![]() | Daily page views
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Cerberus appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 31 October 2008, and was viewed approximately 11,600 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 1825 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The origin section is extremely bizarre, in that it only mentions (and devotes a lot of space to) the theory that Cerberus derived from some story written around extremely ambiguous star patterns in a constellation. Do we have a source for this, as it's certainly not common knowledge. Without a reference it comes off as sounding like strange personal research. With or without a source, it's not really something that should be listed as the sole or default explanation. Constellation theories are not highly regarded in the field of mythology or classical studies. DreamGuy 16:50, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Why don't we make a new section about Cerberus' appearances in other works? That way we could move a few of the mentions there, without making it a "See Also". Still, I vote the God of War mention be removed. There are how many appearances of Cerberus-like things in this world??? Heck, even the dog Fluffy from Harry Potter is more noticeable, and I don't see anyone rushing to put it up.
This wiki is based on the one from Greek Mythology. Why not start a new wiki for the Disney's Hercules version, and categorize that one instead? Not only would that organize everything (and seem less misleading), but everyone will benefit from it.
Fluffy from Harry Potter was inspired by the story of Orpheus and Cerberus, and I also noticed a Dungeons and Dragons reference in a prior discussion. I think this article could use a pop culture section. Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 15:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
An IP removed from the article the mention in Iliad 5.395–397 of Heracles shooting Hades with an arrow, saying in their edit summary that "The incident where Heracles shot Hades with an arrow had nothing to do with the incident with Cerberus. It was from when Heracles attacked Pylos and Hades came to the city's defense". The IP is probably referring to Apollodorus, 2.7.3, but Apollodorus' account may simply be a misinterpretation of Homer.
That this passage is (possibly at least) related to Cerberus' capture is covered (after a fashion) earlier in the article, in the section "Capture":
Here is what Ogden, 2103a, pp. 110– 111 says:
So Ogden believes that Il. 5. 395–7, is referring to Cerberus' capture.
Kirk, G. S. 1990 The Iliad: A Commentary: Volume 2, Books 5-8, ISBN 978-0521281720, p. 102, commenting on Il. 5. 396–7 is more equivocal:
Based upon the above sources, I’ve restored a qualified version of the deleted text, which now reads as follows:
Paul August ☎ 12:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Any objections to my setting up auto-archiving on this page for any thread older than say five years? Right now we have threads over ten years old. I'll give it at least a week before I make any changes. Cheers. DonIago ( talk) 17:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I invite editors to discuss the appropriateness of this edit. It appears to be an attempt to list every reference to Cerberus, without regard to the significance of each mention. In my estimation, this violates WP:IINFO, and possibly WP:NOR as well. A well-sourced prose section discussing Cerberus's significant appearances would, I feel, serve the article much better. DonIago ( talk) 05:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Darylprasad ( talk) 14:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Regards Daryl Prasad
Darylprasad ( talk) 14:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
It is very useful to know the many and varied references to Cerberus when studying Heracles. We do not need another superficial piece of prose like those that already comprise most of the article. How about some unbiased truthful and useful information rather than shallow contrived expedient opinion. The entire article is in need of revision...the start of that revision is knowing most of the sources. Unless you want to make things up. Most of the Greek Mythology pages in Wikipedia are very shallow and some articles are really embarrassing. The list will beef up the content by showing interested people the many and varied classical source references.
If the list violates WP:IINFO, and WP:NOR, then they need to be changed.
Take for example the line in the article: "often referred to as the hound of Hades". What is "often" about three references to "hound of Hades" in 228 references. Another piece of made up information by somebody who has not read most of the classical sources. A list would help that.
And "Cerberus was the offspring of the monsters Echidna and Typhon," which ignores "Ovid, Metamorphoses 10. 22 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman epic poetry C1st BC to C1st AD)". Again a list would help with that. By the way, Ovid says Cerberus was "Medusa's monstrous offspring"...interesting to know!
And what about...
"An exception is the Latin poet Horace's Cerberus which has a single dog head, and one hundred snake heads."
Well maybe in West's translation Cerberus has one hundred and one heads, but the authoritative Bennett translation "Horace, Carmium 2. 13. 34 ff" in "Horace Odes and Erodes" trans. Bennett 1901 p. 68 says the following:
"Quid miruin, ubi illis carminibus stupens
Demittit atras belua centiceps
Auris, et intorti capillis
Eumenidum recreantur angues?"
i.e. "belua centiceps" is "hundred-headed" according to trans. Lonsdale and Lee in "The Latin Classics" ed. Miller Vol 3 1909. Quoting a less authoritative translation without knowing one of the authoritative translations is misleading. A list would help with that as well.
Finally, let us not forget the line in the article:
"Cerberus' only mythology concerns his capture by Heracles."
which ignores the following myths:
doorkeeper of the Styx: Silius, Punica 3. 35 (trans. Duff) (Roman epic poetry C1st AD)
guardian of the Styx: Seneca, Agamemnon 13 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman tragedy C1st AD), Scholiast on Seneca, Agamemnon 13 (Seneca's Tragedies, trans. Miller 1929 1917 Vol 2 p. 539), Silius, Punica 2. 552 (trans. Duff) (Roman epic poetry C1st AD), Scholiast on Silius, Punica 2. 552 (Silius Italicus Punica, trans. Duff 1961 1927 Vol 1 p. 100)
Statius, Silvae 3. 3. 27 ff (trans. Mozley) (Roman poetry C1st AD), Scholiast on Statius, Silvae 3. 3. 27 ff (Statius trans. Mozley 1928 Vol 1 p.165)
hellish porter: Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy 3. 12. 29 ff (trans. Rand & Stewart) (Roman philosophy C6th AD), Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy 4. 7. 19 ff
warden of Lethe: Statius, Silvae 3. 2. 112 ff (trans. Mozley) (Roman poetry C1st AD), Scholiast on Statius, Silvae 3. 2. 112 ff (Statius trans. Mozley 1928 Vol 1 p.165)
him who blocks the entrance to the Lethaean stream: Seneca, Oedipus 559 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman tragedy C1st AD): Scholiast on Seneca, Oedipus 559 (Seneca's Tragedies, trans. Miller 1938 1917 Vol 1 p. 474)
Echidnean dog: Ovid, Metamorphoses 7. 408 ff
Tartarean dog: Seneca, Hercules Furens 649 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman tragedy C1st AD), Scholiast on Seneca, Hippolytus 844 (Seneca's Tragedies, trans. Miller 1929 1917 Vol 2 p. 540)
Stygian dog: Seneca, Hippolytus 223 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman tragedy C1st AD), Scholiast on Seneca, Hippolytus 223 (Seneca's Tragedies, trans. Miller 1929 1917 Vol 2 p. 539)
Seneca, Hercules Oetaeus 79 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman tragedy C1st AD), Scholiast on Seneca Hercules Oetaeus 79 (Seneca's Tragedies, trans. Miller 1929 1917 Vol 2 p. 539)
Seneca, Hercules Oetaeus 1245 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman tragedy C1st AD), Scholiast on Seneca Hercules Oetaeus Oetaeus 1245 (Seneca's Tragedies, trans. Miller 1929 1917 Vol 2 p. 539)
That's quite a lot of myths to ignore.
The writer obviously does not know of the many and varied classical sources for Cerberus. A list would definitely help with that. The rigour of the article is a joke. I am trying to increase the rigour without writing inane prose which we could all do without. Most of it has been already said and in much better English by the sources and scholiasts on those sources ...which I am listing.
Please respond with a reasonable and logical argument before deleting, instead of citing possible breaches to WP:IINFO, and WP:NOR.
Regards
Daryl Prasad
Darylprasad (
talk)
07:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
@
DarthSiqsa: We cannot add an "In popular culture" section unless the entries contained within it are sourced. Moreover, if we are to have such a section, we must have sources which indicate the significance of what is being mentioned there to Cerberus himself.
MOS:POPCULT states that [c]ultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist
, and unless we had some source which somehow indicated that the appearance of Cerberus in the video game is of significance to Cerberus, we should not be mentioning it here. –
Michael Aurel (
talk)
16:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
[a]n editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. As you have re-added the section four times after it was removed by myself and another editor, you are now in breach of this (whereas I only reverted you twice). If you have material that you would like to be added in such a section, you can propose it here, though it is unlikely to be added unless it has sourcing which establishes some notability with respect to Cerberus himself. – Michael Aurel ( talk) 05:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
A Wikipedia article may include a subject's cultural impact by summarizing its coverage in reliable secondary or tertiary sources, and the game itself is a primary source, meaning it is not sufficient here. – Michael Aurel ( talk) 06:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
proves the connection, you mean that the source establishes that the depiction in question is of significance to Cerberus himself, then yes. – Michael Aurel ( talk) 06:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
You mean creating a separate "Cerberus in popular culture" article? Remember that everything you write needs to be properly sourced to secondary (or tertiary) sources. I've checked a few sources I thought might discuss representations of Cerberus in various media (the Brill's New Pauly supplements and the Cambridge Companion to Greek mythology), but I couldn't find anything which seemed significant enough for inclusion here. If you want to create a separate "Cerberus in popular culture" article, we would need to see quite significant sourcing to justify that, and if you want to add a section here, it also needs to be well sourced. Maybe, when (or if) it's something you want to do, you could propose what you want to add/create on this talk page here. – Michael Aurel ( talk) 10:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
[a] Wikipedia article may include a subject's cultural impact by summarizing its coverage in reliable secondary or tertiary sources. Primary sources by themselves are not enough for the purposes of a popular culture section. – Michael Aurel ( talk) 11:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
No one knows 96.244.78.79 ( talk) 16:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
References
![]() | Daily page views
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Cerberus appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 31 October 2008, and was viewed approximately 11,600 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 1825 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The origin section is extremely bizarre, in that it only mentions (and devotes a lot of space to) the theory that Cerberus derived from some story written around extremely ambiguous star patterns in a constellation. Do we have a source for this, as it's certainly not common knowledge. Without a reference it comes off as sounding like strange personal research. With or without a source, it's not really something that should be listed as the sole or default explanation. Constellation theories are not highly regarded in the field of mythology or classical studies. DreamGuy 16:50, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Why don't we make a new section about Cerberus' appearances in other works? That way we could move a few of the mentions there, without making it a "See Also". Still, I vote the God of War mention be removed. There are how many appearances of Cerberus-like things in this world??? Heck, even the dog Fluffy from Harry Potter is more noticeable, and I don't see anyone rushing to put it up.
This wiki is based on the one from Greek Mythology. Why not start a new wiki for the Disney's Hercules version, and categorize that one instead? Not only would that organize everything (and seem less misleading), but everyone will benefit from it.
Fluffy from Harry Potter was inspired by the story of Orpheus and Cerberus, and I also noticed a Dungeons and Dragons reference in a prior discussion. I think this article could use a pop culture section. Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 15:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
An IP removed from the article the mention in Iliad 5.395–397 of Heracles shooting Hades with an arrow, saying in their edit summary that "The incident where Heracles shot Hades with an arrow had nothing to do with the incident with Cerberus. It was from when Heracles attacked Pylos and Hades came to the city's defense". The IP is probably referring to Apollodorus, 2.7.3, but Apollodorus' account may simply be a misinterpretation of Homer.
That this passage is (possibly at least) related to Cerberus' capture is covered (after a fashion) earlier in the article, in the section "Capture":
Here is what Ogden, 2103a, pp. 110– 111 says:
So Ogden believes that Il. 5. 395–7, is referring to Cerberus' capture.
Kirk, G. S. 1990 The Iliad: A Commentary: Volume 2, Books 5-8, ISBN 978-0521281720, p. 102, commenting on Il. 5. 396–7 is more equivocal:
Based upon the above sources, I’ve restored a qualified version of the deleted text, which now reads as follows:
Paul August ☎ 12:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Any objections to my setting up auto-archiving on this page for any thread older than say five years? Right now we have threads over ten years old. I'll give it at least a week before I make any changes. Cheers. DonIago ( talk) 17:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I invite editors to discuss the appropriateness of this edit. It appears to be an attempt to list every reference to Cerberus, without regard to the significance of each mention. In my estimation, this violates WP:IINFO, and possibly WP:NOR as well. A well-sourced prose section discussing Cerberus's significant appearances would, I feel, serve the article much better. DonIago ( talk) 05:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Darylprasad ( talk) 14:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Regards Daryl Prasad
Darylprasad ( talk) 14:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
It is very useful to know the many and varied references to Cerberus when studying Heracles. We do not need another superficial piece of prose like those that already comprise most of the article. How about some unbiased truthful and useful information rather than shallow contrived expedient opinion. The entire article is in need of revision...the start of that revision is knowing most of the sources. Unless you want to make things up. Most of the Greek Mythology pages in Wikipedia are very shallow and some articles are really embarrassing. The list will beef up the content by showing interested people the many and varied classical source references.
If the list violates WP:IINFO, and WP:NOR, then they need to be changed.
Take for example the line in the article: "often referred to as the hound of Hades". What is "often" about three references to "hound of Hades" in 228 references. Another piece of made up information by somebody who has not read most of the classical sources. A list would help that.
And "Cerberus was the offspring of the monsters Echidna and Typhon," which ignores "Ovid, Metamorphoses 10. 22 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman epic poetry C1st BC to C1st AD)". Again a list would help with that. By the way, Ovid says Cerberus was "Medusa's monstrous offspring"...interesting to know!
And what about...
"An exception is the Latin poet Horace's Cerberus which has a single dog head, and one hundred snake heads."
Well maybe in West's translation Cerberus has one hundred and one heads, but the authoritative Bennett translation "Horace, Carmium 2. 13. 34 ff" in "Horace Odes and Erodes" trans. Bennett 1901 p. 68 says the following:
"Quid miruin, ubi illis carminibus stupens
Demittit atras belua centiceps
Auris, et intorti capillis
Eumenidum recreantur angues?"
i.e. "belua centiceps" is "hundred-headed" according to trans. Lonsdale and Lee in "The Latin Classics" ed. Miller Vol 3 1909. Quoting a less authoritative translation without knowing one of the authoritative translations is misleading. A list would help with that as well.
Finally, let us not forget the line in the article:
"Cerberus' only mythology concerns his capture by Heracles."
which ignores the following myths:
doorkeeper of the Styx: Silius, Punica 3. 35 (trans. Duff) (Roman epic poetry C1st AD)
guardian of the Styx: Seneca, Agamemnon 13 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman tragedy C1st AD), Scholiast on Seneca, Agamemnon 13 (Seneca's Tragedies, trans. Miller 1929 1917 Vol 2 p. 539), Silius, Punica 2. 552 (trans. Duff) (Roman epic poetry C1st AD), Scholiast on Silius, Punica 2. 552 (Silius Italicus Punica, trans. Duff 1961 1927 Vol 1 p. 100)
Statius, Silvae 3. 3. 27 ff (trans. Mozley) (Roman poetry C1st AD), Scholiast on Statius, Silvae 3. 3. 27 ff (Statius trans. Mozley 1928 Vol 1 p.165)
hellish porter: Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy 3. 12. 29 ff (trans. Rand & Stewart) (Roman philosophy C6th AD), Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy 4. 7. 19 ff
warden of Lethe: Statius, Silvae 3. 2. 112 ff (trans. Mozley) (Roman poetry C1st AD), Scholiast on Statius, Silvae 3. 2. 112 ff (Statius trans. Mozley 1928 Vol 1 p.165)
him who blocks the entrance to the Lethaean stream: Seneca, Oedipus 559 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman tragedy C1st AD): Scholiast on Seneca, Oedipus 559 (Seneca's Tragedies, trans. Miller 1938 1917 Vol 1 p. 474)
Echidnean dog: Ovid, Metamorphoses 7. 408 ff
Tartarean dog: Seneca, Hercules Furens 649 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman tragedy C1st AD), Scholiast on Seneca, Hippolytus 844 (Seneca's Tragedies, trans. Miller 1929 1917 Vol 2 p. 540)
Stygian dog: Seneca, Hippolytus 223 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman tragedy C1st AD), Scholiast on Seneca, Hippolytus 223 (Seneca's Tragedies, trans. Miller 1929 1917 Vol 2 p. 539)
Seneca, Hercules Oetaeus 79 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman tragedy C1st AD), Scholiast on Seneca Hercules Oetaeus 79 (Seneca's Tragedies, trans. Miller 1929 1917 Vol 2 p. 539)
Seneca, Hercules Oetaeus 1245 ff (trans. Miller) (Roman tragedy C1st AD), Scholiast on Seneca Hercules Oetaeus Oetaeus 1245 (Seneca's Tragedies, trans. Miller 1929 1917 Vol 2 p. 539)
That's quite a lot of myths to ignore.
The writer obviously does not know of the many and varied classical sources for Cerberus. A list would definitely help with that. The rigour of the article is a joke. I am trying to increase the rigour without writing inane prose which we could all do without. Most of it has been already said and in much better English by the sources and scholiasts on those sources ...which I am listing.
Please respond with a reasonable and logical argument before deleting, instead of citing possible breaches to WP:IINFO, and WP:NOR.
Regards
Daryl Prasad
Darylprasad (
talk)
07:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
@
DarthSiqsa: We cannot add an "In popular culture" section unless the entries contained within it are sourced. Moreover, if we are to have such a section, we must have sources which indicate the significance of what is being mentioned there to Cerberus himself.
MOS:POPCULT states that [c]ultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist
, and unless we had some source which somehow indicated that the appearance of Cerberus in the video game is of significance to Cerberus, we should not be mentioning it here. –
Michael Aurel (
talk)
16:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
[a]n editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. As you have re-added the section four times after it was removed by myself and another editor, you are now in breach of this (whereas I only reverted you twice). If you have material that you would like to be added in such a section, you can propose it here, though it is unlikely to be added unless it has sourcing which establishes some notability with respect to Cerberus himself. – Michael Aurel ( talk) 05:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
A Wikipedia article may include a subject's cultural impact by summarizing its coverage in reliable secondary or tertiary sources, and the game itself is a primary source, meaning it is not sufficient here. – Michael Aurel ( talk) 06:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
proves the connection, you mean that the source establishes that the depiction in question is of significance to Cerberus himself, then yes. – Michael Aurel ( talk) 06:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
You mean creating a separate "Cerberus in popular culture" article? Remember that everything you write needs to be properly sourced to secondary (or tertiary) sources. I've checked a few sources I thought might discuss representations of Cerberus in various media (the Brill's New Pauly supplements and the Cambridge Companion to Greek mythology), but I couldn't find anything which seemed significant enough for inclusion here. If you want to create a separate "Cerberus in popular culture" article, we would need to see quite significant sourcing to justify that, and if you want to add a section here, it also needs to be well sourced. Maybe, when (or if) it's something you want to do, you could propose what you want to add/create on this talk page here. – Michael Aurel ( talk) 10:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
[a] Wikipedia article may include a subject's cultural impact by summarizing its coverage in reliable secondary or tertiary sources. Primary sources by themselves are not enough for the purposes of a popular culture section. – Michael Aurel ( talk) 11:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
No one knows 96.244.78.79 ( talk) 16:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
References