Talk:Cetus (mythology)

Deletes

• Hesperides
• Aegle
• Erytheia
• Hesperia

I don't know enough about the subject to know if User:201.10.22.27's delete was appropriate; I'm assuming it was, but I wanted to list these here just to be safe. --mordicai. 17:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Personification of the Dangers of the Sea

I very much doubt that there is any evidence that Ceto was believed to be the personification of the dangers of the sea, unknown terrors and bizarre creatures in the ancient world. Unless any evidence can be provided that this statement is true then this should be removed. The Prime Source 11:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Dale

Sirens

Siren have been included in a list of the children of Ceto. Yet Apollodorus says that they are the children of Acheloios and Melpomene or Terpsichore. Pausanias says that they were children of Acheloios and Euripedes says that they are children of Gaia. They have also been described as daughters of Calliope and Phorcys. Unless a source is provided that the Sirens were daughters of Ceto the Sirens should be removed from the list of Ceto's children. The Prime Source 14:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Dale

Thoosa

Thoosa has been included in a list of Ceto's children. Homer says that Thoosa was a daughter of Phorcys and does not mention Ceto. Unless there is a source that describes Thoosa as Ceto's daughter is provided Thoosa should be removed from this list. The Prime Source 14:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Dale

Cetus

Cetus was, I believe, and entirely different sea creature. He was the monster sent by Poseidon to punish Cassiopeia.CheshireCatCO (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Clashtitans.jpg

Image:Clashtitans.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ketos vs. Keto

I am pretty sure that Keto the sea-goddess daughter of Ge and Pontos is not the same character as Ketos the sea monster in the story of Perseus and Andromeda. I'm going to split these pages into two. If someone objects, they can feel free to start up a campaign for merger. Proserpine (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not how things work here. If you have a controversial action, you need to get consensus for it. Saying you're just going to do it and that if anyone wants to undo it they must "ampaign" for "merger" when the reasons for splitting have never been established is completely backwards of how things work here. See WP:CONSENSUS, WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD. DreamGuy (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, DreamGuy! "Here the things work" under the WP:BEBOLD, unless controversial. (No patronizing!) WP is not a bureaucracy. If you have objections, then raise objections and make the issue "controversial". ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 10:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I was operating under WP:BEBOLD. I provided numerous citations in the article I wrote about the goddess Keto. They are different characters who share similar names because both derive from a general term (ketos, plural ketea) for 'sea monster'. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Keto/Ceto (the goddess) and Ketos/Cetus (the monster) are the same character; they are gendered differently in the Greek - the names are not the same - and are nowhere described as the same being in any ancient sources. It is like presuming that someone named Brianna and someone named Brian must be the same character. Here are ancient sources on Keto: http://www.theoi.com/Pontios/Keto.html and on Ketos: http://www.theoi.com/Ther/KetosTroias.html

If I need to build consensus, let's talk about it here. You seem to know more about the process, so go ahead and enlighten me as to how it works.Proserpine (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

By your argument, Krataiis and Keto must be completely different characters then because they had different names, but we know they are the same as they serve the same function in the myths. The same goes for the different renderings of Keto/Ketos/Cetus -- a sea monster with the same description and role. DreamGuy (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I opt to support Proserpine's reasoning on this subject. Keto & Ketos are two completely different 'personalities', though very similar in roles. Keto was an archaic, minor and malevolent marine deity who embodied dangers at sea, whereas Ketos was a monster of the sea. In the end Perseus vanquished and very much slew Ketos, which makes it impossible to have been Keto in its place since gods are immortal and, naturally, much more powerful than mortals. I strongly believe them to be two different characters!!!Oceanblueeyes (talk)

I find it hard to believe someone with even passing familiarity with Greek myths could have made the arguments you did, as they are contradicted by most every story. Greek gods certainly were not immortal (in the sense of the term meaning impossible to kill), and Greek heroes killed many figures considered to be minor gods and goddesses. Even calling Keto a goddess in the first is misleading, as she was clearly a sea monster, as that's even what her name means. DreamGuy (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody reading an encyclopedia cares what you personally believe. Wikipedia covers what the experts say. We need cites from reliable sources, not personal conjecture. DreamGuy (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If you'll look, I cited above every mention in archaic myth of Keto and Ketos, all of which indicate that they are two separate characters. I'm going to make this split again sometime this week if there are no objections. If you can give me an adequate reason for refusing the split, given the expert source I give above that features all of the original primary sources, then we can discuss it. I see no logical reason, however, for the split not to occur. Proserpine (talk) 04:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You keep saying that the experts say they are separate figures, but I've not seen any making that statement. That seems to be your personal interpretation. As I already said on my talk page where you also raised this, the main thing we would need to state that these were separate beings is some reliable source saying so. It's not uncommon for the same figure to be rendered with slightly different names, or even completely different titles (in fact the pages you link to detail several for each), but the difference in names doesn't necessarily make them separate mythological figures. In this case you keep stressing that Keto was a goddess, but that's really kind of misleading as she doesn't have regular goddess-like features or worship and was a sea monster herself, and mother of many other monsters, none of which were goddesses. Declaring this to be two separate entities appears to me to fall under original research. If you find reliable sources making this claim, that we can cite them as holding that opinion, but you cannot use Wikipedia to say your own opinion as if it were a fact. DreamGuy (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ceto (Κητώ) is the daughter of Gaia and Pontus. "Cetus" (κῆτος) is a common noun that means, according to the LSJ, "any sea-monster or huge fish." There are examples of κῆτος meaning a tunafish or dolphins, in addition to the sea-monsters killed by Perseus, Herakles, etc. If there's any original research going on, it's the insistence that two clearly separate topics are the same. Obviously Ceto should be a separate article, and cetus needs to be rewritten to avoid the impression that there's only one κῆτος--Perseus and Herakles didn't kill the same one, after all. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree they are separate entities too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: Reminds me of reading somewhere (Graves?) that Hecabe (Hecuba) and Hecate had some link and may have been the same figure, even though they are clearly distinct in myths as we know them (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"Perseus and Herakles didn't kill the same one, after all", at the risk of being dense, why can't they have? Declan Clam (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That's an odd question. Why would you think a sea-monster can be killed twice? --Akhilleus (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, and here the risk is of being patronising or glib, there was no actual sea-monster, it's a myth. And the nature of myth is to exist in different versions. So, to take a well-known example, Orpheus was killed by being torn up by a bunch of women (most, popular, versions) AND by committing suicide (as realted by Pausanias, who doesn't believe it) AND by being struck by a thunderbolt (Alcidamus) - and the scores of other examples a half-decent classical encyclopedia will furnish of people being killed twice, having six mothers, etc. So to say the things killed by Heracles and Perseus (even if they had different names, but were in other essentials the same) must necessarily be two different things existing in two different myths doesn't hold up. Also, it's as well to point out that there were no such people as Heracles and Perseus living seperate lives at different eras of some Xena Warrior Princess Greece, rather they likely started out (East of Greece) as local culture heroes - Heracles ends up winning the most widespread popularity and subsuming the attributes of other heros (note how Heracles rescuing Hesione is essentially the same story as Perseus rescuing Andromeda) - so to say that Heracles did something, therefore Perseus cannot have done it first, is also faulty.

Having said all of which, if someone can bring up evidence that there were 3, 4 howevermany separate and distinct sea-monsters of this name, fine. But more likely the appropriate research will show the whole near-east was terrorised by a single sea-monster who went by a variety of names and was killed by all manner of guys depending on where you lived and what language you spoke. That said, splitting off articles for mythological beings who have the same name and the same attributes would increase confusion, rather than decrease it. Improving the (rather poor) article that already exists, giving appropriatly cited versions, would seem the way to go, and will please structuralists. Declan Clam (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, that makes sense. I understand your point that there's a possibility that Heracles and Perseus are the "same" hero deep down, but I don't think that matters for the question here. "Cetus" is a common noun, like "bicycle", "cat", or "lion". It's not a proper name. So we don't say that Heracles killed Cetus, we say that Heracles killed a sea monster. Same for Perseus.

The question you've raised, though, doesn't have much to do with whether Ceto, the daughter of Gaia and Pontus, should be in this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right of course, cetus is sea monster, ceto is a sea monster. I'm afraid, taking "cetus also known as ceto" at face value (I shouldn't've, never known ceto as cetus myself) and coming across 2 articles word-for-word the same, I rather got the wrong end of the stick and though the one should redirect to the other. One mistake, I think, has come from someone translating (the Dionysiaca?) and giving an unnamed cetacean menace (i.e. the one unleashed upon Andromeda and which does not, as best as i can see, have an independent existance) the personal name 'Cetus'. The other "mistake" (others might take it to be an authority) was made by Pliny the Elder identifying said beast with the Ceto that appears in Hesiod and elsewhere [1]. Your idea of shifting what we have to Ceto and rewriting the Cetus article was the better one, though as wikipedia isn't a dictionary I'm not sure it shouldn't just redirect to a sea monster page that combines tiamat and Rahab et al Declan Clam (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you about the "wikipedia isn't a dictionary" problem, and I'm not sure what to do about it. If there are sources connecting the monsters killed by Perseus and Heracles to Tiamat/Rahab/etc. that would help. I doubt such exist for Herakles, since that's a minor episode in his career, but they might for Perseus. On Pliny, I don't read that as saying that Perseus killed Ceto, just that a cult of Ceto (the mother of all sea monsters) was founded on a spot where a sea monster was killed. The link you gave above isn't working for me, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The Jewish people in the first century. Historical geography, political history, social, cultural and religious life and institutions. Ed. by S. Safrai and M. Stern in co-operation with D. Flusser and W. C. van Unnik, Vol II, p. 1081. What it actually cites Pliny for is the assertion that Ceto is worshipped in Jaffa, and speculates that there was a tradition that the sea monster was called Ceto - or that Pliny misread his source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The assertion that Ceto and Cetus are the same, and the resulting conclusion that Cetus married Phorcys, are both unsourced. If they cannot be sourced, they should be removed. Consider for example this standard source, which has entries for both, which do not even mention each other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

My surfing on theoi.com indicates that that Ketos might instead have been regarded a son of Keto, which might be reasonable to believe, considering that "Keto" is feminine but "Ketos" masculine. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 16:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

PMA sums it up well - to add, considering them the same without a source can be construed as OR. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course Ceto and Cetus are not "the same". But why the split? We just end up with two poor stubby articles. Are you going to suggest that this article needs to be split again, into Cetus (Perseus) and Cetus (Heracles), since the two monsters slain by the two heroes obviously cannot have been "the same"? Mythology articles do not need to be split along "individuals", they need to identify reasonable topics that can be discussed encyclopedically. Claiming a discussion of Ceto as "completely separate" from a discussion of Cetus is unreasonable. --dab (𒁳) 23:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism and ethnocentric propaganda

The Greek Cetus is a copy of the Mesopotamian Tiamat and everyone who understands the subject knows this, but this can not be said because it is offensive to the "European" pseudo-ethnicity. However, its allowed to lie saying that it was the Greeks who created the Chinese dragon, even though: 1) Chinese civilization is much older than Greek. 2) The Dragon Chinese is even older than Chinese civilization, dating from Neolithic period to at least 6,000 years ago. 3) Chinese and Greeks never had direct contact.

I will not even edit this part, I will share this to everybody see these and others lies invented by the "european" pseudo-ethnicity. Barbar03 (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no "European pseudo-ethnicity" and I do not care what is mentioned as long as it is the truth. In our case, what can be said for a fact is that κήτος is a Greek word entirely, and the mythology of it all might be based on the Mesopotamian one, but it is uncertain. As for the dragon, it did exist in Greece as well, and the Ancient Greeks did have some limited trade contact with the Chinese. And especially after the conquests of Alexander the Great. But in general, the civilizations of the time did share many things with one another so there is no "stealing" from any side, it's just that they were related.

LightningLighting (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)