Talk:Cyclops

Various origin speculations

Elephants

The skulls giving origin to the legend would be Deinotheriums or Sicilian Palaeoloxodons? Is there a way to choose? (Anon.)

"Tatoos"?

"Blacksmiths also tattooed themselves with concentric circles in honor of the sun; this is another possible source of the legend. " Which? whom? where? I suspect manufactured post-literate "tradition" in this statement. --Wetman 02:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fetal development

In about 1997, I was in the hospital with pinched nerves in my back and extreme pain. The pain medication would wear off during the night, and I would turn on TV until the new medication put me to sleep, which was too long a wait for me.

One earl morning TV session, I switched to the PBS station in Dalls, and caught a video that a man made when his wife first became pregnant. He actually had a doctor to insert some fiber optic strings into her and attached them to his movie camera. It was fascinating, to say the least, to actually see the development of the body destined to house a new Soul.

At one point, the fetus was facing the camera, and I saw the spaces where the eyes wer to be located. They were only indentations, covered over with skin.

Shortly after that scene, I saw one very large eye appear in the absolute center of the forehead, then begin to pull apart, and looking every bit like it was just detaching one eye from another eye, and each eye began a slow movment downwards and to the left and right until they were located firmly in their correct places.

This experience was astounding to say the least.

I think this may be the results of the development of man that had goten to the pont where the body needed two eyes, and not one. As this is obviously a development process, now, the true cyclops fell by the wayside and has not been a part of modern man since.

A few years later, I had a desire to see it again, but when the PBS station showed it, the sequence where the single eye split into two eyes had been cut out. Perhaps the powers that be, church or politician or scientist decided it would be way too much for the average person to handle to know we are descendants of one-eyed giants. I don't know.

I have tried to find that video, and it can be found on Amazon.

If anyone who has more research skills than I is interested, (s)he might find the original producer/photographer and see if he has an original that new, complete versions might be made available to the general public. (Anon.)

Could that feature be the pineal gland, which some link to the third eye? --Error (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Congenital cyclopia

"It is also possible that the rare but occasional birth of malformed children affected by cyclopia, a rare congenital cephalic disorder, could have inspired the legend." Moved here from text. This shows a fundamental misunderstandings of mythology comparable to the fetal cyclops above. Too cranky. --Wetman 05:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Picture

I added a rather nice picture. It's an animatronic.--Codenamecuckoo 14:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Pic plz Crystal pepper (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Sicily and Cyclopes

Is possible that Syracusae, in Sicily, may be the Land of Cyclopes?

Etymologically, there is an identification of Cycl-opes and Sicelians (the ancient Sicels, a non-Greek people of this island).

Note: In ancient times, there were three non-Greek and non-Phoenician peoples lived in Sicily.

1. Sicelians (or Sicels or Siceli, lived in eastern Sicelia)
2. Sicanians (or Sicani, lived in central Sicelia)
3. Elymians (or Elymaeans, or Elymi, lived in western Sicelia)

--IonnKorr 19:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about this etymology, but there is a connection between the Cyclopes and Sicily--as metal-workers, the Cyclopes were localized in areas where there was volcanic activity, and that means Mt. Etna. There are sources for this, but I don't have them to hand--Theocritus 11 might be a place to look. --Akhilleus (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

What is the spelling in Greek? My guess would be KYKΛOΨ. Michael Hardy 01:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

In Greek, the word "Cyclops" is "Κυκλωψ" and "Κυκλωπες", in plural .

--IonnKorr 16:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, in my all-capital notation, it's KYKΛΩΨ; I had the penultimate letter wrong. I checked this in the Oxford English Dictionary and I've added the spelling in Greek letters to the article. Michael Hardy 19:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Greek uses accents like many languages like Spanish or Portuguese so the above are lacking accents and should be written as Κύκλωψ and Κύκλωπες. ICE77 (talk) 06:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Redirects?

I'm thinking that there isn't much to add to the individual articles for Brontes et al. What if I made those into redirect or disambiguation pages, pointing readers to this article? The only additional information that was in those articles was the translations of the names, which is why I added those in here. Nareek 18:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

All three articles now lead readers back here. My feeling is that a lot of mythological stubs need to be either redirects or disambigs--there's only so much to be said about a lot of minor figures. Nareek 12:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Two generations?

Methinks this article is doing a bit of original research: I don't think any Greek source says that there are "two generations" of Cyclopes. Rather, like much of Greek mythology, the sources are simply inconsistent: you have Hesiod's Cyclopes, Brontes, Steropes, and Arges, and you've got the Odyssey's Cyclopes. But Hesiod and Homer don't try to reconcile these groups of Cyclopes. I doubt that any later writers (out of those we have) give a schema of two generations, but if someone does, it would be nice to have some sources in the article... --Akhilleus (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not work that right into the article? --Wetman 03:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I take "generations" to mean "groups distinct in time"--which they plainly are. I don't think it necessarily implies parenthood, which would be not OR but inaccurate. Nareek 20:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

To say that there's two generations of a particular group or creature naturally implies that the second generation is descended from the first. If you want to say "groups distinct in time", just say "groups distinct in time." Except, that's not as clear as you say--the Homeric Cyclopes are described as a kind of race or tribe of human-like beings, and so presumably have a history of their own, stretching back several generations. Note that the Phaeacians lived close to the Cyclopes, but then moved to a new land because the Cyclopes were too troublesome--and this happened at least a generation before the "present time" of the Odyssey (the relevant lines are at the beginning of book 6, I think).

There's actually a controversy, reaching back to antiquity, about the connection between Homer's Cyclopes and Hesiod's (see e.g. R. Mondi, "The Homeric Cyclopes: Folktale, Tradition, and Theme", Transactions of the American Philological Association 113 (1983) 17-38). The two-generation solution adopted by the article looks like original research to me, since it's not supported in any of the original sources or the modern scholarship I've seen--it appears to be an original, ad hoc solution to the problem of the two groups of Cyclopes. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The word "generation" is often used in a figurative sense, not implying actual parenthood. If I said that the Sex Pistols were part of the generation of musicians that followed the Beatle, would you assume that I meant that Johnny Rotten is John Lennon's son? Nareek 13:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

But what if I said there were two generations of Beatles? Two generations of Sex Pistols? Two generations of the Ramones?

Or, to use "generation" figuratively, let's say that there were two generations of punk rock music. The Stooges belong to the first, and Sonic Youth belongs to the second. Doesn't that mean that Sonic Youth was influenced by the music of the Stooges--that, figuratively, Sonic Youth descends from the Stooges?

Even in this figurative sense, then, "generations" implies some kind of descent or genetic connection.

At any rate, the notion of "generations" stems from ancient attempts to reconcile Homer and Hesiod's Cyclopes (see Aristotle, fr. 172 Rowe), and there the idea is that they were related. (I was mistaken earlier when I said the "generations" idea was an ad hoc solution.) --Akhilleus (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

One or Two eyes?

Is it possible that Cyclopses may not necessarily be 'one eyed' since the greek word Cyclops in fact means Round eyed? Perhaps it should be mentioned that the perception of Cyclopses having only one eye is only the result of popular social belief? This is just a suggestion.

I've infered that regardless of the number of eyes it has they're going to be round. As there are so few texts it's entirely possible that there "were" two-eyed cyclops, but they just weren't interesting to write about :-) Well, this article seems to focus on one-eyed and doesn't really mention round, so I'll try to add it in a NPOV way. Rodiger 19:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Added more Real-Life Refrences

Just added Artemis Fowl addition to Real-Life References.

Lost information

For the record, the following has been lost during recent months:

• Κύκλωψ, "meaning round eye"
• Note to Kyklopes: "In English usage, this more strictly accurate transliteration may appear pretentious." (replaced by Futurama references).
• "Their individual names were secondary, save Polyphemus, singled out for his encounter with Odysseus."

--Wetman 03:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The second and third items don't seem like losses to me. It would be useful to include information on the etymology of Κύκλωψ; I don't have references at hand, but I believe that a few people think "round eye" is a folk etymology. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Nareek 10:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Harryhausen

Isn't that the same cyclops at the beginning and the end of the film? Nareek 20:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Polyphemus in Homer's Odyssey

I read Robert Fitzgeralds translation, and in it Odyessus and his crew definetly knew the Cyclopes ( called Kyklops in this version) lived in the cave. Odysseus and his men go in, and even though his men protest lingering, and suggest they grab and run Odysseus decides that they stay. There they eat Polyphemus' sheep, and steal his cheese.

The rest here is definetly just my speculation...

When Odysseus and his crew came to the island, they had been plundering and pirating (their attack on Ismaros an example). Their coming to Kyklopes island was more of the same. They ate Polyphemus's sheep, which in this he calls his children, and cousins. Also when talking to the Kyklopes, Odysseus lies to him, saying they are shipwrecked and asks for his help. Polyphemus sees through the lie, and a few other lies, with the third eye he's the 'seer of the meaning of things'.

Anyway, the movies always depict the Cyclops as a monster, and I don't think I've ever seen him use language at all. I figure mentioning that Odysseus did know what he was getting in to, and definetly brought some of the trouble on himself. Without going way off on a tangent, it just seems that the Cyclops is often passed off as not important, but he really shows at the time that Odysseus was acting rather brutishly and greedily. It's an important part of Odysseus's character development through the story.

But, how much of that was speculation, and what could I do to put it into the page?

The encyclopedia question is only, was Polyphemus, the easily-fooled but dangerous being of some primitive order, meant to be a sympathetic figure to Homer's hearers? (No.) Our sentimental reaction of universal sympathy for all creatures has only developed since the 18th century: not encyclopedic, except as an example in a subsection "Homer and the Romantics", which would belong at Homer. Do you see how that is?--Wetman 04:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I do see, but what about the issue that they knew he was going to come back all along? Odysseus's men even impore him to leave before the beast comes back. Saying it was unknown seems to be a contradiction to that. --KLoverde 04:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If the article is misrepresenting the plot of Homer, that ought to be corrected. As for the rest of your question, I would say it relates more to the character of Odysseus than to Polyphemus, and so belongs (if anywhere) in his article. Nareek 04:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Nareek) The article may be a bit unclear. Odysseus and his men know the cave is inhabited, but they don't know who lives there. The text could use some editing.

I think you raise a valuable point, too--eating Polyphemus' food without being invited to do so is a violation of hospitality, and you could draw a parallel between that and Odysseus' piratical behavior. To make it into the article, this analysis would need to be based on secondary sources. I know that a few people have written about this very question, and have compared Odysseus' behavior in the Cyclops episode to the suitors' behavior in Ithaca, but I don't have references at hand. I'll look for them tomorrow. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll look for a source on the issues of Odysseus's morality, and piracy.

But as for the crew knowing who inhabited the cave, when they are leaving the island of the Lotos eaters, there is this passage

" In the next land we found were Kyklopes, fiants,louts,without a law to bless them, "

Odysseus then continues to describe them, as savages. Now, I just remembered that all this is a retelling of the tale to the Phaikins(sp?), so that might be why he mentiones this. But.. Right after they make landfall and Odyessus takes 12 men to scout the island I find this passage " A wineskin full I brought along, and victuals in a bag, for in my bones I knew some towering brute would be upon us soon --all outward power, a wild man, ignorant of civility " This is right before they get to the cave, and in the cave his men urge him to leave swiftly. So this makes me think that they did know who was going to be in the cave. So saying they were caught unknown is misleading, or it's incompatitable with the Fitzgerald version that I have, I figure this might be worth mentioning.--KLoverde 05:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wheel-eyed?

From what I've read, cyclops translates as 'round eye', not 'wheel-eyed'. A source to back this up is Dictionary.com.--Jcvamp 14:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Dajjal

How about the Muslim folklore about an Anti-Christ false prophet with one-eye called Dajjal, in which Imam Mahdi and Jesus will destroy close to the Day of Judgment? Isn't that a cyclop too? --Fantastic4boy 06:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Why captilized

Why is Cyclops always captilized? Isn't it a noun? Would you captilize dog? Please answer me it's bugging me. --Alec0124 16:25, 16 April 2007

I believe that it is because this is the name of a God therefore having important significance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.161.91.13 (talk) 13:24:47, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

It's the name of a god, actually, not a God. Aran|heru|nar 15:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

So-called "Triamantes"

I moved this here:

The Triamantes in Cretan legend have been suggested - they were a rural race of man-eating ogres who had a third eye on the back of their head. Other than the detail of the eyes, they sound very similar to the Cyclopes of Homer.

There is no "Cretan legend" of "Triamantes". In fact the word "Triamantes" has never occured in any of the professional literature that is indexed at JSTOR, which goes back into the 19th century. This bit of text was added 09:47, 5 January 2004 by an administrator of Wikipedia, whom I decline to identify. Thanks to our lack of oversight, and that includes me, for this page is on my Warchlist, "the Triamantes in Cretan legend" have been mirrored and replicated all over the Internet. --Wetman 05:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Vase in origins is OR?

There is claim that the cyclops may not have been a true cyclops in the origins section, saying that there is a vase with a cyclops being stabbed in the face with a two pronged fork. But the reference given was simply an image of the vase with no text at all, which leads me to believe that the editor that added in there "worked it out" himself and then thought it would be a good idea to add it into wikipedia. It was added by IP address 81.77.229.152 on 14:58, 16 May 2007. This reference seemed to be "confirmed" by user Bibliomaniac15 two days later when he fixed up the reference at 02:18, 18 May 2007 and 02:19, 18 May 2007 and again on 02:22, 18 May 2007. This concerns me because this bit of original research has been on this article for over 5 months now, who knows how many people read it or used it as a source for a school project or official work? Or even brought it up in conversation as a fact, when it was purely original research from one random viewer. Even worse is that this original research was in a large way "approved" by Bibliomaniac15 as a verified and "checked" source by an admin! C'mon people, we need to stay sharp here, we are telling people that we are editors of an encyclopedia, it's time we started living up to it! JayKeaton 20:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

So much for "okayed" articles approved by the Ministry of Magic. Quite to the contrary, a major lesson in using Wikipedia is that the wise reader is always skeptical of printed "facts". Previously this was an axiom of elite education alone. --Wetman (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is always dissapointing when you find something false and completely made up in an encyclopedia. People do not come here to question what we tell them :( JayKeaton (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, too. Especially disappointing in "okayed' articles, where readers are encouraged to let their guard down, by a perhaps spurious "guarantee": not a good category, in my experience. --Wetman (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Too true and you are absolutely right, Bibliomaniac15 really let the readers down with this blunder :( JayKeaton (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible folk etymology

I saw Akhilleus' mention of it above, and added another theory with refs. in a footnote: it may be from PIE kuh-klops "cattle thief."Ifnkovhg (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Who has suggested such a PIE root for "cattle thief"? --Wetman (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, Ifnkovhg has misremembered and confused the actual proposal. Kuh is the German word for cow. What Paul Thieme has really proposed is PIE pku-klops, from peku "sheep" and klep- "steal". I'll correct that in the footnote.

If his idea is correct, the Cyclopes were originally just regular giants and the depictions of the Cyclopes as one-eyed are incorrect and just secondary consequences of the folk etymology. The elephant origin explanation is then moot, as well. --Florian Blaschke (talk)

Genetic Mutation?

I've heard of single gene mutations which cause dramatic changes in body morphology. This blog post alludes to the fact that mutations in embryonic cells can result in human changes such as "the symmetry of the internal organs reversed so the heart is on the right instead of the left". A curious comment talks about cyclops as potentially being such a mutation. Can anyone dig up anything substantive on this? http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/the-monster-is-back-and-its-hopeful/#comment-807 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1000Faces (talk • contribs) 21:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How could there be anything "substantive" on this? Only the very simple confuse fiction with fact to this extreme extent. --Wetman (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

New possibilities on the origins of cyclops

Thread moved from unrelated page Wikipedia talk:Contact us. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 15:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The History channel has recently aired a documentary on the origins of certain mythological creatures of Greece. It states that certain Islands and areas of Greece were very rich in dinosaur bone deposits. There are records left behind that state that peoples of Greece would come upon large bones and either re-bury them, or bring them to a local temple as a sacred object, completely assured that they had found the bones of either ancient Gods or heros. It also states that dinosaur bones have been found in temples. Also, ancient pottery in these areas show mythological creatures in bone-only form, which are absolutely accurate to known dinosaur specimens. The theory that is set forth by the documentary is that cyclops came about by the local people finding mammoth skulls. Since it is very difficult to make out the eye sockets of a mammoth, people may well have mistaken the hole in the upper middle of the skull face for being the eye (this is the spot where the trunk would have attached itself to the skull). The cyclops was described as a misshapen giant with one eye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.212.166 (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

just a link you can use; in the the subject "shangri-la" (english version) at the line "Story of the blossom valley" you need a citation; i propose http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2090 from the gutenberg site

Vandalism

The article has been completely replaced with a one that is a modern fiction story involving a teacher, that happens to be a cyclops, having sexual relations with a student. Aside from this being a disturbing look at the author. it completely messed up a good page. I am going to try to fix it. but I would like Wikipedia to treat this as vandalism.=)

Awg1010 (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Tischbein

There are better reproductions of Tischbein's Polyphemus on the Net: google image.--Wetman (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Capitalisation of 'cyclops'?

Needs to be consistant. DrJimothyCatface (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Issues with recent edits to page

I have issues with three recent edits by DarkSleach, which I've reverted.

1. This edit removed all the links and a "ref" tag.

2. This edit changed:

"They fashioned thunderbolts for Zeus to use as weapons, and helped him overthrow Cronus and the other Titans."

to:

"They fashioned thunderbolts for Zeus to use as weapons. That was how Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades overthrow Cronus and the other Titans."

I think the former is better since although Zeus had help from many quarters, Zeus was clearly the leader, and there is no good reason to mention Poseidon and Hades over others.

3. This edit removes links and a "fact" tag, and adds unsourced text which sounds a lot like original research to me.

(Other editors have taken issue with DarkSleach's edits see: [1], [2], [3].)

DarkSleach would you please discuss these edits here first before reinserting this material? Thanks.

Paul August ☎ 21:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Autism

If one interprets the Hecatonkeres, Cyclopes, & Gigantes as possessing symbolic representations intended to communicate symptoms or aspects of Autism, then you can correlate Adhd, OCD, & Berserking perfectly with the descriptions of these 3 the mythological characters.

Having a hundred hands & 50 heads is obviously another way of describing people who are all over the place moving so fast in body & mind that you see an after-image that can easily be described as someone possessing 100 hands.

Cyclopes if you break it down into two parts, phonetically sounds alot like Psyche (Mind) Op (Eye). This indicates deep perception & observational skills, which are absolutely crucial to masons & blacksmiths.

Gigantes were known to be strong & aggressive...both aspects of people who are genetically inclined to be berserkr. According to another wikipedia article, the name may also interpret to be "Sons of Earth"...or beings who are very natural to this world.

In all, it's very possible that Zeus gained the aid of these...extreme-folk...& lead a revolution against the established power of the Titans.

I try to interpret all mythos with realism, not necessarily to criticize our ancestors, but rather understand them & perhaps put together a clearer cast of characters in the stories of the past.

65.130.247.155 (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know about how you study and interpret mythos! It's certainly very interesting. Unfortunately, Wikipedia articles can only contain information about what has already been discussed in reliable sources (in this case, often scholarly sources), so your thoughts are not yet ready to be included in the article itself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

All seeing eyes

Cyclops = see-all-eyes

from PIE root *sekw- "to see,"

Just granpa (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Cyclops mythology of the Caucasus region

The Caucasus region is considered part of the ancient Greek empire, because Greek colonies existed there, including Pitius and Dioscurias. The legend of the Cyclops apparently flourished in the Caucasus region. The origin of the Cyclops legend is not known, as it begins in prehistory. It is known that the myth traveled around, picked up some variations, and occurs in different parts of the ancient Greek empire. The Caucasus region itself is an important part of Greek mythology: That’s where Prometheus was famously chained by Zeus, for one example. Handthrown (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I moved that paragraph to its own section (and retitled the original section), since it didn't seem to fit well with the other content. Paul August ☎ 19:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

In the literature of ancient Greece there is no mention of the word "Cyclops" associated to the areas of the Caucasus. (No ancient greek), creatures similar but not identical (are terms and concepts to contextualize). POV --151.43.142.16 (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The section you keep removing doesn't claim they are "identical" (whatever that might mean exactly). But as you admit they are related, as the cited sources in that section make clear, so they seem to deserve some mention in the article. Paul August ☎ 02:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You need to better explain what your objections are to the section. Do you think the section needs to be rewritten? Or are you saying that there should be no mention of these legends in the article? Paul August ☎ 17:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

As no response seems forthcoming, I've restored that section for now, at least. Paul August ☎ 18:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment: it seems perfectly appropriate to have a section on other cyclopean traditions that might be related to or derived from the Greek, or perhaps examples of similar myths elsewhere. However, the material described in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this section seem to be completely derivative of the Odyssey, rather than an independent tradition. That shouldn't be surprising, as the stories would have been spread orally or through Greek texts for more than two thousand years before the earliest current oral traditions (just because the region didn't have its own alphabet or writing doesn't mean that none of the inhabitants could read (or speak) Greek, or other languages into which the Odyssey might have been translated). If this material remains, it should be clearly stated that such variants appear to be retellings of the story of Polyphemus, rather than original traditions (with the implication that they and the story in the Odyssey are either unrelated, or based on some ancient pre-Homeric folklore, not in evidence here). P Aculeius (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

This is your very personal point of view (POV) thanks. In the literature of ancient Greece there is no mention of the word "Cyclops" Associated to the areas of the Caucasus. (No ancient greek), creatures similar but not identical (are terms and concepts to contextualize). There are NO reasons to include such a misleading paragraph in this article.--151.57.60.117 (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I see that now you've removed the article (please see WP:consensus). You keep repeating "that creatures similar but not identical (are terms and concepts to contextualize)", but you don't address my response which is, Just because they are not identical does not mean that they should not be mentioned in the article. Paul August ☎ 15:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@P Aculeius:. Thanks for your comments. Do you (or anybody else) think that section needs to be reworded? And if so do you have any suggestions? Paul August ☎ 15:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Paul August: I would probably keep most of the first paragraph, and strike the other two, perhaps keeping the sources. I would also state unequivocally that the stories appear to be derived from the account of Polyphemus in the Odyssey, rather than representing an independent tradition. P Aculeius (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The ancient traditions of the Caucasus are extremely pertinent regarding the myth of the Cyclops. The origin of the Cyclops is not Homer, but earlier, and is thought to be born in an oral tradition. Sources consider that the Cyclops is in part is an expression of the Greeks encountering foreign, or barbarian peoples. The Caucasus appears to be, in this way, of particular fascination to the Greeks including Homer and Hesiod. The astonishingly vigorous oral traditions of the Caucasus it is said are still alive, and may have outlasted any other oral tradition in the region. And that oral tradition seems to be obsessed (!) with retelling all kinds of tales and variations of Cyclops stories. Those traditions are studied, but not as much as they should be. I think that whatever opinions the Wikipedia editors have, we should defer to the idea of respecting what the reliable sources are saying, and allowing them into the article. @P Aculeius: suggests that some of the Caucasus stories may be derived from Homer, that is one possibility or speculation that can and should be considered, but there are other possibilities. It’s possible that it could be the other way around, or that they both derive from a kind of ur-myth. There may not be any authority who claims they know for certain the origins, and if anything is put into the article regarding derivations — it may be a challenge to find sources. This article has recently apparently been under attack by vandalism, and also by editors who in good faith seem to want to insist on their own opinions — sources be damned. Perhaps there is some kind of politics involved that I’m not aware of. I dunno. @Paul August: and @Boomer Vial: put up a good fight. But right now the Caucasus tradition is gone. I’ll put it back, and if any editor wants to edit it, of course they may. Handthrown (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Handthrown: I'm fine with adding back a section on the Caucasus tradition. But I wonder if it might be reworded to try and address the "contextualization" concerns above. You write: "The ancient traditions of the Caucasus are extremely pertinent regarding the myth of the Cyclops. The origin of the Cyclops is not Homer, but earlier, and is thought to be born in an oral tradition. Sources consider that the Cyclops is in part is an expression of the Greeks encountering foreign, or barbarian peoples." What are your sources for this? In particular are there reliable sources which speculate that this tradition predates Homer? (That would seem like an extraordinary claim to me). Paul August ☎ 14:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Paul August:I’m not sure exactly what you find hard to believe. There is a widely accepted consensus that the origin of the Odyssey predates Homer. There are those, such as the renowned scholar Gilbert Murray and also J. A. K. Thompson, who think that Homer’s Odyssey was gradually developed in a single tradition by generation after generation of singers and story-tellers in a kind of folk tradition, and that each generation gave the various stories a buffing and polishing, and added and took away, and eventually handed them down to Homer. There is a second group who think that there was slew of independent traditions, that came from the south, north, east and west. And Homer opened his arms and gathered all of them together, contributed his poetic talents, his editorial talents, cleaned them up a bit, and unified them into his epic songs. These two groups have battled it out long enough, and the second group seems to have attracted the most adherants.

Also, by the way, I think it’s a mistake, or it might be confusing to talk about the Caucasus region and the Greek world as two completely different places. The Greeks certainly got around, and colonized the Caucasus significantly beginning in the 10 or 9th century BC or so. So a tradition that was occurring in the Caucasus towns of Tanais, Pitius, Gorgippia, and Dioscurias to name a few of the ancient Greek colonies would be considered a Greek tradition, and on top of that they certainly mingled with the local populations and listened to their folk tales of monsters and heroes, etc.

As far as what the Greeks thought of the tribes in the Caucasus Mountains — Hesiod, as I recall, has some very detailed descriptions. I can check. I hope I’m being responsive to what you were saying, but I may have missed something. Let me know. Handthrown (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Personal point of view (POV) thanks. In the literature of ancient Greece there is no mention of the word "Cyclops" Associated to the areas of the Caucasus. (No ancient greek), creatures similar but not identical (are terms and concepts to contextualize). There are NO reasons to include such a misleading paragraph in this article.--2.232.70.45 (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Per the above editorial consensus, I've restored this section again. Please stop insisting on your version of the article (see WP:consensus). Such actions may be considered disruptive editing (see Wikipedia:Disruptive editing) and could result in loss of your editing privileges (see WP:block and WP:ban). The section describes creatures which, as you seem to agree, are "similar" and almost certainly related (whether derivative, as P Aculeius assumes, or possibly an independent tradition as Handthrown suggests), and in the opinion of these and other editors, is deserving of being mentioned in the article. I've tried above to address your objections, but with no response from you other than to repeat your objections. You object that the creatures need to be "contextualized", but doesn't the section provide the appropriate context? Can you please say why exactly the section is not appropriately "contextualized"? You say that the section is "misleading", but it does not say that the creatures are identical (whatever that might mean in a mythological context), all it says is that similar stories about one-eyed creatures can be found in oral tradition from the Caucasus region. Can you say why exactly you find the section misleading? Perhaps the use of the proper noun "Cyclops" is the problem? I've now changed this. Does that help? Paul August ☎ 12:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus because (POV) please do not insist, thanks. In the literature of ancient Greece there is no mention of the word "Cyclops" Associated to the areas of the Caucasus. (No ancient greek), creatures similar but not identical (are terms and concepts to contextualize). There are NO reasons to include such a misleading paragraph in this article; (see Wikipedia:POV) --2.232.70.45 (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

While there is some debate on what the section ought to contain (see discussion above by myself @P Aculeius: and @Handthrown:), all three of us believe that a section on the related Caucasus stories are an appropriate addition to this article. A fourth editor (@Boomer Vial:), has reverted your deletion. Consensus does not have to be unanimous. Only you seem to object to any section at all. You say that the section as written is "misleading" and needs "contextualizing". Perhaps you are right. Let's try do that. I have tried to address your concerns, by making changes. First I moved the content to it's own section, and second I changed the proper noun "Cyclops" into the common noun "cyclops", so as not to imply that these generic Caucasian cyclops were necessarily "identical" with the Homeric or Hesiodic Cyclops (who, by the way, are themselves not "identical"). But this doesn't seem to satisfy you. P Aculeius (who seemingly has some sympathy for your point of view) has suggested more radical changes above. Would his suggestions satisfy? What would satisfy you? Paul August ☎ 14:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand your motives but in the literature of ancient Greece there is no mention of the word "Cyclops" Associated to the areas of the Caucasus. (No ancient greek), creatures similar but not identical. To find a consensus with you is essential to make some modifications (to eliminate misleading phrases or built with this intent). I'll show you the changes That I think are essential for this purpose (the inclusion of this paragraph): [[4]] These changes are precise and clear to avoid errors and misleading phrases--2.232.70.45 (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you're arguing that because none of the surviving literature concerning cyclopes mentions the Caucasus, any discussion of the oral traditions of the Caucasus should refrain from identifying these traditions as derivative of the story of Polyphemus or any other Greek source, and avoid describing the creatures as "cyclopes". Your assertion appears to be that these developed as a fully-independent tradition, and that at best perhaps Homer drew on the same body of folktales, without the Greeks contributing anything to the traditions of the Caucasus. But "cyclops" is a common noun applied to anyone or anything that exhibits the basic characteristic of the Greek cyclopes. Even if there were no connection between the Greek myths and the folktales of the Caucasus, the word would still be valid. However, it's not credible that the stories of the Caucasus aren't derivative of Greek myths. Just because you substitute "One-Eye" for "Polyphemus" and "two brothers" for "Odysseus and his crew" doesn't make it an independent tradition. P Aculeius (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It is improper to add unsourced original research and remove content that is properly sourced in the way is was done today and repeatedly in the last few weeks. The section is being subjected to edit-warring and vandalism by user 2.232.70.45 and by user 151.47.124.128, 151.35.3.56, 151.57.60.117, 151.43.142.16, 151.188.125.214, who all may be the same person, since they edit-war in the same way, and repeat the same claim that the word “cyclopes” doesn’t appear in a particular way in ancient Greek literature. If such an idea can be supported by a reliable source please point it out so the idea can be verified. Handthrown (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm just talking about my interventions (NO 151 ip) the discussion is clear; is a vandalism that makes misleading information out of Greek literature( Cyclops). Look at sources in EXTERNAL LINKS. The discussion is totally over.--2.232.70.45 (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

User 2.232.70.45 you insist on removing an amount content that is properly sourced, and removing several reliable sources. You add the sentence: “In the literature of ancient Greece there is no mention of the word “Cyclops" associated to the areas of the Caucasus.” without ever offering a source to support that sentence. That idea appears to be your opinion. You refuse to respond to other editors and you claim that the discussion is over, when it is not. You suggest that editors should read WP:POV, I read it, and I don’t see the problem. The external links you mention don’t seem to support your actions either. Handthrown (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The intervention of the 2.232.70.45 is very accurate and decisive. Handthrown's interventions are misleading ... wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a blog ... Everything is in the eyes of everyone.--151.37.97.252 (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cyclops. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724154505/http://www.indo-european.nl/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=leiden&morpho=0&basename=%5Cdata%5Cie%5Cgreek&first=111 to http://www.indo-european.nl/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=leiden&morpho=0&basename=%5Cdata%5Cie%5Cgreek&first=111
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070219072025/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Hellebore to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Hellebore

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) 01:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments and questions

1. "Strabo describes another group of seven Lycian cyclopes, also known as "Bellyhands" because they earned from their handicraft."

This sentence seems to lack something.

2. "These cyclopes also created Poseidon's trident, Artemis' bow and arrows of moonlight, Apollo's bow and arrows of sun rays, and Hades' helmet of darkness that was given to Perseus on his quest to kill Medusa."

It should be clear though that Perseus did not use the Hade's helm of darkness to actually kill Medusa.

3. "Virgil's account acts as a sequel to Homer's, with the fate of Polyphemus as a blind cyclops after the escape of Odysseus and his crew where some cases have Polyphemus regaining his eyesight."

What cases would those be?

4. Under the "Nonnus Dionysiaca", who are the rustic gods?

5. The image with caption "Syracuse, Italy – Museo archeologico regionale Paolo Orsi – Elephas falconeri" should be a little more explanatory in the sense that it should add some information to the description to explain its relation to the text.

6. Towards the end of the "Origins" section at statement says "However, a study of deformed humans born with a single eye all have a nose above the single eye, not below". This seems to be inconsistent with at least two of the examples in the cyclopia article (1793 and 2006).

ICE77 (talk) 06:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@ICE77: A lot of the points you make deal with content that is not sourced - and all Wikipedia article content is supposed to be sourced. This article needs help in that department. To respond to your first point: the sentence seems to have words that are missing, but are implied, or are “understood” to be there; which is not an uncommon usage. I suppose you could add the “understood” words “who were”, before “also known as”. To respond to your second point: I think the sentence is okay, in that it only says the helmet was “given”, and doesn’t imply that it might be a murder weapon. The idea of a helmet being used as a weapon seems not at all obvious, especially without any further explanation, which may be why it doesn’t seem (to me anyway) to need any clarification. After the word “Perseus” you could add the parenthetical phrase “(to render him invisible)”, but I think parenthetical phrases can seem clunky, especially if they’re explaining the obvious. Regarding your third point: I think you should delete the content. In the article the whole passage is unsourced — including the unnamed “cases”, and without a reference or citation it can be removed. I’m not aware that Polyphemus regains his sight in any version (except in a modern French story). It may not be true (or it may), but it definitely needs a citation to remain in the article. Regarding your fourth point: apparently Zeus’s mother summoned all the gods — all kinds. The story may not specify fully, but the call seems to include gods of the woods and rivers, Naiads, and Hadryads. Regarding your fifth point: You make a good point. In fact, I can’t see that there is anything in the text associated with that image. It would be a stretch to connect it to the topic of the article, and it definite would need some source that would do exactly that. Without that kind of source I think the image should be deleted. If any editor wants to add content that would illustrate and source it, that can certainly be done anytime in the future. Regarding your point number six: There does appear to be a contradiction. The examples in the cyclopia Wikipedia article may not exactly contradict the examples in the cyclops article, which is confined to examples found in a particular study. But the use of the word “however” (which you quote), appears to be added by some Wikipedia editor, and seems intended to suggest that the “study” may be used to contradict the previous sentence in the article, as well as the whole idea of an eye in the forehead. Of course the source article (in an issue of the Journal of American Folklore) could not have been written with the intention of contradicting something in Wikipedia. That would be ridiculous, so it looks like that “however” is a bit of editorial spin, or original research. You could try just removing the word “however”. This section seems weak and a bit cobbled together anyway. It could use some work. Gaustaag (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Gaustaag, thanks for the comments.

ICE77 (talk) 08:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Cyclops

Marvel Comics

The Cyclopes of Greek Mythology have been adapted into Marvel Comics. For example in one sotry a cyclops is found frozen in ice

• A man named Duncan found a Cyclops frozen in ice and freed it with its axe. The Cyclops attempted to destroy Duncan only for him to trick the Cyclops into crossing the crevasse enough for the bridge to break under its weight and for the Cyclops to end up buried in the crevasse.
• Huntsman summoned Polyphemus to attack Namor alongside Scylla and Charybdis. In this appearance, Polyphemus was shown to be bald-headed and have a diamond for an eye.
• One Cyclops lived on the Hidden Isle in the Mediterranean Sea and was tricked by Namor into fighting Mister Fantastic. The Cyclops was tripped by Mister Fantastic and fell down a deep pit.

There was a character named Cyclops who is an eyepatch-wearing Nazi during World War II. He and his men were selected to kill four women from the Women's Auxiliary Air Force who were visiting from England to attend a dinner at the White House. He fought against Miss America which ended with him falling into the incinerator that he was going to throw his intended victims into.

The Weapon Plus operative Butler experimented on North Korean Prisoners where he infused the DNA of different mutants with the DNA of Deadpool into them as part of a plan to use them on North Korea. One of these subjects is a North Korean prisoner who was infused with the DNA of Cyclops and Deadpool. The North Korean Cyclops alongside the other North Korean Mutates were freed by Deadpool. Captain America helped Deadpool get the North Korean Cyclops and his fellow North Korean Mutates to China.

During the AXIS storyline, Deadpool discovered that the North Korean Cyclops and his fellow North Korean Mutates have developed bad health and opted to take them to the Jean Grey School for Higher Learning to be treated. When the X-Men were affected by the Inversion Spell, the North Korean Cyclops and the North Korean Mutates were hunted down by the now-evil X-Men until Deadpool in his inverted form of Zenpool came to their aid. Zenpool was able to transfere them to Monster Metropolis and placed them in Shiklah's care. Zenpool believed that they can be treated for their health there.

The London Tunnel Dwellers have their version of Cyclops. This version has one eye and possesses super-strength. When the anti-mutant super-soldier of the Church of Humanity named Mr. Clean attacked their home, Cyclops sacrificed his life to buy his fellow London Tunnel Dwellers some time to get away.

After Storm and the new Extraordinary X-Men track down Mister Sinister's latest genetic experiments and are shocked to witness Cyclops, twisted by the Terrigen crystals, now serving Sinister. This Cyclops, however was soon revealed to be a creation of Mr. Sinister himself who mixed Scott Summers's mutant genetic material with some Inhuman DNA to create a hybrid race able to resist the Terrigen Mist. As the clone began fighting the X-Men, he began mutating further with a more armored body. Mister Sinister realizes that even on a genetic level, the Inhuman DNA is dominant and realizing that the mutant race is doomed. The clone is eventually defeated after Old Man Logan sinks his claws into him which unleashed the clone's internal energies, setting it up to detonate. Young Jean Grey and Storm whisk it away from populated area by lifting it high into the sky before it explodes.

Moved from List of one-eyed creatures in mythology and fiction - it isn;t appropiate to a list article - is any of it useful here ? Xoool (talk)

Not really. Paul August ☎ 23:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)