Talk:Sisyphus

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

Comments[edit]

Shouldn't this be the page first linked to, instead of the Pink Floyd song of the same name??? EunuchOmerta 03:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Irish example[edit]

There is an Irish example of this myth, 'Salisbury Sisyphus', 1887. Type this into google and you will find an old newspaper article in which the Sisyphus punishment is compared to the the punishment like trouble of fixing the problems of Ireland. It is an interesting and historic reference to the myth and should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.79.15 (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanatos or Hades[edit]

Right now it says: "When Hades came to fetch him, Sisyphus put him into fetters, so that no one died till Ares came, freed Hades, and delivered Sisyphus into his custody." But I had understood it was not Hades but Thanatos who came for Sisyphus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanatos That would also make more sense. (The Dutch and German versions of this page both mention Thanatos as well in this context) (I've changed it, the above now only is what it said before)

Right now it says: "Zeus then ordered Hades to chain Sisyphus in Tartarus. Sisyphus slyly asked Thanatos to try the chains to show how they worked. When Thanatos did so..." -- This is starting to make no sense. Did Thanatos just show up after Zeus asked Hades to do it? I don't care if it was Thanotos or Hades but this is hard to read. I am going to change the first "Hades" to "Thanatos" so that it reads consistently. If anyone sees fit to change it back, make sure it still makes sense. -- abfackeln (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Introduction[edit]

Currently there is a piece of the intro that says "Today, Sisyphean can be used as an adjective meaning that an activity is unending and/or repetitive. It could also be used to refer to tasks that are pointless and unrewarding." The second sentence seems repetive and seems to overlook the meaning that Albert Camus lent the tale in his essay The Myth of Sisyphus. Unless there is an objection, I'd like to remove the second sentence and replace it, so that the paragraph reads: "Today, Sisyphean can be used as an adjective meaning that an activity is unending and/or repetitive. To those familiar with Albert Camus, the term may also refer to a sense of contentment following such an activity." Alphachimera (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Myth[edit]

Currently there is a piece of the intro that says "Today he is seen as fictional though the Ancient Greeks believed in him." I would think that is obvious the Greeks believed the myth. Also, "Today he is seen as fictional" is a pretty big assumption with no proof that no Zeus worshippers exist today. I'm going to delete it. Lesssthan (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


I just opened my copy of the American Heritage Dictionary 4th Ed. and the word Sisyphean does not appear.

Dark Tower[edit]

Maybe Wikipedia needs a second spoiler template that says ENORMOUS UNNECESSARY SERIES-RUINING SPOILER WARNING instead?

Seriously, isn't that a seriously big spoiler for an article that isn't actually about Dark Tower or Stephen King? My eyes completely skipped past the spoiler template. I was planning on reading that series, too.. --Kalthare 06:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If there's no objection, I'm going to remove the Dark Tower spoiler. --Kalthare 22:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Biog of Sisyphus removed - why?[edit]

Anyone any idea why the 'biog' section was removed (11th September), wholesale? Without it, the whole Sisyphus business loses its sense and the current very brief allusion neither does the story justice nor supplies the punter with the reasons for the punishment of Sisyphus. Furthermore, the article is supposed to be about Sisyphus, after all. - Ballista 05:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we revert it, so that it is re-instated? - Ballista 04:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Since there's been no objection to your suggestion and it seems like useful information, I've gone ahead and restored the Biography section. - Krinsky 16:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There has got to be some better word that can be used than "Biography", which rather makes it seem like Sisyphus was a living person. Robert K S 06:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sisyphus Legend - a Summary[edit]

I've always found this dynamic gif a nice succinct summary of the Sisyphus legend. --Dunstan talk 10:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

References[edit]

I like the animated gif. Anyway, the references in the article are not listed at the end of the article. Does anyone have the information to add them?--Kenneth M Burke 02:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Solar theory[edit]

Can anyone define the "solar theory" which is referenced by this article? It links to solar deity which does not explain it. -- Beland 17:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the "solar theory" bit is a direct-quoted remnant of of the EB1911 text. Lacking proper citation, that text should probably be obviated away with a more cogent, attributable analysis. Robert K S 19:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Name[edit]

Sisyphus is the Latinised form of the Greek name Sisyphos. The article should be renamed to that and Sisyphus should redirect to this page. All references of Sisyphus in the text should be changed to Sisyphos. Although this guy is well known by his Latinized name the article should use the real one. Gerd Eichler —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC).

No. — Chameleon 01:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Heracles punished?[edit]

Heracles is listed in the section "Other figures in Greek mythology punished by the gods include:". Is this accurate? How was he punished? Did I miss something? -- abfackeln (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think someone though Heracles' 12 Tasks was a punishment by the gods? 89.241.226.253 (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

no POV[edit]

This article seems heavily concerned with how cool Zeus is in comparison with Sisyphus. Can someone please remove this bizarre bias? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.76.193 (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad continuity[edit]

The actual recited myth mentions no boulders at all. --193.166.137.75 (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Triangle (2009 film) in Popular Culture[edit]

Triangle is given as an example of Sisyphus in popular culture without any details regarding this being given. The article for the film makes no mention of anything of this sort, either. Can anyone knowledgable of the movie provide some indication of why it should be mentioned here? Ravenicus451 (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed a mention of Triangle being a "retelling" of the story. It is not. The myth is mentioned in the film. I don't think this is the location to have a list of any film, story, book, etc that references a particular mythos.AbramTerger (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Error[edit]

There is a homophonic error in the article where it refers to the tv episodes featuring Sisyphus. It says that he slept with another man's wife in order for her to 'bare' a child to be his heir, where 'bear' is in fact what she would do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.83.133.250 (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation[edit]

I changed the pronunciation from /ˈsɪsəfəs/ to /sɪsɪˈfʌs/. The main difference being in how to pronounce the "y". This letter is pronounced in all sorts of different ways in English: as /eɪ/ ( like the pronoun, I, e.g. dynamic), as /ɪ/ (like i in in, eg. amethyst) or as /ʌ/ (like a u in us, e.g. bathycolpian — can't think of a better example, sorry—). The OED gives the "y" as the "i" from "is", while here it was as "u" from "bus". I have only heard it as the former and not like the latter, so must concur with the OED. Minor differences are regional, as some parts of the US will read "us" as /əs/ not /ʌs/; the same goes for the "y" which may be read /ɨ/ — there is little difference between /ɪ/ and /ɨ/. --Squidonius (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Sisyphus Modern Interpretation.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Sisyphus Modern Interpretation.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Sisyphus Modern Interpretation.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Pointless archaic pedantry?[edit]

"Ephyra (elder name of Corinth)"

While the word 'elder' is technically correct the usage is archaic. Why not just use the word 'older'? It's clearer and clarity is always preferred in expository texts. This sort of pedantry stops the reader in his tracks while he questions the author's motive: did he wish to demonstrate his erudition or to add a certain tone to the article, maybe the author is not a native speaker of the language, maybe he's a D&D aficianado. Who knows? But the point is it interrupts the flow and induces the reader to add a new section to the talk page. If in doubt consult a style manual, there are many to choose from and they all agree: never use an archaic term when a perfectly good modern equivalent exists.75.157.135.57 (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You realize that you don't need to make a whole new talk section for a non-controversial, one-letter change to the article, right? You can just edit it yourself. This page isn't protected. It almost seems as though you're talking about yourself with the whole "This sort of pedantry stops the reader in his tracks while he questions the author's motive: did he wish to demonstrate his erudition or..." -- Fyrefly (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Ha ha. You got it in one Fyrefly. It's my sport, it's my hobby, it's my curse. The hand of God came down and smote me and He said, "Be critical, be very, very critical." To which I replied, "Redundant intensifiers are bad style. One 'very' will do."75.157.135.57 (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Why does this article contain an info box about the Greek Underworld?[edit]

The entire content of the box is incidental, at best, to this article about Sisyphus. Does anyone object if I remove it? 81.135.67.84 (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

"He was the father of Glaucus"[edit]

Well, where is the misunderstanding about someone being a parent and someone being a child and not to exclude any one else someone being a relative. It would be interesting to how is it to undo something that is so fundamental--relastions. How can you undo something such as who is and who is not your relative?

Oh, he gave his sperm but he is no longer my father since yesterday.66.74.176.59 (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It is very difficult to understand what you are saying because your sentences are ungrammatical. When a father and son are dead, that is in the past, so we say "X (father) was the father of Y (son)". Please listen to others when point out issues with your edits since there appears to be issues with the use of English. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I am certain you understand much more than what you want to convey with your insult and attitude. "Genealogy" and the Latter-day Saints have one up on you with that "logic". As far as I understand ones relatives that have come before them are still relative as are those that follow. Just because you may apply a rule to something is not a reason to justify that the statement should ever be used. It happens all the time in language.66.74.176.59 (talk) 07:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Funny thing about rules. When I was putting away my review material today had a chance to look over the pull out chart on writing rules that was included in the first ed. of the encyclo. britan. Interesting how what once was acceptable is now just a stack of nothings that probably could have helped along a few less books that should have survived.

But what is at issue is does the relationship between two change? No. If there is no change then it is current. You cannot undo what has been done. If "so-n-so" is the father of "so-n-so today" then it is tomorrow and so forth. There is never a need to change an "is" to "was". It is pure mathematics; It all adds up but this attempt at mental agility to impose a former on what never changes is just plain illogical. I asked the six year old and his nanny from the local university. And before the housekeeper went off duty I asked her about the situation and she said that they may think what they have said is correct but then it is like twins that when they decide on something it does not matter what others think because they believe they will carry the day. I am focusing on the relationship father/son and it seems that what is being championed on the other side is there has been a change where there has been none. So if no change has occurred then no change should occur in the expression. It can be long ago. People can be dead. But a parent is a parent and a child is a child.66.74.176.59 (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I came here from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Is or was. You may wish to join that discussion, since it’s explicitly about your edits. Anyway, while I agree with the logic behind your edits (death doesn’t end blood relations), Wikipedia’s style is to use past tense for the dead. (I don’t believe that applies in the case of this article, since mythological beings like Sisyphus never actually lived, but that’s beside the point.) But rules can change; maybe we should use present tense for blood relations. That MOS talk page would be a great place to get people talking about it and considering it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sisyphus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Kierkegaard does not comment on Sisyphus[edit]

As far as I can tell, Sisyphus does not mention Sisyphus in any of his writings. The quote in the article does not mention him, the context of the quote does not mention him, nor does any other work of his that I can find. Therefore I am removing the reference to Kierkegaard from the article. OneGyT (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sisyphus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)