Talk:Gorgons

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dholz11. Peer reviewers: BaileynNelson.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 March 2021 and 11 June 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Secotuff. Peer reviewers: Studiesin..., TheOliveGreen1234567.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Relation between Greek and Irish?

Could someone tell me how old Irish and Greek are connected? AFAIK, Old Irish has no shared linguistic roots with Greek. Can anyone defend the claim (in the Origins paragraph) that these two have anything in common? Canutethegreat (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I never knew of the connection. Could it be some common indo-european roots? Dr.K. (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats what I was wondering, but it seems unlikely that old Gaelic Irish would have any relationship to Old Greek, regardless of the indo european group. If that is the case then could someone cite that? My goal is to either clarify it as a fact or if it is false get rid of it all together. It also seems like a stretch to compare terrible to wild. Can the person who made that edit confirm this as a fact? Canutethegreat (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your points. Maybe someone can clarify this. Dr.K. (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The Celts and Greeks are connected via both Gothic tribes and Gaulish tribes which had contact with both. Also, Greek vessals did sail as far north as the british isles. Lastly, much that is found in Irish mythology has been tainted by Roman influences. 72.185.169.135 (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong information

I'm reading about Perseus in mythology class. It wasn't the gorgons who had one one tooth and one eye, it was the Graiae. ZeWrestler ^Talk 04:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Perseus was given the reflective sheild by athena not the Graiae who actually tried to trick him into looking at Medusa. I'm also pretty sure it was Persus and also the Medusa and the Gorgon have the exact description on other websites and stuff why is this??Ageus13 13:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Ageus13

Gorgons and Graiae

I agree with ZeWrestler. Gorgons and Graiae were different monsters (and probably, ancient peoples). IonnKorr 18:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This is true- the Graiae actually rveealed the Gorgons whereabouts to Perseus when he stole their eye and held it for ransom- they were supposedly all related though. (unsigned)

Gorgons and Carians

It is possible that Gorgons or Gorgones were the "monster-mutation", through Greek mythology, of Carians and Cretans (two pirate peoples who lived at coast of south-western Asia Minor and in island of Crete ). Both were the terror of sailors who have been travelled in Eastern Meditteranian, in second half of 2nd millennium B.C. IonnKorr 15:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I know this comment is old, but where did you come up with that nonsense? I hope there isn't some book out there making sch a shoddy claim. Gorgons were not "the terror of sailors," and other than that totally incorrect assertion there's no reason whatsoever to make a connection to pirates. DreamGuy 21:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Catoblepas

Gorgon is also another name for the unrelated catoblepas, and the gorgons in modern fantasy works (like Dungeons & Dragons or various Might and Magic games) are based upon it, not on Medusa and her sisters. The question is whether this confusion was already present in classical mythology, or did not occur until the Middle Ages. Does anybody know more about this? - 82.207.213.123 18:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The confusion was already present by the Middle Ages; many bestiaries refer to creatures much like the catoblepas as "gorgon". Edward Topsell was responsible for a later bestiary that cemented this usage, but I'm a little hazy on the details and he was writing pretty well after the period (17th Century, I believe). I believe T. H. White's The Bestiary may have some useful information on this, and the links in the Topsell article may be useful (haven't tried them yet). 12.22.250.4 22:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Nanas

What is the source on male gorgon? mordicai. 16:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing. This article is still packed with second-hand tripe absorbed from Xena Warrior Princess. --Wetman 12:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

that bit was added from an IP address that has been warned and blocked for repeated vandalism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gorgon&diff=next&oldid=50907851). though not blatant vandalism here, the contribution is still dubious and unsourced so I removed it. anyone with relevant sources please put it back and accept my apologies. Laurent paris 03:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Gorgon's picture

The picture adds significantly to the article. it is of high resolution and it should remain. All interested users please leave your comments here. Thanks. Dr.K. 02:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the reason for wanting to delete it? What's the problem here? Now I see it, from the edit summary: " the image sucks.... even in Photoshop with the Gorgon blown up it's gritty and hard to see, let alone small and uncropped and poor contrast and poorly framed photo". Essentially, someone doesn't like the image's quality. --Wetman 05:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn;t *like*? It's not just a question of like or dislike (other than the fact that the person who put it here and shoved it back is the photographer and so is not judging it on its true merits but on the fact that he wants his photo featured), it objectively is poorly lit, and extremely badly framed (look at all the crap at the top of the photo, most of the image doesn't even contain the part we are supposed to be interested in). And I downloaded it at full resolutions thinking I'd just go in there and crop it and adjust the contrast, but it's really unsalvageable, thanks to extremely poor lighting conditions and low resolution. If it were about four times as big as it currently is, the tonal range could be cleaned up and then reduced in size to smooth out the resulting graininess, but that's not currently an option and doesn;t fix the current version, which is just bloody awful. Wikipedia is not flikr or some other photo-sharing service, an image that's included here must be useful. This one's not. 21:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I cannot have an intelligent conversation with a person who uses adjectives like crappy and unsubstantiated allegations such as wanting my photo to be used out of vanity etc. But hopefully other users will not stand for a single bad mannered user to dictate their taste to them and in the process deprive them from an excellent example of an original gorgon picture from early Greek antiquity. Currently as it stands you are in the minority. Another user (Wetman) obviously does not agree with you. Does he also do it out of vanity? And how many people do you need to tell you before you let them enjoy the picture? Because your personal opinion is that you don't like it you cannot possibly impose your opinion on Wkipedia. Talking about vanity! Dr.K. 22:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as this nonsense about poor contrast this is exactly as it appears in real life at the Corfu museum. If you visited the museum in person like I did you would know this exact contrast and lighting conditions prevail at the museum. It has nothing to do with poor photography skills. In fact an almost identical unfree picture that was used in the past looked exactly the same. Ask Carnildo about it. We had long conversations about unfree images together. Dr.K. 23:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Finally this image is used in the French, Italian and Hebrew Wikipedias [[1]]. I don't think I uploaded it there also! Dr.K. 23:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I will not revert any further out of respect for process. I will refer this to comments from users and possibly arbitration, as I have better things to do than edit warring with deletionists without a cause. Dr.K. 18:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Dr.K. told me about this and asked me to comment. I agree, the photo is not of ideal quality. But, it is of encyclopedic value and the quality is not so bad that it loses that value. So, I don't really understand the reasons for removal. Someday, someone will be able to take a better picture, or clean this one up. Until then, why not display this one? The article doesn't seem over-illustrated or anything. Mangojuice^talk 17:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, gosh, you admit that the quality is poor, but you want to keep it? Defeats the whole purpose of having an encyclopedia. We don't put up crappy photos just to have crappy photos. We've got quality standards here -- or we should, anyway. Too bad the photographer wasn't as good at taking a good photograph as he is at running around and asking editors to come support him. Is this an encyclopedia project, or some MySpace friends list sort of thing at work?DreamGuy 21:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think the quality is poor. I think the quality is okay: not ideal, but not bad either. If anything, it's a decent picture of an ugly, nondescript carving. Also, it's the only photo that depicts more than the head of the Gorgon, which is why I think it's worth keeping. Mangojuice^talk 19:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I quote for your benefit the paragraph above:

As far as this nonsense about poor contrast this is exactly as it appears in real life at the Corfu museum. If you visited the museum in person like I did you would know this exact contrast and lighting conditions prevail at the museum. It has nothing to do with poor photography skills. In fact an almost identical unfree picture that was used in the past looked exactly the same. Ask Carnildo about it. We had long conversations about unfree images together.

So sorry I did not take my film crew with me when I went to the museum, brought my studio lights and the cranes needed to perfectly illuminate the huge pediment and the exhibition hall. Maybe I should have brought David Copperfield with me to make it disappear from the Museum and then rematerialise it to the Wikimedia Foundation where you could take a technically perfect picture. Dr.K. 00:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't take it personally, but even without additional lighting, the white balance and f-stop settings can be adjusted, different lenses could have been used, et cetera. Not to mention that different angles would make a difference. No photograph ever depicts something "exactly as it appears in real life." Heck, how the pediment appears one moment may not be the same as how it appears the next, because natural light isn't the same at every moment, and our eyes adjust, our color receptors become more and less sensisitve, et cetera. Mangojuice^talk 19:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks as always Mangojuice for your comments. I agree with you and I welcome your comments since they give me an additional opportunity to explain the details of this. If you look at the picture meta data you'll see the camera was a Kodak P850. It is a great camera but it only has a 36-430 mm zoom lens. The pediment is actually lighted by artificial light and no direct sunlight at all. This is to preserve the delicate ancient reliefs of the pediment from the corrosive effects of direct sunlight. The light is provided by the floodlights at the back of the hall and it makes for uniform but not very bright illumination. I stood at the very back wall of the hall (about 30 ft) from the pediment but the 35 mm lens setting was not wide enough to take the whole pediment even at that distance. Meanwhile the flash of the P850 at that distance didn't really make much of a difference. If you Google Corfu Gorgon and look at the images you won't get a picture of the whole pediment and the contrast doesn't look much better. Maybe a 24 mm or smaller lens could take it but I only guess. At the same time since the 35 mm lens was not taking the whole structure I made a choice to show the left wing where more reliefs were present rather than the right side where not too much action existed. That made the pediment look biased to the left and the composition looked unbalanced, but I made a conscious decision to sacrifice composition for sculptural detail since my lens at 35 mm was not wide enough. As far as better picture quality just tinkering with the f stop, shutter speed settings, exposure values etc. might do it but I think that to get better results from such a huge dimly lit object one needs Hasselblad or equivalent and studio lights. So I was actually not joking entirely. But thanks again as one of your many contributions to Wikipedia that applies most to me is that you are always a source of calm, logical and welcome advice. Take care. Dr.K. 20:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record

I am being accused that I try to put the image of the Gorgon pediment to promote myself and out of ego. Nothing could be further from the truth. I simply replaced many unfree images with GFDL ones after long conversations with Jkelly and Carnildo and donated them to Wikipedia in order to assist the project. Here is just a sample of some of my correspondence with Jkelly about the donated pictures: User_talk:Tasoskessaris#Image:KerkyraDimarheio.jpg_listed_for_deletion. Dr.K. 20:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep I've heard this ego crap before and it's always ridiculous. If someone can provide a better free image then go ahead. Until then, this one can stay. We aim to improve, not destroy.-BillDeanCarter 00:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete And in some case, improving is best handled by removing bad quality. Like this instance. It's not "destroying" in any sense of the word, it's just having expectations of quality. DreamGuy 21:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, as I think it adds something to the article. I'm not at all clear on what the "quality" problem is; there's nothing obviously wrong with either the photograph or the subject. Jkelly 23:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Vote

For interested users please vote here to keep or not the Gorgon pediment picture from the Corfu Museum. See dicussion above. Dr.K. 19:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed removal of the Origins Section

A user has recently attempted to remove the whole origins section as in here. I am not a linguistics expert and I don't know if the information there is good, bad or indifferent. What I object to is removing whole sections without discussion. Especially if it has happened before; see here. Please share your thoughts on the complete removal of the Origins section from this article. Thank you. Dr.K. (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the discussion was in the edit comment:

whole section is unsourced and gives pretty bad linguistic claims. That and Gimbutas claims give WP:UNDUE weight to pretty fringe ideas when no weight is given to solid info

The undue weight problem is a major violation of the WP:NPOV policy, a fundamental building block of this encyclopedia. The other claims were completely unsourced/original research. These are pretty basic concerns that require immediate action. You are, of course, free to go out and find reliable sources for these claims, document them, and then provide additional views on origins of the mythological figure from reliable sources so that NPOV is restored, but until such time the section was in violation of Wikipedia safeguards.

Regarding the Flash Gordon page, that was removed per WP:NOT and WP:ENC, plus our style guides for articles on fictional topics. There's also specifically a template for pointing out when plot details exceed any reasonable size. If editors see something wrong they are supposed to be bold and fix it. It's just how things work here. DreamGuy (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Quote: It's just how things work here I sure hope not! Coming from someone who reverts in the middle of a discussion this comment is surely a dangerous omen, if it were true. As I said before I opened this discussion to give users a chance to discuss the merits or not of keeping this section. You chose to go right over the top of this discussion and eliminate this section as if you are in such a hurry you cannot wait for a few more users to look it over and have their say. This goes against WP:Consensus. But I have better things to do than throw WP: labels around to someone who reverts in the middle of discussions. This is plain bad manners. Dr.K. (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I would keep the Origins section, though it may need better documention or caveats added about the speculative nature of some of the claims. Perhaps some of it could be embedded in a major edit or rewrite by someone else? SOME discussion of the origins of the Gorgon(s) would seem germane to the subject. Winslow Shea (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The use of tags in Wikipedia

Wikipedia has many tags to put on disputed sections and articles. The reason for the existence of these tags is to afford opportunity to users to modify, correct and clean up disputed sections. Even if a section gets ultimately removed at least it gets a fair chance to be improved before it is deemed unsalvageable and gets erased. Is it too much to ask that the Origins section be given some time tagged before it gets erased? Dr.K. 22:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete from the Classical Tradition section most of the paragraph on the dating of Homer?

Given the brevity of this section at present, this paragraph is too long, intrusive, too technical and off-topic. For readers who would like more info on Homer, a simple link to the "Homer" article should suffice. I would save only the last sentence of it (rewritten for coherence with the context). Winslow Shea (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

another fate of Medusa's head

In "Heros and Monsters of Greek Myth" by Evslin and Hoopes, there is a condensed story of Perseus. It said that the ultimate fate of Medusa's head was that Perseus threw it into the sea. As the head rolled around the bottom of the sea, it created coral. My copy of this book is packed away somewhere, so I can't use it to figure out where that account came from. Does anyone know a better source for this? Frotz (talk) 08:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Bronze Bull

Shouldn't there be some mention that the name Gorgon is also sometimes used to refer to the fire-breathing Brone Bulls... even if only to say that this appelation is missused. And a reference to popular usage of Medusa as a common name for all Gorgons.72.185.169.135 (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Article contradicts itself (gorgos: fast/terrible?)

Summary:

In Greek mythology, the Gorgon was a terrifying female creature. It derives from the Greek word gorgós, which means "fast".

Origins:

The name is Greek, being derived from "gorgos" and translating as terrible.

-- Estragon (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

On oct 29, 129.12.128.210 changed "dreadful" to "fast". I've revered that unsourced change. We should try to find a source for the meaning. Paul August ☎ 16:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Gorgos is Greek for fast, not terrible. I won't change it on the page, because it will probably be changed back, but it is Greek for fast. (I didn't write it on the page the first time, just saying). -Lordloss210 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.247.84 (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

About origens

I recall a tv special(might have been history channels gods series featuring a profile on medusa, i can't recall), about gorgons and they claimed the origen of the iconography of bugged out eyes,tusked teeth,protruding tounge, and serpentine hair is a result of peoples experiences with seeing the face of a bloated corpse and is why the image is multi-cultural. for example the maya have simular images such as in the center of thier calender as well as other artifacts bearing the likeness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.6.31 (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

---

This view came from the book “Medusa: Solving the Mystery of the Gorgon” By Stephen R Wilk, who was involved with the tv show mentioned above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.74.136.102 (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Redirect variations of Gorgon stare

Gorgon stare already redirects to Gorgon Stare, which is a military surveillance tool named after the stare of a Gorgon. I created Gorgon's stare and Gorgon's Stare to redirect here, updated Gorgon (disambiguation), and added relevant hatnotes to this article and Gorgon Stare. If there is a consensus to change some of these redirects or hatnotes, that's fine by me.

I found the term "Gorgon stare" and similar variations which referred to the stare of a Gorgon in more than one book in a "Google Book" search. I did not see a need to update this article as it already explains that looking at a Gorgon could turn you into stone, even if it does not use these exact phrases. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Minoan ring picture

The caption in the article for this picture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bague_de_Mochlos.png), and the in-line text says it "depicts a sea-goddess with a monstrous head in a boat." On inspection it does not. I don't have access to the reference, but here is another description: http://www.biroz.net/words/minoan-epiphany/review-part-five.htm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.145.175 (talk) 08:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

This image was recently removed. I have now also removed the attached paragraph:

Possibly related, a female figure, probably a sea-goddess is depicted on a Minoan gold ring from the island Mochlos in Crete. The goddess has a monstrous head and she is sitting in a boat. A holy tree is depicted, probably related to the Minoan cult of the tree. [Martin Nilsson (1967), Die Geschichte der Griechischen Religion Vol I. C.F. Beck Verlag, Muenchen p. 246]

I don't speak German, but with the help of Google Translate (I know, I know, but it's the best I've got), I've tried to investigate whether the book cited describes the goddess's head as monstrous, and I've come up with this:

Der Goldring aus Mochlos (Taf. 12, 6) zeigt neben zwei Heiligtürmern, von denen das eine ein Baumheiligtum ist, eine Frau in einem Boot mit einem Tierkopf, der auch als der eines Meerungeheuers gedeutet wird. ("The gold ring from Mochlos (Plates 12, 6) shows, besides two holy towers, one of which is a tree sanctuary, a woman in a boat with an animal head, which is also interpreted as that of a sea-doe.")

An animal head is not a monstrous head, let alone a gorgon. I'm uncertain of the fuller meaning of Meerungeheuers "sea-doe" (Meer + Ungeheuer = sea + monster?), so perhaps that's what the editor who originally placed this citation was relying on. But even so, taking this as citation for the ring depicting a gorgon seems like a step too far into original research.

The only other mentions I could find are these:

Der Goldring aus Mochlos mit einer Göttin in einem Boot (Taf. 12, 6) zeigt rechts einen Bau, der dem ersten Typus ähnlich ist, aber ohne Baum; über dem Boot erhebt sich eine Konstruktion, die einer Leiter mit zwei Stufen ähnlich sieht, und darüber ein Baum. ("The gold ring from Mochlos with a goddess in a boat (plate 12, 6) shows on the right a building similar to the first type but without a tree; above the boat rises a structure similar to a ladder with two steps, and above it a tree.")

Göttin in einem Boot, Goldring, Mochlos. Nach Athen. Mitt. XXXV (1910) S. 343. Zu S. 282, 300 ("Goddess in a boat, gold ring, Mochlos." This is the description of plate 12, image 6, showing the ring. The citation is to Communications of the German Archaeological Institute, Athenian Department.)

And to cap it off, the citation was wrong; the publisher is C.H.Beck, not C.F.Beck. So it just seems like an overall lack of care in adding this citation. -- Perey (talk) 06:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Gorgon

Two times the word 'Sanskrit was written. Please correct it. Wikipedia pages should be error fee. Good Videos (talk) 07:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Time Of The Earliest Gorgons

In the section "Depictions" first lane: "Gorgons were a popular image in Greek mythology, appearing in the earliest of written records of Ancient Greek religious beliefs such as those of Homer, which may date to as early as 1194–1184 BC.", but in the article regarding Homer: "It is thought that the poems were composed at some point around the late eighth or early seventh century BC", whereas the latter is correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.170.118 (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: HUM 202 - Introduction to Mythology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 21RowRowRoYourBoat89 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by 21RowRowRoYourBoat89 (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)