Talk:Giants (Greek mythology)

Citation format

This article would greatly benefit from using SFN formatting. However, doing it is a lot of work. And we all need to agree on it before anyone should waste their effort only to be faced by a Liberum veto. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

What is SFN formatting? Paul August ☎ 19:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

See, e.g., Thomas James Wise. Click on the blue links, and it takes you to the citation. Very elegant. Note that the books cited have to be properly formatted and use the note "|ref=harv" within the citation template for this to work. If there is more than one author, you need to include him/her. This also permits you to use the sfn, and to add "page=#" to each individual citation. IMHO, very elegant and far prefeeable to the mishmash we have in this article. But it's just a suggestion. I would note that some editors like it, and some don't. I've encountered some real hostility. So I do not want to get into an edit war (or lose the effort) 'over the shape of the table.' My life won't be better one way or the other. I invite you to think about it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Being able to link to the works listed in the References section is nice. One thing I don't like is that it creates named refs, which I find to be a royal pain. Paul August ☎ 21:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It is a way to accomplish what the bot was trying to do, incorporating page numbers into each of the cites, only better. And it lets the computer do the work, with a link to the work itself. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Scottish art in the eighteenth century which was my version, and which was thereafter undone per the discussion on that article's talk page. You can judge for yourselves whether the before or after is better. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

this avoids the proverbial. "royal pain" We will leave it as is until there is a consensus. Once burned, twice learned. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with 7&6=thirteen. The implementation via SVN, HARVB, or any other style is just fine. It is easier for the reader. It is recommend by MOS. It is required for FA articles. I take easier for reader over editors personal preference any day. Bgwhite (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You are talking about "named refs" yes? How is it easier for the reader? When I'm reading an article with named refs I find it hard to link to the cite and get back to where I was in the text — not knowing which of possibly dozens of letters to click. Paul August ☎ 21:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the Scottish article of 7&6=thirteen. 1) The reference section is much cleaner with alot less clutter. 2) You can click on the ref and be taken to the corresponding publication in the Bibliography section. In yours, you have to hunt. 3) If you click on the wrong letter, it is not hard to get back to the text, just click the back button in the web browser. Whereas if one is going between the reference and Bibliography as it is now, one has to use the scroll bar... harder to go back and forth. 4) The vast majority of articles use named links, it is commonplace. Bgwhite (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as I said above, having the cite linked to the entry in the "References" section seems like a good thing, my problem is with named refs, how is that easier for the reader? None of your points above seem to adress that. Paul August ☎ 17:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Just finished off Thomas James Wise. FWIW, I think is elegant and economical for the reader. Compare that to the article on his fellow fraudster book thief, Harry Buxton Forman, which uses more traditional formatting. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Puts the sources alphabetically all in one place. Visually it looks better. Compare Thomas James Wise and earlier version without SFN and EFN and with less inforamtion. I recognize that there is always a trade off. But there are considerations of aesthetics, style, ease of use and taste. If you can't see the difference on your own, I don't know what else there is to say. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure I follow. For this artical aren't "the sources alphabetically all in one place" in the "References" section? Paul August ☎ 18:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You are right about that. However, one has to manually search from footnotes to references. This is (opinion) a pain. Conversely, sfn electronically and automatically links to the full citation. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

As I've said twice above, I agree it would be nice to be able to link from cites in notes to references, but I'm not sure it is worth the pain of named refs, for which as yet I see no benefit. But each to his own. Paul August ☎ 18:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I know what you've said twice before. There really not individually named references. As when somebody puts in a page number. You use the same sfn reference for each source, and merely add or change the page number if you are doing this. In fact, this obviates the need for the rather baroque creation of individual source names, since the software then ties it all together. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Daniel Pabst (before) and Daniel Pabst (after). I think this is a better way. But if I can't get consensus, I will not engage in a massive fruitless act. Like when my parents told me "don't touch the sparkler wire." Once burnt; twice learnt. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You haven't give any explanation for not liking them. We've given the benefits... less clutter, easier for the reader (not manually search footnotes to references), let software do alot of the work, etc. Sorry, but the benefits to the reader outweigh "I don't like them". Bgwhite (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I started the Daniel Pabst article, and was initially intimidated by the complexity of the formatting. But once it's set up, the benefits are enormous and permanent. To add additional footnotes, I just follow the pattern of the formatted ones. It's not something I would have known how to do, but it is a great improvement. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Are there two Asterius giants?

For some reason in the greek theoi site that it talks about another Asterius that is involved with another giant named Anax, but it does not explain whether or not this is the same Asterius in this wiki. Some clarification would be greatly appreciated on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.51.217 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 1 February 2016‎

As noted in the article (see note 167) Pausanias says:

"Before the city of the Milesians is an island called Lade, and from it certain islets are detached. One of these they call the islet of Asterius, and say that Asterius was buried in it, and that Asterius was the son of Anax, and Anax the son of Earth. Now the corpse is not less than ten cubits." (1.35.6)

Elsewhere he says:

"The Milesians themselves give the following account of their earliest history. For two generations, they say, their land was called Anactoria, during the reigns of Anax, an aboriginal, and of Asterius his son; but when Miletus landed with an army of Cretans both the land and the city changed their name to Miletus." (7.2.5)

Whether this is necessarily the same as the Asterius killed by Athena is impossible to say. In any case Theoi is not a reliable source.

Paul August ☎ 11:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

That is diappointing. Most people seem to hold up Theoi as being reliable, and I have certainly found most things I would not normally find on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.51.217 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 2 February 2016‎

The sources given by Theoi are useful, and reliable (with the occasional problem), and there is considerable useful content. But there is much that is idiosyncratic and cannot be relied upon. Paul August ☎ 02:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Questions and comments

I read the article and this must have been at least the second time since I made comments in 2011. I made an enormous amount of fixes to the punctuation which was horrendous. Whoever wrote, does not understand the use of the comma or conjunctions (and/but) since they are rather randomly used. I also made improvements to the layout. I leave a series of questions and comments.

1. The article mentions Apollodorus. I know Apollodorus is typically mentioned as Pseudo-Apollodorus. Is there a specific reason why the article uses the former rather than the latter?

2. The first paragraph under the "Apollodorus" section seems to imply that the Titanomachy happened before the Gigantomachy. Is that the case?

3. The text under the "Ovid" section says "Here Ovid apparently conflates the Giants with the Hundred-Handers, who, though in Hesiod fought alongside Zeus and the Olympians, in some traditions fought against them." What are the traditions?

4. Is "Gigantomachies" really a word? Does Gigangomachy have actually a plural?

5a. The paragraph that starts with "The Gigantomachy was also a popular theme" and ends with "Giant Mimas mentioned by Apollodorus" has bad punctuation and too many semicolons.

5b. Who are the "two females" in the paragraph mentioned above?

6a. Aster and Asterius should be combined. I don't see the reason why the two should be on two separate lines.

6b. Under Asterius I read this: "In the poem, Heracles, fighting the Meropes, a race of Giants, on the Island of Kos, would have been killed but for Athena's intervention." The sentence is unclear and should be rewritten.

7. Under Enceladus, the text says "Virgil has him struck by Zeus' lightning bolt, and both Virgil and Claudian have him buried under Mount Etna (other traditions had Typhon or Briareus buried under Etna). For some Enceladus was instead buried in Italy." The last sentence doesn't really make much sense because Mount Etna is in Italy. The statement is ambiguous.

8. Regarding Eurymedon, "He was possibly the Eurymedon who raped Hera producing Prometheus as offspring."

Since when Prometheus is the son of Hera when it's the son of Iapetus and either Clymene, Asia or Themis?

9. Regarding Mimas, what does "retrograde" mean? Does it have to do with text written backwards like in the image of Athena and Enceladus in this article?

10a. Regarding Picolous, what is "Gigas"?

10b. The entire paragraph on Picolous is not good. The sentence is poor and not in the SVO form (there is no verb).

11. Thoon refers to Thoas. If the two are the same Giant they should be combined.

12a. The list of Giants does not include Athos and Echion, along with Damysos and Theodama, names of Giants I noted several years ago that I found on Wikipedia but I do not see anymore.

12b. At this point in time I count at least 22 Giants in this article plus 4 more (the ones I listed above). Is there an exact number of Giants, their birth in chronological order or some sort of literary source that narrates about their birth?

ICE77 (talk) 07:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I will try to provide some answers below, as I have the time. Paul August ☎ 12:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

1. Most sources simply refer to the writer of the Library as "Apollodorus", as do most (all?) of the sources used here (e.g. Burkert, Gantz, Hansen, Ogden, etc.). Paul August ☎ 12:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

2. Yes. The Titans were an earlier generation of gods, born before the Olympians. The Giants were a later generation of offspring of Gaia, born after the Olympians. See for example the section "Confusion with Titans and others". Paul August ☎ 12:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

3. Regarding the Hundred-Handers as opponents of Zeus, see the associated note. Virgil had the Hundred-Handers fighting against Jove (i.e. the Roman Zeus), as discussed by O'Hara, p. 99. Paul August ☎ 13:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

4. Yes "Gigantomachies" is a word. See: Collins Dictionary, "gigantomachies", and the usage by Moore 1985, p.32. Why wouldn't Gigantomachy have a plural? Paul August ☎ 13:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

5b. As far as I know the two female figures just to the right of Hephaestus haven't yet been convincingly identified. Paul August ☎ 13:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

7. As for Enceladus "instead buried in Italy" as opposed to under Mount Etna, here "Italy" refers to the Italian Peninsula, as opposed to Sicily (a not uncommon usage). I've changed "Italy" to "the Italian Peninsula". Paul August ☎ 14:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

8. The version of Prometheus' parentage referred to here is mentioned in an Iliad scholia, and is attributed to the Hellenistic poet Euphorion, see the cited sources: Gantz, pp. 16, 57; Hard, p. 88. Paul August ☎ 14:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

9. Yes, "retrograde", in this context, means written "backwards" (i.e. from right to left). Paul August ☎ 14:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

10a. Yes, as mentioned in the first sentence of the article, "Gigas" is the singular of "Gigantes". I've changed it to "Giant". Paul August ☎ 14:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

11. Yes, Thoas, and Thoon refer to the same Giant. I've combined the entries as suggested. Paul August ☎ 14:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

12a. Echion, is named as a Giant by Claudian (as far as I know this is his only mention). As for the other three, I know of no classical sources for these. Do you? In any case, I don't think this list must include every name, and each name that is added should be well sourced. Paul August ☎ 14:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

12b. No, there is no exact number of Giants. All the relevant sources which talk about the birth of the Giants, are described and cited in the article in the section "Origins". No extant source gives any order to their birth. Paul August ☎ 15:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Paul August, thank you for the feedback.

6a. I did not see a comment regarding the possible merge of Aster and Asterius.

12a. I do not know of classical sources for Athos, Damysos and Theodama.

12b. I re-read the "Origins" section and it says "Hesiod's Theogony makes this explicit by having the Giants be the offspring of Gaia (Earth/Terra)". Below, it says "And when Uranus came to lie with Gaia, Cronus castrated his father, and "the bloody drops that gushed forth [Gaia] received, and as the seasons moved round she bore ... the great Giants." Hesiod says the Giants are coming from Gaia but then the text seems to imply that the blood of Uranus made the Giants so I don't see how Gaia could have made the Giants (they fell from Uranus the Sky to Gaia the Earth).

ICE77 (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

6a. I think the way it is makes it easier for someone who is trying to look up "Aster". Paul August ☎ 12:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

12b. The blood of Uranus fell on Gaia, she became pregnant, and after a time she gave birth to the Giants. So Gaia is their mother, and Uranus (or his blood) is their father. Paul August ☎ 12:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

6a. If Thoon and Thoas (11) have been merged I don't see why Aster and Asterius should not. It's the same thing.

12b. Where in literature it says Gaia became pregnant?

ICE77 (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

6a. I see no advantage to merging them (and you haven't given any) whereas, I do see an advantage to leaving them separate, since, as I said above, I think it is easier to find "Aster" this way, which isn't so much the case with Thoon and Thoas. Paul August ☎ 10:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

12b. Hesiod doesn't say explicitly that she became pregnant but that's what he means when he says "the bloody drops that gushed forth [Gaia] received, and as the seasons moved round she bore ... the great Giants" i.e. Gaia "received" the "bloody drops" (was impregnated by them) and after "the seasons moved round", (at the end of her gestation period) "she bore" (gave birth to) "the great Giants". For the same reason Gaia is said to be the mother of the Erinyes (Furies) and the Meliai (ash tree nymphs). Paul August ☎ 10:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

6a. One entry says "Aster [See Asterius below]" and the one below it says "Asterius ("Bright One" or "Glitterer"): A Giant (also called Aster)". It doesn't get any clearer than that. If Thoon and Thoas (11) have been merged I don't see why Aster and Asterius should not be as well. It's the same thing.

ICE77 (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Should this be added?

Pausanias (3.18.11) writes that:

Passing over the fight of Heracles with the giant Thurius and that of Tyndareus with Eurytus, we have next the rape of the daughters of Leucippus. Here are Dionysus, too, and Heracles; Hermes is bearing the infant Dionysus to heaven, and Athena is taking Heracles to dwell henceforth with the gods.

Given that as it seems this is a reference to the Gigantomachy, should Thurius be added to the list of named Giants? Deiadameian (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Giants

Giants are also known as the "anti-god"

For example, if Ares was the God of War, the giant who he was to fight would be the "anti-war", meaning a peaceful giant who does the opposite of the domain a god has been assigned.

Each Olympian has a giant against them, and some believe that the Moirai (three fates) have also got a giant against them. 2.96.202.102 (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

No. Paul August ☎ 22:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Přečti si sérii bohové Olympu, tam je to vysvětlené. Třeba Polybotes je něco jako antiPoseidon 78.80.115.199 (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Double articles?

Hi, much of what is here, and in Giant-related articles, is also found under Titans, and related articles, like Gigantomachy, and then also Titanomachy, etc. Perhaps some of these could be either joined together or cross-linked under See also ...? Came here searching for the myth of the titan that Herakles had to lift from the ground and strangle, since whenever that giant was thrown from the Olymp and down to the ground, his strength was renewed by the ground, i.e. by Gaia, the giant's mother. In my memory, this was Enkelados, but this mythlet is nowhere to be found. Just wondering if I'm imagining things, or if it was some other titan, or what. T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing the Giants with the Titans (they're different, see: Giants (Greek mythology)#Confusion with Titans and others), and the Gigantomachy is different from the Titanomachy, so there is not really any overlap between them. This article does cross-link to Titans and Titanomachy. And Titanomachy cross-links to to this article, but since I found no link from Titans to this article, I added a link in the "See also" section of Titans. As for the opponent of Heracles you were looking for, that's probably the Giant Alcyoneus (not Enceladus) but see also the similar story involving Antaeus, the son of Poseidon and Gaia. Paul August ☎ 17:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thx a lot, and a myriad apologies for not doing my homework ... :( And another thank you for clearing up the WWF Heracles for me :) T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. Paul August ☎ 12:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)