Talk:Cerberus

Constellation theory of origin

The origin section is extremely bizarre, in that it only mentions (and devotes a lot of space to) the theory that Cerberus derived from some story written around extremely ambiguous star patterns in a constellation. Do we have a source for this, as it's certainly not common knowledge. Without a reference it comes off as sounding like strange personal research. With or without a source, it's not really something that should be listed as the sole or default explanation. Constellation theories are not highly regarded in the field of mythology or classical studies. DreamGuy 16:50, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Image

Relief of Cerberus on Portico of Friedrichsfelde Castle in zoo Tierpark Friedrichsfelde, Berlin, Germany.

Make a New Section

Why don't we make a new section about Cerberus' appearances in other works? That way we could move a few of the mentions there, without making it a "See Also". Still, I vote the God of War mention be removed. There are how many appearances of Cerberus-like things in this world??? Heck, even the dog Fluffy from Harry Potter is more noticeable, and I don't see anyone rushing to put it up.

Kingdom Hearts character?

This wiki is based on the one from Greek Mythology. Why not start a new wiki for the Disney's Hercules version, and categorize that one instead? Not only would that organize everything (and seem less misleading), but everyone will benefit from it.

Restoring a qualified version of some recently removed text

An IP removed from the article the mention in Iliad 5.395–397 of Heracles shooting Hades with an arrow, saying in their edit summary that "The incident where Heracles shot Hades with an arrow had nothing to do with the incident with Cerberus. It was from when Heracles attacked Pylos and Hades came to the city's defense". The IP is probably referring to Apollodorus, 2.7.3, but Apollodorus' account may simply be a misinterpretation of Homer.

That this passage is (possibly at least) related to Cerberus' capture is covered (after a fashion) earlier in the article, in the section "Capture":

In some early sources Cerberus' capture seems to involve Heracles fighting Hades. Homer (Iliad 5.395–397) has Hades injured by an arrow shot by Heracles. A scholium to the Iliad passage, explains that Hades had commanded that Heracles "master Cerberus without shield or Iron". Heracles did this, by (as in Apollodorus) using his lion-skin instead of his shield, and making stone points for his arrows, but when Hades still opposed him, Heracles shot Hades in anger. Consistent with the no iron requirement, an early sixth-century BC lost Corinthian cup, Heracles is shown attacking Hades with a stone, while the iconographic tradition, from c. 560 BC, often shows Heracles using his wooden club against Cerberus.

Here is what Ogden, 2103a, pp. 110–111 says:

”There were two broad traditions [of how Heracles got Cerberus]: either Heracles had to fight Hades for him, or Hades gave Heracles Cerberus to take away on condition that he could first master him. Homer knew the tradition that Heracles fought Hades, with the ‘’Iliad’’ telling that Heracles had contrived to shoot an arrow through Hades’ shoulder ‘in Pylos / at the Gate [sc. of the underworld]’²²⁴

²²⁴ Homer ‘’Iliad’’ 5. 395–7, ἐν Πύλῳ, with schol. and Kirk 1990 ad loc.; cf. Homer ‘’Iliad’’8. 367–8, where Hades is himself described as πυλάρταο, ‘gate-warden’. Panyassis F26 West also spoke of ‘Elian Hades’ being shot by Heracles.

So Ogden believes that Il. 5. 395–7, is referring to Cerberus' capture.

Kirk, G. S. 1990 The Iliad: A Commentary: Volume 2, Books 5-8, ISBN 978-0521281720, p. 102, commenting on Il. 5. 396–7 is more equivocal:

The scholia, drawing on earlier discussions e.g. by local historians of the Argolid, offered a variety of explanations: (i) the reference is to Herakles' attack on the Pylians, either (a) for supporting Orkhomenos against Thebes (T on 11.690) or (b) when he slew Neleus' sons at Pulos as recalled by Nestor at 11`.690-3 (bT on 5.392-4), the Pylians being supported by Poseidon, Here and Hades, according to the D-scholiast on 11.690; or (ii) the incident occurred when Herakles became angry with Plouton-Hades for his opposition to the removal of Kerberos from the underworld (bT on 595-7, cf. Σ on Pindar, Ol. 9, 33). Aristarchus (Arn(?)/T) evidently took 397 ἐν Πύλῳ as equivalent to ἐν πύλη, i.e. at the gate (sc. of the underworld), an interpretation supported by ἐν νεκύεσσι if this implies 'among the dead in Hades' (as when Helios at Od. 12.383 says he will go down to Hades καί ἐν νεκύεσσι ...) rather than 'among the corpses on the battlefield' (cf. e.g. 10.349 and ... of Ares at 886). Rhythmical criteria are ambiguous; ... The violent penetration of the underworld was an essential part of the mythical biography of Herakles, but the exact nature of the Pulos reference remains obscure. Pausanias (6.25.2) even assigned the incident to the Eleian Pulos, where Hades had a temple in his time.

Based upon the above sources, I’ve restored a qualified version of the deleted text, which now reads as follows:

Homer does not name or describe Cerberus, but simply refers to Heracles being sent by Eurystheus to fetch the "hound of Hades", with Hermes and Athena as his guides, and, in a possible reference to Cerberus' capture, that Heracles shot Hades with an arrow.

Paul August ☎ 12:10, 4 November 2017‎ (UTC)

Auto-archiving?

Any objections to my setting up auto-archiving on this page for any thread older than say five years? Right now we have threads over ten years old. I'll give it at least a week before I make any changes. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Given I first asked about this over two years ago, I've turned on auto-archiving. DonIago (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

In popular culture section

@DarthSiqsa: We cannot add an "In popular culture" section unless the entries contained within it are sourced. Moreover, if we are to have such a section, we must have sources which indicate the significance of what is being mentioned there to Cerberus himself. MOS:POPCULT states that [c]ultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist, and unless we had some source which somehow indicated that the appearance of Cerberus in the video game is of significance to Cerberus, we should not be mentioning it here. – Michael Aurel (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@DarthSiqsa: Please discuss your proposed addition here, on the talk page, rather than continuing to re-add it. Repeatedly reverting other users is called edit warring (see WP:EDITWAR), and can lead to you being blocked. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Michael Aurel: In what way are you not edit warring then? DarthSiqsa (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@DarthSiqsa: On Wikipedia we have something called the three-revert rule (see WP:3RR), which states that [a]n editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. As you have re-added the section four times after it was removed by myself and another editor, you are now in breach of this (whereas I only reverted you twice). If you have material that you would like to be added in such a section, you can propose it here, though it is unlikely to be added unless it has sourcing which establishes some notability with respect to Cerberus himself. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I see. Would it maybe be a solution to create a seperate page for it (like I have seen for other articles) and just link that in "see also"? That way, someone that would search for Cerberus in popular culture could look there, meanwhile the main article stays focused on the mythological character. DarthSiqsa (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

You'd still need to provide a source that satisfies WP:IPCV. DonIago (talk) 05:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but why? Seriously, if I can't find a source you find satisfying, why? Only in this article, people are that strict about it. In what way can a pop culture reference be ever significant to the mythological creature? You guys didn't even allow the Cerberus from Harry Potter or Disney from what I can gather from previous talks. A seperate page would solve that. And since it sadly is an indie game, the only sources I can add are the steam page for the game or its artbook. And obviously, since the artbook has to be purchased, that doesn't really work. So, should I just link the steam page or the creator's twitter account? And if I want to add other Cerberuses? Why should Disney or J.K. Rowling for example state "my Cerberus is based off of Cerberus from greek mythology" if it's obvious? DarthSiqsa (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the video game, if you cannot find satisfactory sourcing, then, sorry, but it shouldn't be here. As to appearances of Cerberus in those other places you've mentioned, we can have those in the article assuming that we have sourcing which gives some indication of their significance to Cerberus himself (in line with WP:IPCV). I would be hesitant to start a new page dedicated entirely to Cerberus in popular culture, unless we have enough sourcing to justify its existence. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

So, does the game itself count as a source? It's free, so technically available to anyone. DarthSiqsa (talk) 06:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

No, the game itself doesn't count as a satisfactory source here. MOS:POPCULT states that A Wikipedia article may include a subject's cultural impact by summarizing its coverage in reliable secondary or tertiary sources, and the game itself is a primary source, meaning it is not sufficient here. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

So if I get it right, if an article proves the connection between any Cerberus from any other work and the mythological one, if from a reliable source, it's good? DarthSiqsa (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Sort of. If by proves the connection, you mean that the source establishes that the depiction in question is of significance to Cerberus himself, then yes. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

By the way, don't think I'm against us adding some such section altogether, it just needs to be sufficiently sourced in line with the above guidelines. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I see, I might have also misinterpreted your use of the word significant. Like, the depiction has to be significant in a sense that it is a depiction of the hellhound Cerberus and not just something named Cerberus that has nothing to do with the mythological one or just vaguely references it, correct?

Also sorry for asking so much, I don't wanna waste anyones time but it want to be able to add that category and try to avoid any future complications. And if any of my previous comments seemed in any way rude or passive-aggressive I apologize, it wasn't my intention. DarthSiqsa (talk) 07:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Precisely, It has to have significance to Cerberus. Glad to see you understand. And you certainly don't need to apologise for asking questions, thankyou you for being willing to discuss this in a civil manner. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Thx, I will try to do that then, I know that the Cerberus I mentioned does have a true form that is the three-headed dog, I just need to find where that was officialy stated. And I'll try to put it on a separate article and link it (seems to be a common practice with mythological beings that have lots of appearances in fiction) with a bunch of other Cerberuses in modern media, probably on the weekend so I can take some time to do it. DarthSiqsa (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

You mean creating a separate "Cerberus in popular culture" article? Remember that everything you write needs to be properly sourced to secondary (or tertiary) sources. I've checked a few sources I thought might discuss representations of Cerberus in various media (the Brill's New Pauly supplements and the Cambridge Companion to Greek mythology), but I couldn't find anything which seemed significant enough for inclusion here. If you want to create a separate "Cerberus in popular culture" article, we would need to see quite significant sourcing to justify that, and if you want to add a section here, it also needs to be well sourced. Maybe, when (or if) it's something you want to do, you could propose what you want to add/create on this talk page here. – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I will look into it when I get to it. I just wanted to add that you might just look at a few other "In popular culture" articles for other mythological/religious characters. They are nowhere near as adamant about their sources, even if some of them are arguably more significant than Cerberus. That might just be my personal opinion, but you could probably delete at least a third of wikipedia if you are 100% following the rules letter by letter. But I will try to source as good as I can and the talk page seems like a good idea I might use. DarthSiqsa (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright. I will add that most of those "In popular culture" articles are very inadequately sourced, and popular culture sections in articles often suffer from the same problem, but that is an issue with those pages, and doesn't change the situation here. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Also I checked the sections about verifiable and reliable sources and it was never mentioned the original work or statements by the publisher are not reliable, but that it depends on the context. DarthSiqsa (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is MOS:POPCULT, which says that [a] Wikipedia article may include a subject's cultural impact by summarizing its coverage in reliable secondary or tertiary sources. Primary sources by themselves are not enough for the purposes of a popular culture section. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I see why no one ever tried to do one before now. Well, wasting my time with that seems pointless, it's gonna get deleted anyway. There's instances where you should leave a little wiggle room and there's instances where rules must be strictly followed. But if admins on this article have to be so pedantic I can spend my time doing something else.

Thank you for your time anyways and I wish you a good day regardless. DarthSiqsa (talk) 11:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@DarthSiqsa: Primary sources can be used for certain purposes. For example, a primary source can be used to establish the existence of the primary source itself. But, sources (whether primary or not) that merely establish the existence of a character named Cerberus in some other context are not enough. Nor is it enough to establish that a character is based on the mythological Cerberus. Rather, as several editors have tried to point out to you, what is needed are reliable sources which establish the relevance, significance, and notability of the character with respect to the mythological Cerberus. That some thing is true is not enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia, like every other encyclopedia, Wikipedia has certain standards governing whether some thing is noteworthy. Not every use of the name Cerberus, will necessarily be noteworthy enough to be included. For a humorous take on this see this xkcd comic. Paul August ☎ 12:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I see it. I will stop editing this article. DarthSiqsa (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

When did he die?

No one knows 96.244.78.79 (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

No source says that Cerberus died. As our article says, according to Apollodorus, Heracles returned Cerberus to the underworld.

References

Paul August ☎ 17:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)