Talk:Medusa

Untitled

A huge stone block of the head of Medusa is turned upside down in the water works reservoir building in Istanbul now serving as one of the foundation piers for one of the rear facing columns. The builders decided they could use the pagan stone but only if they turned the stone upside down (her head down). This was only discovered in recent years after the water table had receded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:f700:ac16:a164:99d0:175f:9018 (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2022

You have written that Posideon/Neptune had sec with Medusa. The real truth is written in Greek methology novels. He raped Medusa. She was then victimized again by Athena who blamed her for the rape. Please change this and don’t pretty up the story. 2001:48F8:7028:127:CCA8:D7D0:7403:E23E (talk) 06:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medusa#cite_note-7. Doesn't look like the sources are agreed on this Cannolis (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

thank someone who also knows the real story 2001:1C03:5731:3000:A4A9:68FB:819A:F017 (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request

In the "Psychoanalysis" section, it describes that there are no recorded instances of Medusa turning a woman to stone. However, in multiple accounts, Perseus is described as showing Ariadne the head of Medusa, thus turning her to stone. I'm not suggesting that that's definitive, but I think at least making it clear that there's ambiguity there would be a good change. 136.144.15.250 (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Eyes?

Those who gazed into her eyes would turn to stone.

Why specifically eyes? Are any proofs for that? There are other versions:

• Ukrainian Wikipedia provides two distinct versions: (1) those Medusa herself looked at [i.e. irrespectively to where the other person looks] and (2) those who saw Medusa [not necessarily the Medusa's eyes]. But the sources stated in Ukrainian Wikipedia are just direct references to Ancient Greek works ("Homer. Iliad XVIII.36 et seq.; Apollodorus I.2.7" for #1 and "Apollodorus II.4.2" for #2), so I can't check them ('cause I can't read Ancient Greek myths untranslated).
• Greek Wikipedia (via Google Translate) says about those who looked at Medusa's face. But I see no sources there for that claim at all.
• Philip Freeman. Oh My Gods: A Modern Retelling of Greek and Roman Myths (англ.). — 2013. — P. 30. — ISBN 9781451609981 says about those who looked at Medusa's hair (i.e. the snakes).

I don't know which is correct, but, anyway, IMHO we should provide all (verifiable) versions of Ancient Greek myth instead of (or at least in addition to) modern day reinterpretations. Sasha1024 (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sasha1024 Medusa is a Greek legend and if you stare at her you will turn into stone 106.216.252.187 (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

106.216.252.187, Medusa is a Greek legend – no doubt. But the article stated that one needs to looks specifically into her eyes (to be turned into stone) – and this statement isn't currently supported by any references. Meanwhile, various sources give different opinion on what exactly is to be done to be turned into stone by Medusa. Sasha1024 (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sasha1024: I'm unable to find a source which states that to be turned to stone it was necessary to look into her eyes specifically. Most sources simply say it happened to anyone who looked at her: for example, see Brill's New Pauly, s.v. Gorgo ("The Gorgos' terrifying shape (snake hair, fangs) transforms into stone whoever looks at them ...") and the OCD, s.v. Gorgo/Medusa ("... through their horrific appearance these Gorgons turned to stone anyone who looked at them"). Tripp, s.v. Medusa states that it was necessary to look at her head specifically, and this would certainly align with the fact that Perseus is described as later petrifying others with the severed head. On the other hand, according to Grimal, s.v. Gorgons, "their gaze was so penetrating that anyone who encountered it was turned to stone", so sources don't appear to be entirely consistent on the matter. Whatever the case, we shouldn't be stating that it was necessary to look at her eyes specifically. I've altered the sentence in the lead, following Brill's New Pauly. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Sasha1024 (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Etymology

Why no etymology section? 73.183.77.240 (talk) 04:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Wrong info

medusa was not a monster she was a priestess of athena but she got raped in athenas temple by poseidon and athena blamed medusa for being to beautiful so athena cursed her. Medusa still proformed rituals for athena and athena felt bad. medusa got killed by perseus and he gave the head to athena and athena put it on her shield to honour her. 2001:1C03:5731:3000:A4A9:68FB:819A:F017 (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

As several users have pointed out in the past, the current wording used ("Neptune had sex with her") is problematic, since most people reject treating rape as "having sex". There is a note pointing out that not all English translations mention it as rape, but the way modern English-language translators chose to translate the passage is irrelevant in a section about what Ovid wrote: Ovid wrote in Latin, and what he literally wrote was that Neptune "vitiated" her - a verb that in Latin can only mean "corrupt, damage" or "violate sexually", but not have consensual sex (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vitio). As a literal descendant of the Latin "vitio" exists – the English "vitiate", with the same meaning –, I propose changing said part to "Neptune vitiated her". Dan Palraz (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

We can't rely on our own interpretations of Ovid. We must instead rely on how reliable sources interpret this passage in Ovid (see WP:RS). Ovid does not, in fact, "literally" say: Neptune "vitiated" her. As you point out, Ovid wrote in Latin, so what he "literally" says is hanc pelagi rector templo vitiasse Minervae. While it is tempting to assume that Ovid's use of vitiasse here means the same thing as the English word "vitiated", for us to say that with no supporting reliable sources, would be "original research" (see WP:OR). Notice, by the way, that Ovid uses the same verb at Heroides 11.37, where the sex being referred to is clearly consensual. Lewis and Short translate the verb vitio as to make faulty, to injure, spoil, mar, taint, corrupt, infect, vitiate. And in the context of Ovid's use here, clearly refers to having sexual intercourse, and in such a context can mean rape, but not necessarily. The same can be said for the verb "corrupt" (or "ruin", "vitiate" etc.), which could be used in the context of forced sex, but can also mean to have consensual sex with a virgin (thereby, for example, "ruining" their value as a sexual partner or mate for someone else). Paul August ☎ 12:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, you are right; but as so many users have pointed out this specific issue by trying to edit that part out in the past, it would be worth considering a slight rewording. How about "corrupted her", then - which, as you have said, is as ambiguous as what Ovid literally wrote, whereas simply "have sex with", in 2023, no longer is considered acceptable as a possible synonym for "raped"? Dan Palraz (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

To "have sex with" means the same thing as to "have sexual intercourse with". And neither implies that the sex or sexual intercourse is consensual. That's why we define rape as "forced sex". The problem with he "corrupted her" is that this does not necessarily mean he had sex with her, although in this case this is what reliable sources assume Ovid meant. Paul August ☎ 13:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I've decided to replace "sex" with "sexual intercourse", is that better? Paul August ☎ 13:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

And now I've replaced "sexual intercourse" with "mated", which I think is better yet. Paul August ☎ 16:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

No, it's still a problem because we're performing WP:OR using passing mentions or other sources. What we need to do is look over the sources and see how they characterize it, rather than trying to interpret Ovid ourselves. We absolutely cannot cite Ovid at all on that point, since it's essentially just a personal interpretation by editors that contradicts secondary sources - see eg. [1][2][3][4] - see especially the lengthy footnote from Johnston on this topic, saying The Greek historian Hesiod and the poet Apollodorus, who earlier tell a more condensed version of Medusa’s story, both say that she “lay with” the god. However, translations of Ovid’s account define Neptune’s actions as rape. Arthur Golding’s Metamorphoses (1904), the version used by Shakespeare, describes how Neptune “abused” (line 74) Medusa in Pallas’ temple, a crime Athena punished by transforming Medusa “to put her foes in feare” (line 79). The 1717 Samuel Garth translation says that the “lustful” Neptune “seiz’d and rifled” Medusa, and that Minerva “on the ravished virgin took vengeance.” A.S. Kline’s 2000 interpretation of the text describes Neptune as “violating” Medusa and clarifies that Athena transformed Medusa’s hair to snakes so that she might terrify her enemies (Book 4, pp. 753–803) - since that's a secondary source going in-depth on this precise question, I'm inclined to see it as definitive. Certainly it isn't reasonable to read individual translations ourselves (being primary sources for how they translate it) and give them priority over it. Either way, do you have any sources specifically describing it as contested, or specifically performing the analysis you describe on the question? I'll also note that someone added an inappropriate in-line comment trying to forbid people from changing the text away from their preferred version; this is not allowed per MOS:COMMENT (They should not be used to instruct other editors not to perform certain edits. If there was a clear consensus we could mention that, but I definitely do not see a consensus here or in any of the previous discussions; if necessary we can have an RFC but unless you can come up with some sourcing I missed, I think the sourcing is pretty clear-cut that it's generally described as rape in secondary coverage and that the outcome of any RFC would be clear in backing that up. --Aquillion (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Although you say that we can't rely on our own interpretations of Ovid, it seems to me like what you're presenting is your own interpretation of Ovid, coupled with a smattering of individual translations - these are not WP:SECONDARY sources and aren't really suitable for making such a specific claim. Certainly we shouldn't be citing or discussing the text or meaning of Ovid directly ourselves, that has to be cited to secondary analysis (and the only one I can find that specifically analyzes this point is Johnston, above, who unambiguously says that it is translated as rape.) Given the significant number of secondary sources that state unambiguously that Ovid's text describes Medusa being raped, do you have any similar secondary sources that analyze the question and reach a different conclusion? That is, do you have secondary sources for the argument you're presenting here yourself? Without that I feel that we have to just go with what secondary sources say; we can't dig into individual word-meanings to try and dispute secondary sources that flatly say Ovid's text describes Medusa being raped, and pointing to two translations that use different words doesn't strike me as enough when secondary sources are so clear. --Aquillion (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Medusa was NEVER a priestess in Athena's temple. This does not exist in ANY mythological source, it is nothing more than a modern invention spread on the internet that everyone has come to believe. --2804:2FB0:418:2300:E992:D0F9:D21A:C7D3 (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that we have to reflect what secondary sources say, not what individual editors believe is the "real" mythological story. --Aquillion (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2024

Suggesting replacing "human female" (IMO incel-esque wording) in the lead with "woman" or "human woman" Bordonianus (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I've changed this to "woman". Paul August ☎ 14:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2024

I noticed that in the info box thingy it said something that what Poseidon did to Medusa was consensual. It was not. Please correct that. 2600:1700:3907:1840:A462:3FC0:69A6:860C (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're looking, the article doesn't say that anywhere. Are you maybe looking at "Consort"? That is an entirely different and unrelated word – see wikt:consort § English. Tollens (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)