Talk:Mixoparthenos

Mermaid/Siren?

Dreamguy, Mixoparthenoi are certainly not a variant of mermaids or sirens. Have a look at [[1]] for example. Most translations of Herodotus use the word Mixoparthenos, and not Siren, for the Mixoparthenoi are not related to the sirens. Mixoparthenoi never sing, for example. Your edit was heavy-handed and would have benefited from some discussion. InfernoXV 17:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many medieval "sirens" are mermaids in general and often don't sing. This is just a foreign language name that you are using to describe a creature that's clearly just a Siren, absolutely and without question. Furthermore the link you link to shows that the term is just a generic one for ANY creature that is half female, whether it be Siren, Mermaid or otherwise. It's a descriptive term and not a name of a separate creature at all. In fact if you think that cite backs you up you are even more confused than I thought, because it actually proves that the article you had was completely wrong. DreamGuy 23:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. Between marking undergraduate examinations and teaching sixth-form, and now being told my classics education was confused, I really have no time for this rudeness. Perhaps you might like to revise the german language article on the Mixoparthenos too, while you're at it, and incorporate whatever was here into the Siren article. InfernoXV 09:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea. DreamGuy 06:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't give up so easily. Mixoparthenos are typically half-snake, not half-fish, and with two tails. These traits are not mentioned at all on the

merge rather than simply wipe out the page. Your edit was not helpful; please revert it.--Yannick 04:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Ytrottier, thank you for the vote of confidence! InfernoXV 07:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there's nothing of any quality to merge here. Completely misreading a common Greek descriptive word for the name of a race of creatures is ridiculous. The sources prove Inferno wrong. The existence of this article is original research, and incorrect original research at that. If you think Mixoparthenos are half snake or whatever, please provide a real source that shows it's use as a TYPE of creature instead of a word that is used as a description of a number of different types of creatures, most notable the sirens, who frequently have the two fish legs this article tries to claim belongs to the "mixoparthenos". DreamGuy 06:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some simple research from online books:

The Mirror of Herodotus[2] page 24 refers to Echidna as a mixoparthenos, describing her as "half that of a young woman with beautiful cheeks and sparkling eyes, half that of a huge snake, as terrible as it is large, spotted, cruel." A footnote says the sphinx was also referred to as a mixoparthenos. This footnote may not support the definition of mixoparthenos as a type (although I seem to remember reading something about a half-snake sphinx somewheres...) but it also argues against a redirection to siren.

Telling Wonders[3] page 240 defines the mixoparthenos as a unique maiden, half woman and half snake.

The primary sources are Herodotus's Histories 4.9 and Hesiod's Theogeny 11.295-305, and I confirmed with my copy of Herodotus. None of these sources mention a double tail.--Yannick 15:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you've provided evidence proving that it's just a descriptive term for a variety of other creatures and not a race of its own, and that the person who created this article was wrong to specify a certain type of creature. This means your information more supports deleting the article entirely instead of redirecting. Do you agree with this summary? If so I will go tag this so we can put it out of its misery and stop having bad information out there confusing anyone who might read it. DreamGuy 23:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't agree. I'm sharing partial research as I come up with it, without filtering. I am assuming that you tagged the article in good faith, and that you are genuinely hoping for referenced research to settle the argument. If you don't have the patience for this, please go away and save yourself the frustration; this could take months. Otherwise, you can help, maybe by providing references where you saw the word mixoparthenos used to refer to a half-woman half-fish, or to a singing sea deity living on an island. The sources I found so far would actually support a redirect to Echidna (mythology), but this would leave a couple of issues unresolved:

First, why do several web pages describe the Starbucks logo as a mixoparthenos? (Check Google.) Possibly it is because they are all based on some erroneous marketing material, but I would feel more comfortable if we could find more details about that "15th century Norse woodcut." (Why was a Greek word applied to a Norse woodcut?) Secondly, where does the idea of a double-tailed woman come from, and what should they be called? The Colonna statue (pictured) indicates that the image was not unique to that woodcut. Maybe they were just two works by the same artist, or maybe this is a different mythological creature or character. I would not call it Echidna, nor a siren, nor a mermaid, nor a melusine, until we get some indication as to where and when their myth was embellished with a second tail.--Yannick 02:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, see, your attitude is going to get you into problems, because it is my wanting there to be references and there NOT BEING ANY RELIABLE ONES that shows this is a term for a specific race of creatures that leads it to being something to delete. AS far as this "go away" crap goes, no, sorry. that's not going to fly.

And as far as several Google pages saying the Starbucks logo is whatever, it's the Internet, you can find pages saying any old nonsense. The marketing material says SIREN, and there PLENTY of double tailed sirens out there (see Melusine -- and it's not "a Melusine," by the way, because Melusine is a name of specific character... Melusine is a siren) so that's an obvious source.

There's no justification to redirect this to Echidna as Echidna is not even a race of creatures but a specific one (again, like the example with Melusine) and this term is descriptive of a general form and not a specific name or race.

You admit you lack info on where the second tail comes from, but that's not the point. The point is that people come to an encyclopedia to get info that is already verified and not speculative claptrap that is already proven to be wrong. If you want to go research and learn things, fine, but this article should not stick around in the meantime. If you are ever going to get real info (and when you do you will see that I am right) you can then make whatever changes you think are necessary (perhaps an update on Siren).

At this point you seem to be opposing a delete for no reason other than you don't understand and want to eventually understand. Wikipedia is not an object lesson in personal research, it exists to describe already proven information. There's nothing about this article that justifies sticking behind. DreamGuy 02:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll back off. I was not aware that double tailed mermaids were common, and I had trouble believing that they were not a separate type or character. A word of advice, though: I find I can win arguments faster and make friends along the way by sticking to the facts and educating people instead of resorting to insults and capital letters. Your attitude is more likely to get you into trouble.--Yannick 06:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]