat well-known; I believe the hunter they refer to is probably the upper-right image here.--Pharos 20:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
48. P1. XVI, 4. No number. Cup. Inside, Orion. A hunter walking home with a club in his right hand and his bag-a hare and a fox-over his left shoulder. To the right of the figure is something black which may be part of another hare. To complete the figure compare the Tlesonian lip-cup London B 421 (C'.Tr.B.31. P1.ll, 2), the Amasian oinochoe London B 52 (Rev.arch. 1912, ii, p. 367), and, earlier, the metope of the Temple of Apollo at Thermon (A.D. 2, P1.51, 2). The club makes it likely that the man is Orion, whose club was famous. Odysseus found him hunting with a club in Hades (Odyssey 11, 575) :-
[Greek text removed]
Aratus says that Orion was believed to have assaulted Artemis while hunting with a club in Chios (Phnen. 631) :
[Greek test removed]
Middle of the sixth century. The style is so like that of No. 47 that the two cups may be by the same hand.
The cup was not a normal little-master cup; the foot (part of the stem remains) was probably of Siana shape.
If you look up the foot you see that the bottom of the bowl is decorated in red with two circles and a dot. The only parallels we know to this in cups are given by the deep cup Vatican 343 (Albizzati, P1. 38) and the Timenor cup Louvre Cd 1778 (Hoppin, B. f.p. 363).
The difference from Heracles is the prey, I expect; someone discussed Orion as being equipped with a bag for hares; but I don't see that in the Armenian image. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
User:Vonones got it from this website. It doesn't seem to have a search engine. Good luck. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Is the imagery of Orion with the sword (Ps-Eratosthenes & Hyginus) a later development, replacing the club? Unless Hesiod's Chrysaor "Golden Sword" husband of the Hesperis Erythia "Red Sunset" is perhaps Orion. The Poseidon & Medusa versus Poseidon & Euryale (by the Hesiodic Astronomica poet) parentage suggests a connection. This earth C5th BC altar metope from Gela pairs a scene of the birth of Chrysaor, with a similar (or the same figure?) being carried off by the dawn-goddess Eos (just as Orion was in the Odyssey). [5] --Theranos 17:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Well Chrysaor ought to have a sword; the usual interpretation of the name is Goldensword. Orion has a club in the Underworld section of the Odyssey IIRC; but clearly we need to go back to the sources and do iconography. Thanks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The truth behind this seems to be that the god Hayk was identified with Orion by Hellenistic Armenians. I'm not sure this statue is actually of Hayk, though—the note Vonones has put on Septentrionalis's talk page refers to Vahagn, a separate Armenian god who was actually identified with Heracles.--Pharos 21:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to add this; the note is
  • Caption: Armenian King Mithridates of Commagene under the patronage of the Sky/War God Vahagn (associated with Orion). Relief from Hierothesion of Arsameia, 69-34 BC. --Vonones 21:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll check it out, but in either case it probably belongs in the constellation rather than here. Vonones is clearly not writing of something he's seen, but relaying his friend with a website. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Almost identical scene from his father's tomb
I think there is something here that may belong in the article, but not the above image. Mithridates I Callinicus, who is the king depicted in the above image, does not actually seem to have any close connection to Armenian culture, and this scene is almost identical to the one of his son at Nemrut (depicted at the right) which appears to depict the figure labeled "Herakles-Artagnes" (fortunately for archaeologists, the statues at Nemrut actually all been labeled with Greek and Persian names). The more scholarly sources on the subject of the Armenian god Hayk seem to point most directly to the Old Armenian Bible's translation of "Orion" for the constellation, and give the similarity between the god Orion and the god Hayk as the reason for this translation. There is a suggestion that this reflects a broader identification, but little detail on this point. See this site and also pg. 32 of Hackiyan's The Heritage of Armenian Literature (available in limited preview on Google Books): By virtue of his being a valiant prince of fine stature "strong and accurate in drawing the bow," and "a skillful archer," Hayak became a couunterpart of the Greek Orion, perhaps because, like Orion, Hayk has fine features and was a night hunter. No ancient records documenting Hayk's apotheosis into a constellation survive, but in two instances in the Greek Bible that mention Orion, the fifth-century Armenian translators have replaced Orion with Hayk.--Pharos 22:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for new article section

I would like to get some feedback on a new article section (perhaps "Context of the myth"), to deal with some contextual elements that are bit too general and "obvious" in nature to be dealt with under "Modern interpretations" or the other sections. Specifically, I would propose a few brief paragraphs on (1) the general state of preservation of the myth, and the nature of its representation in ancient literature and art, (2) the local connections of the myth in Boertia and possibly Chios, including the "tomb" at Tanagra, and (3) the relevance of astronomy and simple constellation arrangements in shaping the myth. This would involve shifting around some material from other sections, as well as the incorporation of some stuff that I've been holding a bit in reserve.--Pharos 02:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Go for it; my only request is that we keep Wikipedia's voice for things that are actually consensus (like Side as a constellation myth, and even there there's controversy). Good luck finding sources on the state of preservation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Is Rose the source for "Most accounts of religious rites associated with the Orion myth come from the cities of Boeotia."? I agree that he is likely to mean heroic cult rather than worship; but are you overreading? All I see that Orion was worshipped in Boeotia, without any implication about, say, the islands.
I have tweaked, partly to avoid repetion, but I do like this section. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Rose isn't particularly the source for that—I would say Bowra supports it more, and also some commentary on Corinna's audience yet to be added, but it's more of a general statement. I only mentioned "the cities" because a couple of cities are mentioned in particular. But is you think it's too specific (either on "cities" or on cult vs. worship—by the way, what term would cover both?), then please adjust it to your reading of the sources.--Pharos 04:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll look up Bowra; but it just seemed a bit specific for Rose's brief sentence alone. Since it isn't based on Rose alone, no problem. Divine cult v. hero-cult is a real problem, especially if the ancient evidence isn't clear. Feel free to put in any inspiration that comes to you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
How about "The cities of Tanagra and Thebes [or wherever it was] in Boeotia sacrificed to Orion."? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I am quite satisfied with your recent changes on this point.--Pharos 01:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to disassemble this, but the FAC discussions suggested that this would be better under its various subtopics. I hope the second paragraph in the lead does the job you intended for this.

I don't see the Temple of Orion in the listed source, btw (page number?); and I'm not sure I want to reply on a century-old work of general reference for archaeology anyway. Temples for heroes are unlikely anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed
In ancient times, there was a temple of Orion behind where Messina Cathedral stands today.<:ref>Sladen, Douglas Brooke Wheelton (1907). Sicily, the New Winter Resort: An Encyclopaedia of Sicily. New York: E. P. Dutton.</ref>
since I cannot confirm the claim, and suspect it to be a confusion with the Temple of Poseidon built by Orion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that—it's on page 384. As you can see, it's in the context of a long description of various temples in Messina, and the location described for it is rather specific, so it doesn't seem likely to come from some obscure literary error. I would source it to some more modern description of the ancient temples of Messina, but I just couldn't find one anywhere. Actually, if you read Jacob Bryant, you will find a very colorful "confusion with the Temple of Poseidon" as you describe—complete with a veritable mighty tower on the promontory (and apparently a somewhat lesser one on Delos too). But I give no credibility to that account (largely based on Biblical analogies) at all.--Pharos 05:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Got it, here. Sladen has a knack for remarkably murky sentences, doesn't he? The Renaissance historian and mathematician Francesco Maurolico, who came from Messina, identified the remains of a temple of Orion near the present Messina Cathedral, under Hero-Cult? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Is Maurolico mentioned in Sladen? Am I missing it somehow, or did you give the wrong link? The only thing I see on that page is a temple of Orion that was taller than Zancle, near the demolished church of S. Giacomo, where to-day stands the house of Cav. Ruggero Anzà at the back of the cathedral.--Pharos 19:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Two sentences before; spelled Maurolyco. I suppose I may be jumping to the conclusion that these are all Maurolico's identifications. He designed the fountain, btw: See Edward J. Olszewski's review of The Noble Savage, Satyrs and Satyr Families in Renaissance Art. by Lynn Frier Kaufmann and Civic Sculpture in the Renaissance, Montorsoli's Fountains at Messina. by Sheila ffolliott Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 15, No. 4. (Winter, 1984), pp. 527-528.
You're probably right. The source he's likely using is Compendio delle cose di Sicilia (which I believe was published in 1560), which Sladen mentions on pg. 376 in his brief biographical sketch of Maurolico.--Pharos 21:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... it appears Sladen actually read the Italian translation of the Latin work Sicanicarum rerum compendium (1562).--Pharos 01:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Roman calendar "Feast of Orion"

Well, was there one? Voltaire certainly thought there was, on the fifth day before the Ides of May, i.e. May 11 (he also mentions "Orion" on a dolphin, an apparent error). This website also thinks so. These both seem to come from Fasti, which I'm aware is our primary source for minor Roman festivals, but is everything in it actually connected to one festival or another? Is there some better source we could consult for this? Is it relevant that this would seem to overlap in date with the Feast of the Lemures? (By the way, another source—which does not comment on any festival—links this date to the setting of the star Betelgeuse)--Pharos 01:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Some quick comments.
  • There are actual surviving Roman Fasti, as well as Ovid's poem. Voltaire may not have had access to them. The source I cite reprinted several of them, as appendices to Ovid, and they did not show a festival, merely the astronomical phenomenon. The Romans did not have a festival every day of the year, and Ovid works around this.
    • I think Voltaire is having some good old-fashioned fun with priestcraft, using Ovid and his memory alone; don't you?
  • The other website is wrong about the Lemuria; they were (like most Roman multi-day festivals) only on odd days: the 9th, 11th, and 13th (i.e. the 7th, 5th and 3rd before the Ides of May); I suspect he is taking Ovid too literally.
  • No, as suggested, I don't think everything in Ovid is linked to a festival, literally. In this case, I find an actual festival unlikely, because it is linked to the setting of Orion; the Roman calendar was not fixed with respect to the stars before 45 BC.
    • If you can find a scholarly source that says otherwise, fine.
  • The fact that the astronomical event fell on the Lemuria is interesting, but I would bet on coincidence. Orion's ties to the Underworld are less than most heroes'.
  • Betelguese is Orion's shoulder, so it should be in conjunction with the Sun the same time as the rest of the constellation; but this was on May 11 two thousand years ago; the precession of the equinoxes should have moved it to June by now.
But feel free to add tags or edit if you disagree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I had thought this was probably just Voltaire's error, but it seemed like something that ought to be checked on just in case. The source that I have pointing specifically to Betelgeuse (page 162 of the 1878 A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities) seems to be taking precession into account and calculating for the Rome of the time (there is astronomical software that could confirm or correct this calculation, I'm sure). I still have one question, though: in these "normal" Fasti, is May 11 the only date they find of note with respect to Orion (because that source mentions several dates of such significance on the calendar)?--Pharos 00:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll get back to you; but that's what I recall. I suppose it makes sense that Rigel should be different than Betelgeuse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

More Art

I won't have time to do much about this either; but the following may be useful, especially if you can find more about the objets, an upload (which I can't do) or a link:

  1. Orion hunting with Artemis and Apollo
    • drawing
    • school of Fantainebleau
    • Rennes Musee des Beaux-Arts
  2. Diana chasing Orion
  3. death of Orion, killed by Artemis with a crescent on her forehead.

from Mercedes Rochelle, Mythological and Classical World Art Index, ISBN 089950566X Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Skinner

On second thought, I bring this sentence, which was sourced to Marilyn Skinner's paper (linked to in Corinna) here:

The poetess Corinna of Tanagra notably treated the traditions of Orion and characters of related myths in the context of this Boetian tradition in writing for a local audience,

This doesn't say much; and I dislike poetess. Skinner does say that Corinna's use of Orion's fifty sons, the result of the rape of various nymphs shows that she has a patriarchal sensibility. While interesting, it doesn't fit here, and would be a lone critical comment, and thus undue weight, inCorinna as it now stands. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You'll excuse my hackmanship in writing this—I've accumulated a large number of sources, and the urge to tick them off of the little tabs on my browser has led to some hasty sentences. As for "poetess"—no I would never use that descriptor for a modern poet—it just seemed it would be interesting to readers that she was female, but it's really not that important. The main point I was trying to communicate was just, "If you're interested in the perspective of a writer who was actually connected to the Boeotian Orion cult, then you can turn to Corinna." I realize this is somewhat of a secondary point in Skinner's article—the main one as you say being that one should be careful in calling her a woman's author—but I think the article does address the circumstance of her dealing with Orion and related myths from a distinct local perspective.--Pharos 06:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
That's a point. Let's say it; I've put in the Boeotian school, which includes Corinna as well as Hesiod; is Orion in Pindar? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Footnote to Euphorion

The sources for the ed. cited are [Wilhelm]] Dindorf [Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem : ex codicibus aucta et emendata] Oxford 1875, II, 171 l.7-20) quoting texts ed. Flach Leizig 1880 pp. 749-50) and by Walz (Stuttgart 1832 p.490). I see there are also fragments (Dindorf; Carmina Homeri 1855 p.295 13-15, in which Orion attacks "sheaf-bearing" Upis, not Artemis, and a scholion to Aratus 324 (Maass Berlin 1958, p.406 16-20) "nor do the new-born children seek out enormous (pelorios} Orion" (because he's so visible). All this is pp. 253-6; de Cuenca also says the attack on Artemis is the most common, p.254. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyeditor needed

The current FAC for Orion (mythology) recommends a copy-edit. I really cannot do this myself; I'm too close to the article to see it clearly. Also, the FAC has brought out some very useful additions to the article, and I may be too respectful of my helpful colleague's prose.

What this article needs is a detailed readthrough, to see whether it is clear and grammatical, and in compliance with the MOS. Content issues, which have not arisen, I hope I can deal with myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions from a Mathematician

Hi. My name is Jim, and I came to this article in a response to a request for a copy-editor on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics page. Septentrionalis felt that it would be helpful to get the perspective of a non-specialist. I'm a postdoc in mathematics, and everything I know about mythology I learned from reading Edith Hamilton in sixth grade. (Large portions have since been forgotten.)

I'm afraid that I haven't done a very good job as a copy editor. Instead, I have developed a sort of critique of this article from a non-specialist point of view. I apologize if this is unhelpful.

An average person coming to this article will want an answer to the following question: "What is the myth of Orion?" From my point of view, Greek mythology is essentially a collection of interesting stories, and the most likely reason that I would visit this article would be to learn the story of Orion. (Speaking of which, I think it would be reasonable to put a link to this article at the top of the article on the Orion constellation, and vice-versa.)

Presumably, this article will also be read by a large number of mythology specialists, who would be much more interested than I am in the different versions of the story, which writers are responsible for the existing versions, literary interpretations of the story, and so forth. Ideally, the article would cater to both of these audiences. The usual solution is to direct the first few sections toward a general audience, and the remainder of the article toward specialists.

I do not think that this article will be very informative for the average reader. Here's why:

Problem 1

The article has an early and repeated emphasis on the written sources of the myth, as opposed to the content of the myth. This begins in the first paragraph of the introduction, and continues in the "Transmission" and "Legends" sections.

Specifically, the "Legends" section would be much more interesting to read if it were organized chronologically (as events in Orion's life) instead of by source.

  • The fundamental problem is that there is no one story. There are at least two different versions of Orion's birth; there are three major versions of his death. It is not clear even that all the incidents listed belong in the same story. I can see what a synthesized version would look like - and Graves tells one; but it would be synthesis. But the article should say so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Problem 2

The summary of the myth of Orion in the "Legends" section -- for me the most critical part of the article -- is very difficult to read. Consider the following paragraph:

Orion was the son of Poseidon and Euryale, daughter of Minos. He could walk on the waves, and came to Chios, where he got drunk and attacked Merope, daughter of Oenopion, who blinded him and drove him out. He then came to Lemnos, where Hephaestus told Cedalion, Hephaestus' servant, to guide him to the uttermost East, where Helios healed him; Orion carried Cedalion around on his shoulders. Orion then returned to punish Oenopion, but he hid away underground. Orion then went to Crete and hunted with Artemis and Leto; he threatened to kill every beast on Earth. Earth objected, and sent a giant scorpion to kill him instead. After his death, Zeus placed Orion (and the Scorpion[6]) among the constellations.

The problem with this paragraph is the large number of unexplained proper nouns. Here is the process I had to go through to read this paragraph:

1. I know Poseidon is a sea god, but who is Euryale? (Click on link.) Ah, one of the gorgons.

2. What is Chios? (Type Chios into search bar.) Ah, an island.

3. It says that Merope is the daughter of Oenopion, but who is Oenopion? (Click on link.) Oh, the king of Chios.

4. Where is Lemnos? (Click on link.) Ah, another island.

5. I happen to have heard of Haphaestus, but I have no idea why he would be living on Lemnos. I seem to recall that Haphaestus is blind . . . does this play a role in his decision to help cure Orion's blindness?

6. Who is Helios? Sounds like he has something to do with the sun. (Click on link.) Ah, he is the sun. Neat.

And so forth. Why not say "the island of Chios"? Or "Euryale the gorgon"? There are similar problems throughout the article. (In the introduction alone, I had to click on "Boeotia" and "aetiological". The latter proved interesting, but the former could have been avoided by simply saying "the region of Boetia".)

Conclusion

What this article needs is a clear presentation of the Orion myth near the beginning. This should include some discussion of variations (such as the disagreement over whether Artemis killed Orion herself or summoned a scorpion), but should above all strive to be an interesting narrative. In addition, careful attention must be paid to the first appearance of each proper noun, and whether the average reader would have any clue as to what it refers to.

When writing mathematics for a general audience, it often helps me to imagine the reader as a bright high-school student who is curious about the subject but sorely lacking in background knowledge. Only after you have addressed that audience should you move on to material directed at specialists. Jim 05:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Boccaccio

Giovanni Boccaccio has a chapter on Orion in his Genealogia deorum gentilium, which you can find starting on page 27 of this PDF. Again, like with Comes, my Latin only extends to the ability to see there's something interesting here, and some variants I think we haven't covered.--Pharos 20:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it also shouldn't be forgotten that in some places anyway, "Candiope" seems to be just an alternate name of "Merope", for example in the Bach opera (in the opera, she also has a sister, "Argia", but that may just be artistic license). The Lexicon Universale also has a bit about Candiope and incest with her brother; see also here. There are also apparently stories of an incestuous Oenopion, but I couldn't find any decent sources for this other than literary criticism of T.S. Eliot.--Pharos 04:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Subterranean palace

A number of popular works speak of a subterranean palace associated with Orion and Hephaestus, most prominently Horne's s:Orion, which I've prepared for Wikisource (it's in the first Canto). In Horne, as in the popular works (which may well draw from the poem), Orion builds the palace for Hephaestus. The only basis of this I could find in classical writing is in Apollodorus 1.4.4, but here it is Hephaestus who builds the palace. And the wording is apparently ambiguous, because different translators differ on whether it has been built for Orion, or rather for Oenopion.--Pharos 22:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There are references that are Wikilinked with no other information - cannot use Wikipedia as reference - someone needs to remove them

Someone needs to remove these as Wikipedia is not to be used as a reference. Sincerely, Mattisse 22:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There are no instances in this article where Wikipedia has been used as a reference. If a reference happens to link to an article on a books or an author, it simply means that that book is being cited.--Pharos 00:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
What I am referring to are, for example <ref>[[Antoninus Liberalis]] 25</ref> There is no other mention of this that I can find except the wikilink. It is not listed under References. I will ask the FAR committee to clarify as I was asked to help with this article for Featured Article status. That is my only interest. Sincerely, Mattisse 01:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
This means that the reference for this is chapter 25 of Antoninus Liberalis's book. This is just the method that Septentrionalis (who researched most of the article) has used in referencing. Perhaps there is a better format for this type of citation, but it's pretty clear I think what text is being cited for this reference. Also, for whatever reason, Sept decided to include only certain "major" sources consulted under the 'References' heading (as opposed to the 'Notes' heading).--Pharos 01:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You need to read WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:RS etc. This article has been submitted for FA status. This kind of referencing will not help it. Perhaps you do not care, and so be it. I am not the person who submitted it and I am neutral as to whether it is approved or not. I have done what I can so I will bow out now. Someone else can finish the job. Sincerely, Mattisse 12:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
This is the quite standard method of citing poems and classical texts, by book and chapter, paragraph, or line; one example of it is cited in WP:ATTFAQ. I have added the (redundant) information that the title of Liberalis' work is the Metamorrphoses and that 25 is a section number; Liberalis is a single book. When, as usual, the division is standard across editions, it is both customary and preferable to citing the page of a specific edition, which is useless to anyone who does not have access to that edition. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Mattisse, though, insofar as we should be careful to include both author and title for every work, even when it's somewhat redundant and cumbersome. I have suggested a formal clarification of how to cite traditional works at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Citing_traditional_works.--Pharos 20:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ And Catasterismi, 30.
  2. ^ Kerenyi 1976, p. 42)
  3. ^ Scholia on Iliad18.487.
  4. ^ Compare the tale of Baucis and Philemon.
  5. ^ Servius on Aeneid 1.539; Ovid, Fasti 5.537ff; Hyginus, Poetic Astronomy 2.34, noted in Graves 1960 41.f.3.
  6. ^ Scorpion is the type of creature, Greek σκορπίος, not a proper name. The constellation is called Scorpius in astronomy; colloquially, Scorpio, like the related astrological sign — both are Latin forms of the Greek word. Cicero used Nepa, the older Latin word for scorpion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Orion_(mythology)/Archive_2&oldid=789547201"