Jump to content

Talk:Endymion (mythology)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments

[edit]

Who is Naxos? Rich Farmbrough 22:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A band called Sonata Arctica has a song, My Selene, that apparently was born from this myth

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Endymion (mythology). 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 23:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  23:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 April 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Don't see general agreement in this debate to rename these pages. Seems to be a bit more strength to the opposing args that the figure from mythology at 48% is not the PTopic over other articles on the dab page, especially the poem by Keats at 35%. Also see more power in the arg that the poem, even though it is about the myth, is yet a separate article by a searched-after poet, an article about the poem itself, not about the poem's subject. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can strengthen their arguments and try again in a few months to garner consensus for this requested move. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– Historical precedence over everything on the disambiguation page, check. Clear primary topic for the word, check. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. bd2412 T 20:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dekimasu: The Keats poem is about the mythological figure, so, if anything, it just demonstrates the mythological figure's long-term significance. It would make no sense to not make the mythological figure the primary topic just because a famous poet wrote a poem about him. The poem has clearly not superseded its own subject matter in relevance. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did not argue that the poem has superseded the mythological figure in relevance–I argued for maintaining the status quo, which is the disambiguation page. If things are changed anyway, this is a case in which it might make sense to reference the poem from the text of the article, even though in general "in popular culture" ("in modern culture"?) sections do not add a great deal to their articles. Dekimasuよ! 16:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All of the other uses seem to derive from the mythological figure. IMO mythological figures should generally be primary for their topics, versus their namesakes. Exceptions should be made only when the namesake is considerably more likely to be the topic searched for; i.e. only when another topic is clearly primary should the original source of the name not be. P Aculeius (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No case to answer. Fails both of the primary topic criteria. Andrewa (talk) 05:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support All the other entries on the disambiguation page are comparably minor entities who are all clearly named after the mythological figure. I do not think there can be any real dispute that the mythological figure Endymion is the primary topic here. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Doesn't pass the threshold of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The mythical figure isn't more sought than all other topics combined, and one other major contender, Endymion (poem), is also of considerable historical significance.--Cúchullain t/c 16:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely significant, but it's about the mythological figure, and I think that's a pretty strong argument for him, rather than the poem, being the primary topic. P Aculeius (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No one is arguing that the poem is the primary topic. We're arguing there is no primary topic as no one article is more searched for than all others combined. It doesn't really matter that the poem is about the mythical figure - it's still a separate article on a significant use that uses the name.--Cúchullain t/c 16:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that nobody here is dismissing the importance of the poet or his poem. The argument is that no matter how worthy the poem is, it shouldn't deprive its own subject of being the primary topic for its title. P Aculeius (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose I've modified the DAB page to list the two primary uses at the top. I'm not convinced this is primary over the Keats poem. Jst because the Keats poem is based on the mythology doesn't mean that the mythology must be the primary topic over the poem.. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

From above: Historical precedence over everything on the disambiguation page, check. No basis for this in policy or precedent. Clear primary topic for the word, check. Pure unsupported personal opinion.

The mythology article gets 48 percent of relevant pageviews], just shy of a mandatory primary topic. No, that's just short of the minimum required for a primary topic. The only other contender is the John Keats poem, which gets 35 percent of relevant page views. Irrelevant. The test is that claimed primary topic must stack up agaimst all others taken together, and this clearly doesn't. The currently setup, which expects the reader to wade through a long list of cruft on the disambiguation page, is clearly unsatisfactory. Having a topic that's not even primary at the base name would be even less satisfactory, see User:Andrewa/Why primary topic is to be avoided#The problem.

Support per nom. As the nom gives no valid reason, this isn't much help.

All of the other uses seem to derive from the mythological figure. IMO mythological figures should generally be primary for their topics, versus their namesakes. Exceptions should be made only when the namesake is considerably more likely to be the topic searched for; i.e. only when another topic is clearly primary should the original source of the name not be. Pure personal opinion, and contrary to current policy and guidelines. Andrewa (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but making your own personal opinion into a new subsection doesn't give it greater weight than anyone else's. Nor do people's opinions get ignored simply because a participant in the debate declares them to be invalid. You also seem to be under the impression that the discussion of determining a primary topic under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a mandatory list of criteria that must be strictly adhered to in all cases. It's not. As the notice at the top of the page states, "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus."
The arguments with respect to Endymion are fairly strong. As stated above, fifty percent or more of page views would suggest that this is the primary topic by one criterion, since that would make this page more likely to be the intended target than all other topics combined; but in fact there is one other topic that receives the bulk of other views, and that's the poem, although this topic does receive significantly more page views than the poem—whether that's enough to say that it's "much more likely" to be the intended target is a matter of opinion. You've dismissed arguments given above as erroneously based on priority, since one of the guidelines mentioned in the aforesaid policy states that "being the original source of the name does not make a topic primary." But neither is it irrelevant to the discussion, and in this case the name of the poem is not merely derived from the mythological figure; the poem is about the mythological figure. Most of the other possible targets have natural disambiguation, or have titles with expected disambiguation, such as "(poem)", "(play)", or "(crater)".
So the question becomes whether there ought to be no primary topic in this case, as it is presently. But as this article accounts for significantly more page views than any of the other candidates, and as the only other serious contender is a work of literature about the subject of this article, there really doesn't seem to be any good reason why this article shouldn't be the primary topic. Ask yourself, if someone were aware of both the mythological figure and the poem about him, and that only one of them could appear under the title Endymion, which one would that person expect to find there? I think that the mythological figure would be chosen nearly every time; it's the natural target. I don't think there's any persuasive argument for the poem or any of the other possible targets to be primary. In which case, why not this? If a consensus develops, then by the policy used as support by both sides in this issue, this article should become the primary topic. Let's see whether that happens, instead of trying to draw a line under the debate and start from zero. P Aculeius (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why some users create these extensive "discussion" sections. It just makes things longer and more disjointed, usually without bringing any clarity to the arguments.--Cúchullain t/c 16:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rape victim

[edit]

I would like to open this discussion on whether Endymion was raped by Selene or not. When I put him in the "Mythological rape victims" category and put her in the "Mythological rapists" category, user P Aculeius reversed my edits and the following discussion ensued: click here.

So I want to know, once and for all, if I am right or wrong in considering that Endymion was constantly raped by Selene, as he was unconscious (sleeping eternal sleep) every time she had sex with him. Endymion never consented to this, for, as far as I could research, the sources only cite that Selene found him when he was already under the effects of Hypnos' eternal sleep. And to that I add the question: what if their roles were switched, and it was Endymion copulating with an unconscious and non-consenting Selene, would there be any doubt whether it's rape or not? --FábioScorpio (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with P Aculeius. This is mythology, and the point of the story is surely about male arousal while asleep more than anything else. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sure. If a man's penis gets hard while being sexually violated without his consent, then it's not rape. --FábioScorpio (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any academic source describing Endymion as a rape victim? T8612 (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it necessary for some academic source to say that rape is rape? --FábioScorpio (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much, yes. Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also tend to agree with P Aculeius. However how we would characterize Selene's supposed relationship with Endymion is irrelevant. What matters is how reliable sources characterize it. I believe that I've read most (if not all) of the most important sources on Selene, and none of them call it rape. Paul August ☎ 13:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the ancient Greeks didn't call it rape when a man is a victim of a woman doesn't mean it isn't rape. --FábioScorpio (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this seriously being discussed? Is it serious that you are all questioning whether a person is sexually violated while unconscious, without their consent, whether that is rape or not? And are you still concluding that it is NOT rape? What kind of """human beings""" are you all? --FábioScorpio (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with T8612, Jonbod, and Paul. What we ought to put on Wikipedia is not based on our assessment, objective or not, as to whether something meets some definition (whether an old or new definition). If modern academic sources assert it is rape, it should be put in the article. If otherwise, such an assessment would not be verifiable. It therefore would not merit inclusion. If you think your claim is self-evidently true, you should be able to find some reliable sources so claiming. Ifly6 (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of you are human. You don't even have blood in your veins. --FábioScorpio (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reversion at Selene: the passage in Martial uses the word raptus, in the sense of an abduction, a carrying off—not that of someone ripping away a person's clothes and forcibly initiating sex. Which, as was pointed out multiple times, does not apply to Endymion—nor in any of the examples mentioned by Martial. In fact, the only person in this passage to which raptus clearly applies is Hylas, who was said to have been drawn under the water by naiads, never to be seen again. There is no mention of sex in any form, willing or unwilling; the myth focuses on the fact that Hylas disappeared and could never be found. Nothing in the various Atys/Attis myths suggests an inverted bride-abduction; they all concern the causes of the mutilation, death, and cult of a youth—derived, according to most scholarship, from the importation of a poorly-understood foreign cult. Parthenopaeus does not seem to fit the definition of raptus either. None of these examples correspond with the general connotations of "rape" in the modern sense, and only one of them in the classical sense. The fact that Martial uses the word raptus does not justify the gloss you're placing on this article or at Selene. And there clearly is not a consensus for doing so in this discussion. P Aculeius (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To this I only want to add that various in ancient artwork, you can see Endymion awake with Selene (here, here, here, and here), or little Erotes surrounding them (here) which is a sign of love and romance, meaning the myth was seen as romantic - compare the iconography of Eos with Cephalus or other men, which paints a different story. Deiadameian (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Martial passage, while the anonymous 1897 translation of Martial linked to does translate raptus as "rape", the modern Loeb edition of Martial translates raptus as "ravished" (see pp. 320, 321). Paul August ☎ 13:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence should be more informative

[edit]

The first sentence really should be something like:

"In Greek mythology, Endymion was the lover of Selene (the Moon) who was given immortality in the form of eternal sleep."

I understand that there are a lot of variations to the story, but the lead really should spell out the basics for a casual reader, rather than go off into discussion about whether he was a shepherd or an astronomer and so on.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doom (talk • contribs) 19:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Endymion_(mythology)&oldid=1208983585"