Talk:Cyclopes

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


“Legends of the Caucasus” Redux

Furius, above in his list “Other matters” wrote: "I think the 'Legends of the Caucasus' section belongs in Polyphemus' article, not this one." I agree with Furius that this content is out of place here. Note however that the inclusion of this section has been discussed above. The most recent discussion can be found here: Talk:Cyclopes/Archive 1#I have restored the “legends of the Caucasus” section. For more context see also (in reverese chronological order) Talk:Cyclopes#I've decided to remove the "Legends of the Caucasus" section, and Talk:Cyclopes/Archive 1#Cyclops mythology of the Caucasus region.

You can read my reasons above, but let me try to briefly restate them here. The "legends" discussed in this section are part of an oral tradition, from the Caucausus, first written down beginning in the 1890s, which contain stories of one-eyed monsters similar to the story of Polyphemus' encounter with Odysseus in the Odyssey. These stories are a small part of a large number of similar tales from all over the world. Here is what our article on Polyphemus has to say about such stories:

Folktales similar to that of Homer's Polyphemus are a widespread phenomenon throughout the ancient world.
Gascon, Syrian, and Celtic are also known.[3] More than two hundred different versions have been identified,[4] from twenty five nations, covering a geographic region extending from Iceland, England, and Portugal to Arabia, Turkey and Russia.[5] The consensus of current modern scholarship is that these "Polyphemus legends" preserve traditions predating Homer.[6]

References

  1. ^ Heubeck and Hoekstra, p. 19 on lines 105–556.
  2. ^ Grimm, "Die Sage von Polyphem".
  3. ^ Frazer, p. 344.
  4. ^ Heubeck and Hoekstra, p. 19 on lines 105–556.
  5. ^ Glenn 1971, pp. 135–136. For examples of the story from the Caucasus, see Hunt, Chapter VII "Legends About Shepherds, Including Cyclops Legends".
  6. ^ Heubeck and Hoekstra, p. 19 on lines 105–556: "Analysis of the folk-tale material shows that the poet was using two originally unconnected stories, the first about a hero blinding a man-eating giant. Consistent features of this story are the hero's use of an animal, usually a sheep, or at least an animal skin, to effect an escape and the giant's attempt to bring the hero back with the help of a magical object. The second story concerns a hero outwitting a monster by giving a false name, usually 'I myself'. The fusion of these two stories is surely the work of the poet himself"; Glenn 1978, p. 141; Glenn 1971, pp. 135–136. Julien d'Huy, Polyphemus (Aa. Th. 1137) A phylogenetic reconstruction of a prehistoric tale, New Comparative Mythology, 1, 2013, speculates that the myth may be palaeolithic.

Notice that the mention of such stories from the Caucasus are mentioned in passing in footnote 5, which seems about the right amount of coverage to me. To have three paragraphs, on a small part of a tradition of stories related to a specific Cyclops in Greek mythology Polyphemus, in an article devoted to Cyclopes in Greek mythology in general, seems excessive, and in conflict with

WP:OFFTOPIC
.

@Handthrown, P Aculeius, Quarterpinion, Bitwixen, Sweetpool50, Furius, Caeciliusinhorto, and Florian Blaschke: To those of you who have participated in the previous discussions above, or who have shown a more recent interest in this article (and of course to any others as well), I invite comments.

Paul August ☎ 18:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any strong opinion on whether the content should be included in this article and
undue weight to privilege the folktales of the Caucasus over those of any other area for no apparent reason. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I think we should avoid redundancy, and only include it here, where it seems more natural, since Polyphemus is not the only example of a Cyclops. We can still add a pointer to the section at Polyphemus. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that the folktales aren't based on Homer, since the common theme is just a variation on the Polyphemus story, and over many centuries Homeric themes would have diffused throughout the old world, with individual details or the context of the story easily lost or modified. But even if we suppose that they could predate Homer, they're still basically the Polyphemus myth. So it makes more sense to me to cover the details there, and leave a shorter paragraph here pointing to it. P Aculeius (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with
WP:OFFTOPIC. Sweetpool50 (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
However, such information might fit as a subsection of the Transformations of Polyphemus section of the article here, possibly with a bit of rewriting so as to make clear that in both Greek literature and oral traditions elsewhere the story has been varied to fit different cultural and temporal contexts. Would that win your Nihil obstat, Paul August and others? Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for your comments above. Here are some responses:

  • I agree with
    WP:UNDO
    , if we were to keep this section it would need to contain content on all non-Greek one-eyed monster stories, not just the Caucasus versions. Is anyone willing to write this?
  • Although Florian Blaschke, says we should keep this section here, since "Polyphemus is not the only Cyclops", I would point out that Polyphemus is the only Cyclops having a story similar to these stories from the Caucasus. These stories from the Caucasus, are not just one-eyed monster stories, they are stories about one-eyed cannabalistic shepherds who are tricked by a hero. They are part of the tradition that scholars describes as "Polyphemus legends" or the "Polyphemus Folktale". Here's more of what Heubeck and Hoekstra, p. 19 on lines 105–556 says:
"Polyphemus legends were told and retold almost throughout the ancient world; modern scholarship has identified well over two hundred different versions; cf. most recently J Glenn. 'The Polyphemus Folktale and Homer's Kyklopeia', TAPbA cii (1971), 133-85, who gives an extensive bibliography; Germain, Genèse, 55-129 gives the North African parallels. It is of course possible that some of the other versions, which were of course recorded only relatively late are ultimately dependent on Homer; see e.g. ... Most scholars, however, quite rightly reject this view; cf. ... Glenn, loc. cit."
  • I agree with P Aculeius, that all these stories, "are basically the Polyphemus myth". So, like P Aculeius, I think that to the extent that we cover this content at all in one of these two articles "Cyclopes" or "Polyphemus", it should be in our Polyphemus article, not this one.
  • I agree with Sweetpool50: "To go blathering on about a one-eyed ogre not named Polyphemus in the article devoted to him, and only speculatively connected with the Homer story, would be WP:OFFTOPIC." But I don’t think that is what either I or P. Aculeius are saying ;-) What I’m saying is that, while adding all this content on the Caucasus versions of these ”Polyphemus legends” to “Polyphemus” would certainly be off topic, it would be even more off topic to leave it here in our “Cyclopes” article. So obsto I’m afraid :-(

Here's my suggestion:

1. Leave the Polyphemus article essentially as is (since I think the coverage there on these non-Greek stories is adequate)
2. Remove this content from this article (since I think it violates
WP:UNDU
)
3. Find a better home for this content (at Caucasus#mythology, or it’s own article?)

Comments? Paul August ☎ 15:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it's best to avoid redundancies while also keeping the content easily findable for the reader. How about adding a pointer to the content in this article and perhaps leaving a short summary of it? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Florian Blaschke: Yes, if this content ends up somewhere else, we need to consider how best to find it. An entry at Cyclopes (disambiguation) would be appropriate. In addition some sort of pointer at "Polyphemus" and at this article might also be appropriate. Paul August ☎ 16:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the idea of removing content from this article, when the content is clearly about Cyclopes, and is properly supported. This article should be encyclopedic on the topic. The Caucasus cyclopes legends are part of an oral tradition like no other — it predates Homer, coincides with Homer, follows Homer, and still continues. It diminishes this article to exclude it. A student or reader that comes to this article should find information on the cyclopes of the Caucasus (and of Philoxenus of Cythera, Aristophanes, and Theocritus, to name others), and should certainly not expect to find it hidden away for some reason in a more obscurely title article that seems to be acting as a kind of gutter for this article. This article needs work. The lead section, for example, is a randomly cluttered hodgepodge, that includes erroneous and unsourced content. Wikipedia works best when it the content is strictly sourced. Other editors have seen the need for a better organization of this article. I agree.Bitwixen (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bitwixen: The current editorial consensus is against including this content here. Incorporating it elsewhere, in say the article on the Caucasus, or the Polyphemus article, is not "hiding" it, nor are these articles "gutters". Paul August ☎ 11:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Handthrown, P Aculeius, Quarterpinion, Bitwixen, Sweetpool50, Furius, Caeciliusinhorto, and Florian Blaschke: Based upon the above discussion, the current editorial consensus seems to favor removing this content, so I intend to do so. Besides Bitwixen, are there any other editors who have any objections to this? Paul August ☎ 11:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a consensus to make such an edit, especially an edit that is so extreme that would delete an entire section. The idea of removing this section has been met with controversy. This section has been in the article for a long time. What are the reasons for deleting the section? Paul August (just above) offers as one “reason”: That there are stories from Caucasus region that have similarities to Homer’s Cyclopes. That’s not a reason to delete the section, that might be a reason to keep it. Next he offers another “reason”: That having three paragraphs on this topic seems excessive. That also isn’t a reason to delete an entire section, it’s an argument about how many paragraphs should be in it. That's it. So what are the reasons for deleting the section? I can’t find any in this talk page section. When he says “Besides Bitwixen, are there any other editors…” There are others, and there may well may be others who do not happen to be attending this talk page section at this moment. So, let’s not rush to judgement. Paul August also misstates the case when he suggests that the Cyclopes of the Caucasus region are all related to Polyphemus. That is certainly not true. It would be wrong to delete a section based in any part on false claims. I don’t have time at the moment to write this, so I am writing quickly, but I have more to say, and I will try to get back to this later.Bitwixen (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It might have been better to wait for responses to the above before deleting the section—it was gone before I received my notification. In any case, while I find Bitwixen's arguments unpersuasive, I do think that some mention of the topic needs to be in this article, even if it's very brief. It doesn't need to be a whole section or three paragraphs long, because it's just directing readers to the relevant discussion in "Polyphemus". But readers who don't realize that the Caucasus legends, at least as summarized yesterday, were nothing more than variations on Odysseus' encounter with Polyphemus—repeated by people who had forgotten the details and context of the story—should have some way of making that connection. Frankly, it doesn't matter if the variation substitutes "two brothers" for Odysseus and his men, or calls him "One-Eye" or "Fred". It's clearly derivative, not an independent tradition, which is why it goes under "Polyphemus", and not here. Now if there were stories about, say, "the cyclops who went hunting for wolf pelts in the mountains and found millions of cats" or "Murgatroyd the cyclops and the magic pearl", then there would be a case to leave an independent section here. But having moved the discussion to "Polyphemus", there still needs to be a clear mention of the topic here, linking to the relevant section of "Polyphemus". P Aculeius (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius: I agree with much of what you say, but, with respect, many of the Cyclopes stories that come out of the Caucasus mountains are not at all connected to Homer’s cyclopes. For example, the cyclopes who for his impudence was chained to the top of a mountain and his heart pecked at by an eagle. There are other example, including the Circassian stories of one-eyed giants. It is also suggested by some scholars that some of the stories may share a common source with Homer. These stories have been neglected by scholars, translators and researchers, and they have been assumed to be random disconnected stories, until recent decades, when enough of them have been recorded — that it is being discovered that many stories can be formed into longer sagas. A reader that comes to Wikipedia, having heard of a Mongolian cyclopes story, or a Circassian cyclopes story — that come from the Caucasus Mountains, would not think to look under an article on Prometheus. And why should they? - Bitwixen (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Provided appropriate sourcing for the Prometheus story being told of a cyclops, that certainly would merit some kind of discussion—mostly in the "Prometheus" article, but a pointer here would seem justified as well. But you could easily combine the mentions of Polyphemus and Prometheus and perhaps two or three distinct other examples into a single paragraph here, pointing at the individual articles that discuss them at greater length. Obviously from its title, this is the principal article about cyclopes, but that doesn't mean it has to be a repository for every fact and tale that's been told—so far most of the details are clearly derivative of Greek myths better discussed elsewhere. It may be that there should be a separate article about such stories, or a particular group of them—but the section being reduced or removed here gives them undue weight. As with all things, the key is moderation. A general article about cyclopes shouldn't contain every detail or reuse of the theme—that can be done appropriately elsewhere, and pointers left here in the form of brief mentions—just enough to steer readers to the relevant articles. If you can reconcile yourself to that, you should find other editors like Paul August or myself perfectly happy to accommodate a reasonable—read succinct—mention here. P Aculeius (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything P Aculeius says here. In english there is the proper noun "Cyclopes" (hence capitalized) which refers to the particluar one-eyed creatures in Greek mythology. There is also a common noun "cyclops" which is sometimes used to refer to any one-eyed creature. As currently written this article is about the "Cyclopes" in Greek mythology. It is not about all one-eyed creatures. For a list of such creatures see: List of one-eyed creatures in mythology and fiction. We could expand the topic of the article to include all one-eyed creatures, or more reasonably say, just all such creatures in mythology (and folklore etc., leaving out one-eyed creatures in fiction). I don't think this is a good idea, but if we did, we would have to cover all such creatures in a balanced way, not just cover one-eyed creatures from the Caucasus, and we would have to have reliable sources to write from.
As for including some pointer to the Polyphemus-like folktales discussed at Polyphemus#Possible origins, I'm not opposed to that. What about a section titled 'Other "cyclops"', with the following text:
Main article: Polyphemus § Possible origins
Folktales similar to that of Homer's Cyclops Polyphemus are a widespread phenomenon throughout the ancient world.[1] One example, in a story from Georgia in the Caucasus, describes two brothers held prisoner by a giant one-eyed shepherd called "One-eye", who take a spit, heat it up, stab it into the giant's one eye, and escape.[2]
Paul August ☎ 14:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Heubeck and Hoekstra, p. 19 on lines 105–556.
  2. ^ Hunt, pp. 281–222.
Given the title of this article I would expect it to cover all cyclopes, even if the main focus is on cyclopes in Greek myth. I'm not advocating for exhaustive sections on every tradition or folk-tale about a cyclops. But it's appropriate to mention and discuss the fact that they exist in separate bodies of folklore, even if the majority appear to be derived from Greek antecedents—and to refer readers to more appropriate articles for detailed discussions, where they exist. P Aculeius (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius: What do you think about the section I've proposed just above? Is this sufficient? Paul August ☎ 11:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I've missed something, I think it needs to be a little longer than one sentence referring only to Polyphemus—Bitwixen has mentioned other traditions that seem to be less Polyphemorian and more something else, including a tradition that seems to have transformed Prometheus into a cyclops, and perhaps others. It still might all fit in a single paragraph, with multiple links to related articles, although it may be some of them still need to be created/split off from here (and they might not all need a "main article" header). But the section should at least cover the bases, if Bitwixen is correct and there is a significant body of cyclopes in folklore who don't appear largely derivative of Polyphemus, and if so then it shouldn't just be directing readers to that article. Oh, and I would remove "one eye" from the clause, "stab it into the giant's one eye," since you've already said he's one-eyed and is called "One-eye". Bit redundant, I'm sure you'll agree. P Aculeius (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting a bit restive at this shifting conversation with its proliferating subsections and more than tired of
WP:OFFTOPIC, unless the word cyclops was actually used in that tradition, or there is a proven (as opposed to speculative) link between them. The List of one-eyed creatures in mythology and fiction
is one place where a redirect or link to the many spin-off articles on such creatures can be found. Any Caucasian (and other) legends which scholars have speculated may be derivative of a Homeric corpus might be mentioned as a short sub-section in either article. I've already suggested they might appear in the "Transformations of Polyphemus" section where appropriate, which is why I resisted Paul August's attempted renaming of it.
Let's come to a consensus first on the Classical materials, their scope and what goes where. Dragging in a putative new allied article at this stage would blur our focus. Have any others of us looked at the monumental fight going on about the
Germanii and like subjects at the moment? One of the editors involved seems intent on fogging that by spawning new articles all over the place and I would not like to see that repeated here :( Sweetpool50 (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
P Aculeius, you say the the Cyclopes stories from the oral tradition found in the Caucasus mountains is “clearly derivative”, and that’s why it should go elsewhere. But I think if you exclude derivative works you’d probably have to exclude Homer’s Oddysey. Am I right? - Bitwixen (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy that theory. The Odyssey is more than two thousand years older than any record of a practically identical story from the Caucasus. You can make all the fabulous claims you like about nobody from the Caucasus ever having read or been read Homer in all that time and just borrowing bits and pieces, but that's pure speculation and it seems wildly improbable. You can't prove that Homer based his poems on anything earlier, because if he had literary sources, they no longer exist. Homer and Hesiod provide the earliest literary examples of cyclopes, or at least there's no evidence of earlier literary sources upon which they might have been based, although I won't exclude the possibility that similar stories might be found in Sumerian or Babylonian legends—although if so there's no evidence that they influenced the earliest surviving Greek traditions.
I'm afraid that your contributions to this conversation seem to be veering ever closer to Wikilawyering—a term I find somewhat distasteful, but you seem to be trying to come up with any excuse to achieve your desired result, whether or not there's a legitimate case to be made—this latest example seeming to say, "well, if I can't have what I want, you can't have what you want either. So if you're allowing that, you have to allow mine!" And the entirely inappropriate edit summary for this article is over the line, IMO. This isn't going to end well, so I strongly suggest you take the advice of the other editors and accept a reasonable solution, before this goes to arbitration. P Aculeius (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P Aculeius, thank you for the comments regarding myself, I will consider them carefully. However, to respond to your comments about Homer, when you refer to a theory (that you don’t buy) — I’m not sure which theory you are referring to. I only was mentioning in my comment (just above) that the Odyssey is considered a story derived from sources and traditions. If that is the theory you meant, it is not really mine, I’m only repeating what is sometimes said. I went over to the WP article on the the Odyssey and noticed that there is not much at all about sources or influences that contribute to Homer’s poem. However that article in the section “Influences on the Odyssey” does happen to mention the cyclops — it says: “The detail about it having one eye was simply invented in order to explain how the creature was so easily blinded.” That doesn’t sound quite right to me! Does it to you? How could Wikipedia be so certain about Homer’s reasoning while he was composing the poem? So anyway, I thought I’d verify that statement it by looking at the source in the footnote (a book published by Routledge), and I found that what the source is actually saying is not quite the same as it’s being reported in the WP article: The source in the citation is making perhaps a speculative point about how little might be needed to make the cyclops tale “work” — for example (it says) the “giant doesn’t really need two eyes”, although (it says) the act of blinding is made “more difficult and less credible” if the giant has two eyes. Should that be corrected? I notice that article (Odyssey) is edited by a lot of the same editors that are on this talk page.
P Aculeius, you also refer to a “fabulous claim” (as you say) “about nobody from the Caucasus ever having read or been read Homer”. I think you and I are in agreement on that, I think we both would consider any such claim to be ridiculous. And I don’t believe any reliable source (or even any crackpot source) could be found that would make such a claim. So I think you and I are on safe grounds. However, what is often overlooked is the fact that back in the day (way-way back) the Caucasus Mountains were indeed a part of Greece — the way Virginia was an English colony. There were a great many Greek colonies in that area for a long time. Some colonies (it is said) were completely Greek and exactly like being in a Greek city, and some colonies (it is said) were more integrated with locals and with trading partners. So, at least in that region any Greek oral traditions and any other oral traditions of the Caucasus Mountains, might well have had an opportunity to share. This is what I’ve read, and I think it reflects on the thoughts you were expressing. I’m not all that “into” my own opinions about things like that — I’m mainly interested in what others say — scholars and books, etc. Enough. Now I will go back and take another look at your comments about myself, and I will regard them seriously. - Bitwixen (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was saying that I "don't buy" the theory that the Caucasus cyclops stories that sound very Polyphemorian could have been independent inventions, based solely on someone's observation that similar stories are told in various places that probably all had sufficient contact with the Greek world for stories from Homer or other Greek writers to infiltrate. If the cyclops stories sounded nothing like Homer, except for involving a cyclops, then the argument might seem more credible. What I said about the legends being "obviously derivative," I think I'm stating what anyone with a decent literary background would conclude: the Caucasian shepherd cyclops who traps people in his cave and has to be blinded by a spit is clearly a retelling—perhaps many generations removed, but a retelling nonetheless—of the Polyphemus myth. Homer is not derivative in the sense that nobody can point to his version of the story and say anything like, "Homer got that from Tales from the Pelopponesian Woods by Thracian Bob". We don't know what Homer's sources were; whether he incorporated folk tales, or earlier oral traditions about Odysseus, or whether Athena herself whispered the story in his ear. So it's absurd to call Homer "derivative".
I agree that the statement that the detail about Polyphemus having one eye being "invented in order to explain how the creature was so easily blinded" is silly and speculative—somewhat illogical in the context of Greek myth, which is clear about the existence of cyclopes, and Polyphemus being one of them. Although artistic depictions show cyclopes with three eyes, or two empty eye sockets—I think this might have more to do with the difficulty of visualizing a brow ridge over one central eye (which would have to go above the nose, rather than alongside it), than with a belief that cyclopes actually had more than one functioning eye. Note that, as far as I know, while all sources that mention the detail seem to assume that the cyclopes had one eye, no sources explicitly state that they had three. P Aculeius (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added a section on "Folklore" to the Caucasus article, which includes some content on these Caucasian Polyphemus-like legends, see Caucasus#Links with Greek mythology. Paul August ☎ 11:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible new text

Sweetpool50 has suggested that some brief mention of one-eyed giants from non-Greek traditions, might be mentioned in the Cyclopes article. Above I've suggested some possible new text, here it is again, (slightly revised per P Aculeius):

Folktales similar to that of Homer's Cyclops Polyphemus are a widespread phenomenon throughout the ancient world.[1] One example, in a story from Georgia in the Caucasus, describes two brothers held prisoner by a giant one-eyed shepherd called "One-eye", who take a spit, heat it up, stab it into the giant's eye, and escape.[2]

References

  1. ^ Heubeck and Hoekstra, p. 19 on lines 105–556.
  2. ^ Hunt, pp. 281–222.

Concerning this P Aculeius has written above:

Unless I've missed something, I think it needs to be a little longer than one sentence referring only to Polyphemus—Bitwixen has mentioned other traditions that seem to be less Polyphemorian and more something else, including a tradition that seems to have transformed Prometheus into a cyclops, and perhaps others. It still might all fit in a single paragraph, with multiple links to related articles, although it may be some of them still need to be created/split off from here (and they might not all need a "main article" header). But the section should at least cover the bases, if Bitwixen is correct and there is a significant body of cyclopes in folklore who don't appear largely derivative of Polyphemus, and if so then it shouldn't just be directing readers to that article.

Here is my response to P Aculeius:

I can’t account for what Bitwixen says, I only know what the sources I’ve read say. And I know of no sources which support the claim that "there is a significant body of cyclopes in folklore" unconnected with Polyphemus (whether "derivative of Polyphemus" or not, see "current scholarly consensus" below).
  • There are many many, what are described as "Polyphemus legends", from around the world. See Polyphemus#Possible origins, and the sources cited there. For the most part these sources talk only in general terms about these legends; few details of individual stories are given.
  • There is also a rich folklore tradition from the Caucasus, (see for example the
    Nart sagas
    ) which contains examples of these "Polyphemus legends”. David Hunt in his book Legends of the Caucasus, has a chapter: "Legends about Shepherds, Including Cyclops Legends" (Hunt is not an academic, but his book is cited by reliable sources).
  • This Caucasian folklore tradition also contains examples of Prometheus-like legends, and Hunt's book also has a chapter titled: "Prometheus legends". Although not mentioned by Hunt, there is a Nart saga (SAGA 37: A Cyclops Bound atop Wash'hamakhwa, Colarusso, p. 170) which describes a giant “with only one eye in the middle of his forehead [who] dared to learn the secrets of God." God chained him to a rock and sent an eagle to peck at the giants's heart every day. When the giant bends down to drink, the eagle swoops in and drinks all the water. There is also another Nart saga (SAGA 52: How Sosruquo Brought Fire to His Troops, Colarusso, p. 200), which is unique in that it combines a Polyphemus-like story with a Prometheus-like story (Hunt's legend "a" in Tables 1 and 2, pp. 212–213).
So while we have sources to support saying something about either (or both) of these two interesting Nart sagas, it doesn't seems to me we should include more stories from the Caucasus when we include none from the over 220 other similar stories from all over the world.

Sweetpool50 further suggested the "brief mention" could be in the "Transformations of Polyphemus" section. But, since the current scholarly consensus is that some of these “Polyphemus legends” reflect traditions that ‘‘predate’’ Homer, it seems inappropriate to consider them as all being transformations of Polyphemus.

Paul August ☎ 14:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable to me, but I think that Prometheus as a cyclops should be added to the proposed paragraph—at the very least, it's interesting, wouldn't (and logically shouldn't) be treated in the Polyphemus article, and while it can certainly be discussed under the Prometheus article, it needs a pointer here. I stand by my observation that readers will expect this article to treat cyclopes generally, and not be strictly limited to Greek myth, if they occur elsewhere; but if most or all of the other cyclopean lore appears to be derivative (or at least related to) Polyphemus, and the theme isn't limited to the Caucasus, then I agree that there's no reason to take up several paragraphs on the Caucasus specifically. P Aculeius (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius: One problem I have with adding content on "cyclopes generally", is that it is not clear to me what the definition of a generic "cyclops" actually is. Is it defined to be any one eyed creature? If so one might assume it included creatures like the Graeae, and Odin, who could be said to be one-eyed, although I don't think they are ever referred to as being a ”cyclops". In fact I don’t know of any non-Greek tradition which calls such creatures “cyclopes”. More importantly, I know of no source which discusses generic "cyclopes”. Are there any? Paul August ☎ 18:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably we would want to limit the scope to beings traditionally identified as cyclopes, or obvious analogues in non-European traditions. And while we occasionally use the word jocularly to someone who's lost an eye, I don't think that usage would be expected by readers, or of any advantage to them. Having one centrally-located eye (an actual, normal eye, not a metaphysical one) above the nose seems to be the indispensible characteristic—and except in some artistic depictions, usually not having two normal eyes—or having had them at one point. The Graeae are never depicted as giants, or (to the best of my knowledge) as having had one single centrally-located eye socket apiece. In artistic depictions, they generally have normal eye sockets, but only one eye to share between them. Odin of course had two eyes, until he gave one to Mimir as the price of looking in the Jotun's well. If you were going to include him under the definition of "cyclops", you'd need to include Moshe Dayan, Nick Fury, and most pirates. I don't think anyone would expect to find them in an article about cyclopes! Limiting the scope of the article to cyclopes mentioned in Greek mythology is too narrow, but it ought to include creatures who obviously fit the definition—preferably giant, but definitely humanoids with one centrally-located eye above the nose. P Aculeius (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so not Nick Fury ;-) But then who specifically? Who are these other "cyclopes"? In any case whatever we choose to add would need to be supported by reliable sources, which call them "cyclopes". Other than the sources I've already given, I know of no sources that discuss non-Greek "cyclopes". Paul August ☎ 12:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's necessary that they be called cyclopes if they clearly fit readers' expectations of what a cyclops is—at least with regard to the defining characteristic, a single eye in the center of the face above the nose, instead of two eyes in their usual position. I had hoped to find something in my ancient, water-stained, second-hand copy of Jorge Luis Borges' Book of Imaginary Beings, but although it has a chapter on "one-eyed creatures", not dependent on the word "cyclops" for inclusion, all of the examples cited are Greek. I'm not saying there are a ton of examples out there—apologies to Turanga Leela—just that in theory anything that clearly is a cyclops could properly be mentioned here. As with many articles, individual cases can be debated if and when they appear. P Aculeius (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Totally disagree. "Readers' expectations" is an irresponsible appeal to ignorance and misconception. A dictionary definition should be the source one starts from, and both the UK Oxford and the US Webster refer to the monsters as deriving from Greek mythology, not just any one-eyed beings (a freshwater crustacean apart). Sweetpool50 (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you can find a way to engage in the conversation without insulting both me and our readers. If a dictionary says that "centaurs are creatures from Greek mythology" and then we find creatures in Chinese folklore consisting of the torso and head of a man attached to the body of a horse, we're not going to hide our heads in the sand and pretend they don't exist just because they're not called "centaurs" in Chinese. If it walks like a cyclops and quacks like a cyclops, we'd call it a cyclops no matter what the local terminology in Svalbard or Brunei or Guyana happens to be, and it'd be reasonable to mention it here, even if it's covered in a separate article somewhere else. Insisting that something can't be a cyclops and shouldn't be mentioned in this article because it isn't Greek is just pedantic. P Aculeius (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you insist that the definition given in scholarly dictionaries (which are regularly updated to reflect modern usage) is to be ignored, then you are being irresponsible by Wikipedia guidelines. If you find that "insulting", perhaps you're in the wrong place. Sweetpool50 (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I object to attacks on fellow editors — as in the comment immediately above this. Also, if the Oxford dictionary is to be adhered to, the definition in the OED varies from the definition that’s in this article. And the OED certainly does not limit the term Cyclopes only to Greek mythology. - Bitwixen (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My copy of the OED lists three meanings:
"Cyclops ... also Cyclop. Pl. Cyclopes ..."
1. One of a race of one-eyed giants in ancient Greek mythology, who forged thunderbolts for Zeus. Hence often used allusively.
2. A genus of small fresh-water copepods ...
3. attrib. and Comb. [i.e. used attributively, and in combinations. Examples given: "Cyclop like in humane Flesh to deal", "Cyclop Priests will make you truckle under", "A Cyclops pig ... because it has only one eye ... placed in the middle of the forehead"
So I see nothing here suggestive of a wider generic use of the term "cyclops" meaning, for example any one-eyed giant.
Paul August ☎ 14:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The one-eyed pig (your example) is hard to miss. The dictionary, in the examples you cite, certainly indicates a wide range. - Bitwixen (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's what Wiktionarians would call an "attributive" use of the word; i.e. using it to describe something other than a cyclops doesn't make that thing a definition of "cyclops". What we need is any scholarly work (using the word "scholarly" loosely here) that uses the word "cyclops" to describe giants with a single eye in the middle of their foreheads, without insisting that they can only be Greek. That would provide at least some cover for the assertion that this is a "general" article on cyclopes, rather than limited to "just the Greek ones." Although, it occurs to me that we don't necessarily have a conflict here in the first place: if something is described as a cyclops in a scholarly source, then theoretically it belongs in this article, correct? We don't even need to worry about Greekness, just whether it's considered cyclopean in the literal sense. I'm not saying that every detail and every individual cyclops needs to be discussed at length—this whole discussion began because of sections that were better discussed in other articles, but deserved a mention and link from here—but will this satisfy your concerns, P. August? P Aculeius (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@P Aculeius:. Yes, if we come across such a "scholarly" source then we should certainly consider (subject to WP:Notability) adding a brief mention of such a generic "cyclops" here. In the (in my view unlikely) event that there is a lot of such content about non-Greek "cyclopes" then we would have to decide where to best place such content, either here (which, in my view, would be an expansion of the current topic of this article, i.e. Cyclopes in Greek mythology) or in its own article. But, as it stands, this is all hypothetical. Paul August ☎ 13:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plural title?

Why does this article have a title in plural? These are the conventions for plural titles: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(plurals) [sorry, I don't know how to shorten links]. Can anyone justify, based on those conventions, why this article is named "Cyclopes" instead of "Cyclops"? I also could have sworn it was titled "Cyclops" at some point in the past. Stvlnd (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the use of the plural here reflects the fact that the topic is primarily concerned with a collectivity. This is consistent with the names of our articles on the siblings of the Cyclopes: the
Kouretes), the Telchines, the Muses, the Horae, the Charites (or Graces) the Oceanids, the Potamoi (The Rivers), and the numerous groups of personifications who were the offspring of Eris, which include: the Machai, the Androktasiai, the Amphillogiai, the Hysminai, the Phonoi. And many others as well. See also, for example, the entry "Cyclopes" in the Oxford Classical Dictionary, Tripp's Crowell's Handbook of Classical Mythology, and Grimal's The Dictionary of Classical Mythology. Paul August ☎ 10:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you for the response, Paul August. I guess that makes some sense, but I still wouldn't say it's justified to have a plural title. Unlike your examples (or at least most of them), this article doesn't refer to a particular group or population of Cyclopes, but to a race in general. The articles

Dwarf, Elf, and Jötunn, for example, are all mythological races whose titles are singular, presumably for this reason. Not to mention folkloric races like Fairy, Giant, Goblin, and Troll. It makes no more sense to me to name this article plural than any of these. Also, Britannica uses the singular form and I'm sure some other encyclopedias do too, so I don't think naming it singular would be necessarily going against the grain. Stvlnd (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

I have to concur with Paul August's reasoning. The Cyclopes are usually referred to collectively in an academic context; Polyphemus is the only one likely to be mentioned by himself, and then generally by his name. There are various reasons why most of the various types of mythological/folkloric beings/creatures mentioned above are in articles with either singular or plural titles. Most of the Greek ones that are currently plural would not make sense to list under singular titles, and I think a similar argument could be made for "Gorgon", "Siren", and "Harpy", since in most cases a specific set of beings is intended, although there's considerable variation in the names and numbers of the latter two groups, most of whom are not well-personified or individually familiar to modern readers—unlike Polyphemus or Medusa. None of the others refer specifically to a limited group, but might be described as "open classes" or "types". P Aculeius (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I too agree with the reasoning above, and with Paul August's. In classical usage - and it is that upon which the article is based - the noun is used as a collective plural. Though some (like the forgemen of Hephaistos) may have had individual names, the only cyclops really to assume a singular literary existence was Polyphemus, who has an article to himself. I suggest that Stvlnd should look at the long and exhaustive conversations above on this talk page to see the background rationale for our preference for the collective form here. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Homeric (pastoral) Cyclopes Problems with the Homeric Cyclopes section,

The fifth-century BC playwright Euripides also told the story of Odysseus' encounter with Polyphemus in his satyr play Cyclops. Euripides' Cyclopes, like Homer's, are uncultured cave-dwelling shepherds. They have no agriculture, no wine, and live on milk, cheese and the meat of sheep. They live solitary lives, and have no government. They are inhospitable to strangers, slaughtering and eating all who come to their land.[38] While Homer does not say if the other Cyclopes are like Polyphemus in their appearance and parentage, Euripides' makes it explicit, calling the Cyclopes "Poseidon's one-eyed sons".[39] And while Homer is vague as to their location, Euripides locates the land of the Cyclopes on the island of Sicily near Mount Etna.[40] Like Euripides, Virgil has the Cyclopes of Polyphemus live on Sicily near Etna. For Virgil apparently, these Homeric Cyclopes are members of the same race of Cyclopes as Hesiod's Brontes and Steropes, who live nearby.[41]

  • Uncultured: Euripides' Cyclops is cultured.
  • No agriculture: He quite demonstrably keeps sheep.
  • Poseidon's sons: Also "τὸν μονῶπα παῖδα γῆς" (647) ie one-eyed son of earth.
  • Pastoral in Theocritus too, and implicitly in Sicily.
    talk) 09:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Here "agriculture" is being distinguished from pastoralism. In what manner is Euripides' cyclops "cultured"? I'm not contradicting you, just asking for the basis upon which you're disputing the characterization. *Pictures a cyclops in a smoking jacket, sitting in an English drawing room/library surrounded by old masters and shelves full of books, blowing smoke rings from a long pipe* It's not clear that Euripides is contradicting the statement that the Cyclopes are sons of Poseidon simply because he elsewhere describes them as "sons of earth," a phrase that could either allude to the three divine Cyclopes (sons of Gaia, the makers of thunder and lightning), or simply the fact that they're bound to the land (they don't ride horses or carts, fly on wings like the Harpies, or sail the seas). P Aculeius (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk) 18:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm sorry, but "slander" implies a deliberate intention to defame the cyclopes, which is obviously not the case, since none of these men had ever even met a cyclops or cared about their reputations. The suggestion that any scholars, ancient or modern, is trying to do that by describing them as "uncultured" doesn't seem reasonable. And frankly in English, "uncultured" could easily apply to agriculturalists as well as pastoralists. It's one of those tricky words, "culture", that means different things in different contexts. In the loosest definition, anyone with a shared set of practices and traditions has "culture", in which sense the cyclopes would be said to possess culture in the anthropological sense; but in the literary sense, it means to possess art, literature, science, philosophy—as opposed to living in caves, herding sheep, and having the occasional passerby for dinner. Arguably the Hesiodic cyclopes belong among the gods, rather than the earthly cyclopes of Polyphemus' tribe, so we'd be talking about two different things entirely. My image of the would-be sophisticate cyclops sitting in a leather armchair surrounded by books was entirely in jest. P Aculeius (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything P Aculeius says here about "cultured". I would add that, in this context, one of the significant ways that the Euripidean Cyclopes are meant to be understood as "uncultured" is their complete disregard for the important Greek value of Xenia (guest friendship). Paul August ☎ 11:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Untitled50reg:. What is being regarded as "explicit" here, is the fact that, while Homer does not say explicitly that the other Cyclopes are, like Polyphemus, either one-eyed, or a son of Posiedon, Euripides does. Paul August ☎ 11:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We're going to have to have a talk about the birds and the bees.

I initially found "mated" and found that quite objectionably preposterous, for similar reasons as P Aculeius. I had a look at what Hesiod actually says, and, as I explained, he says "Οὐρανῷ εὐνηθεῖσα", which came to me as basically what the Loeb offers it as, namely "having bedded with Sky". I confess that I considered this odd, and weighed this bedded with with lay with, and with the dictionaries and the Loeb offering the bedding, that is what I went for. But I also agree with Paul August that "espoused" is even worse than "mated with". Since we each evidently cannot agree on those three, I am going to put that lying with back on the table.

talk) 18:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

"Espoused" is the word that I believe is traditionally used in mythological contexts—precisely because it concerns hieros gamos as opposed to animal mating, a wedding ceremony with bows and lace, or Paul August's "bodice ripper" (although I agree with his sentiment about "bedded"). Remember, words and phrases take on new meaning over time, particularly those that aren't familiar from a specific context. And "to bed" someone, in English, is the kind of lusty language we would expect from an 18th century pirate. There are other ways to use the word "bed" that carry less cultural baggage, but in the sense of mating, they all seem inapt when speaking of a creation myth that necessarily takes place before the invention of beds—or even a place to "bed down in". That's why I used "espouse", which seems to me to be the most neutral, and also, I'm pretty sure, a typical formulation in mythological scholarship. P Aculeius (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to rely on anachronism I am going to defend bed and reject your hieros gamos and espousals. For bed also covers Earth as bed. But there was certainly nothing to help with any hieros gamos. And for the espousal, that's a Roman word.
talk) 21:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The first meaning of εὐνάω is "lay". And it is being used by Hesiod here figuratively—just like the English word "lay" can be—to simply mean to have sexual intercourse with (there is no sense in Hesiod of anything else). So, as to meaning, "lay with" or "bedded with" are "correct"—but—both (even more so "bedded with" or just "bedded") are figurative, and anachronistic, and so neither would be appropriate here. Paul August ☎ 12:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk) 12:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Correct in meaning but not correct in style. Just as "screwed" would be correct in meaning, but not in style. Paul August ☎ 12:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I've not been a fan of any of the alternatives offered so far. My choice would be to alter the grammar a little to "Eighteen children resulted from the union of Uranus...etc". In this paragraph the main interest is in the progeny and the following sentence would flow naturally from what is suggested. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this would be acceptable to me. But, What is wrong with the original/current "mated with"? This formulation has the virtue of preserving the meaning, in Hesiod, that this was something Uranus did to Gaia. Paul August ☎ 14:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Mating' suggests animal husbandry, therefore something done to Uranus and Gaia. Hesiod's account sounds similar to Gnostic speculations how reality is the end result of increasingly material emanations of original abstractions. Chatter about what happens in the marriage bed strikes me as anachronistic and inapt when dealing with what P Aculeius reminds us is a creation myth. Sweetpool50 (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"that this was something Uranus did to Gaia" - Is this so? I had read this as an active aorist female nominal participle, ie Agent Gaia.
talk) 16:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I just went to see what the Theogony page says. "Uranus mated with Gaia, and she gave birth to the twelve" - horrible.
talk) 16:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Over at
talk) 16:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
We're concerned with how it reads in English, not the most literal possible translation from the Greek. Overly literal translation is how we get into this kind of mess in the first place, because different languages have different ranges of meanings associated with certain words and idioms. Even when two languages have corresponding idioms, there are typically shades of meaning and other cultural baggage that don't translate well. English is versatile because there are so many ways to describe something, each with its own shade of meaning. We're discussing which turn of phrase best conveys the idea of the original myth, in the context of a mythological union between the primordial deities. If it's phrased awkwardly in another article, that can be dealt with separately; but it might be a good idea to see how we resolve it here first, or even if we can reach a consensus, so we don't wind up repeating the same discussion there. P Aculeius (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk) 16:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Untitled50reg, a self-satisfied knowledge of Greek is one thing, but where we are seeking consensus is satisfactory English wording for the English Wikipedia. A translation from the Greek follows the opening paragraph, which is not a translation but a summary of Hesiod's sense, and that's what we are discussing here. What is required of co-operating editors is not an overwhelming consciousness of their own rightness and their indispensibility to rescuing a despised medium, but a willingness to work with others and, dare one say it, learn something in the process. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And what the people but a herd confused,
A miscellaneous rabble who extol
Things vulgar and well weighed scarce worth the praise.
They praise and they admire they know not what
And know not whom, but as one leads the other.

(
talk) 11:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

On the Cyclops' birth myth

I remembered my original idea on the Cyclops' birth myth, which seems to me quite likely, since I confronted it with various references found on the net. I'm referring to the well-known episode from the Odyssey which describes the Cyclops Polyphemus, a gigantic monster with just one eye. Considering the oral hypothesis, the episode described by Homer would have originated in a much earlier period, and then be transmitted orally, withdrawing from previous traditions of stereotypes. In such an era, the legend about the Cyclops and the Lestrigoni, ancient inhabitants of Sicily, could have been manipulated by a hypothetical original creator of our history, for “needs of script”. According to Thucydides, the legend of the Cyclops belongs more to the fantastic sphere than to the historical tale, attesting mainly in the extraordinary poem the Odyssey is. There, Cyclopes are described as one-eyed creatures, but they should have originally been a binocular species, mainly to meet the natural needs of predation. The innatural distortion the passage to monocular beings created could be properly explained answering the following question: • how could Ulysses have instantly blinded Polyphemus, if he'd had not one but two eyes? Ancora Luciano (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: History of Ancient Greece

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2024 and 14 June 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Old Crooked leg (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Moonman15 (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Possible origins" section title

@P Aculeius and Sweetpool50: Perhaps the issue for the IP (or IPs) is that the word "origins" is ambiguous. Here we are using the word "origin" to mean where the idea for such one-eyed creatures might have come from. But the word could also be used to mean where the Cyclopes came from in other ways such as geographically or genealogically, etc. So perhaps the IP's title is not so bad after all? Can we perhaps think of a better title? Paul August ☎ 13:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But that's what the section is clearly about, and it wouldn't make sense for this title to be about geographical locations, which after all are already discussed elsewhere in the article. I doubt that this is what the IP editor is getting at. Given the history of this article, and the various supposed explanations left in the edit summaries, I suspect that the editor is fixated on the idea that some cyclopes had three eyes.
Head of Polyphemus from the Colosseum
A cyclops depicted with a right eye above two empty eye sockets.
Head of Polyphemus in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts
A cyclops depicted with one large eye between its nose and brow ridge.
Two Greek- or Roman-era heads of Polyphemus
We've routinely described attempts by sculptors and artists since antiquity to depict cyclopes by adding a third eye—often a distinctly right eye—above the bridge of the nose, leaving an eyebrow and two distinct eye sockets that sometimes even appear to have eyes in them, as "three-eyed cyclopes". It's unclear whether these represented how cyclopes were generally envisioned, or simply the difficulty artists had in depicting an otherwise human face without a browline above two eye sockets. Which of course is why I liked the image on the right more than most of the other illustrations in the article, when we last discussed images. Incidentally, as this and another version from 2007 are on Commons as the work of the uploading photographers, and the sculpture itself obviously isn't under copyright, why can't we have either of them in the article?
But that's what I think the IP editor is getting at: the idea that because artists have struggled to depict a cyclops without right and left eyes or eye sockets, that "one-eyed cyclopes" are a distinct type from the rest—something for which there's absolutely no evidence, as all cyclopes, irrespective of whether shown with right and left eyes or eye sockets, always have a single central eye, which is what this section of the article attempts to explain; it applies to all cyclopes, not just a subset of them. The notion of "three-eyed cyclopes" is largely a matter of convenience in discussing artistic depictions, not a distinct category of cyclopes in any mythology.
That said, if you really think this is the best solution, I'll be guided by you. You've always shown fair judgment in this article, and my contributions have been minor. P Aculeius (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I very much doubt if we'll find any form of words to satisfy the IP(s). Edits are clearly part of a disruptive campaign by someone with a past grudge. Take at looks at the edits headed "This administrator continues to abuse his power by maintaining misleading content (such as the "Polyphemus" page) against Wikipedia regulations" directed at three different editors on 12. 20, 3 Dec 2023, 12.49, 3 Dec. 2023 and 14.58, 5 Dec. 2023 and at the rather similar IP addresses to the present disruptors. It's my guess that only partial protection is the solution for such malicious activity. Sweetpool50 (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cyclopes&oldid=1219305524"