# Talk:Satyr

### document screwed up
 I don't know how to operate wiki very well, but this document is, in fact, rather screwed up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.174.47 (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC) 

The image showing a "small replica of a satyr" is in fact of a twentieth century souvenir, reinterpreting the satyr as a cork-screw.
This should be replaced with an authentic image, perhaps from a fifth century vase painting? Skeowsha

The line drawing of a sculpture at right is not up to the present quality of illustrations. I moved it here. --Wetman 08:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Satyrs are always depicted in Greek art as having a horse's tail, and occasionally as having a horse's hind legs and tail.  IN the opening paragraph of this article it says that in Greek mythology they are "goat like", but then a few paragraphs down it says that the conflation with Roman fauns was the origin of the Goat features.  So clearly, the opening paragraph about them being Greek, goat-featured creatures can't be correct.  It was the Romans that made them goat featured. 
THe article should be changed to reflect this, and the first paragraph and the later paragraph in the introduction should be edited so that they don't contradict one another.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.248.194.48 (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC) 

who cares about warcraft universe? this is an article about greek mythology...
so i think the 2 lines at the end should be deleted

warcraft pwnz u so stfu n00b
in fairness, other mytho-zoological articles mention the creature's role in modern fantasy fiction and frequently gives examples.
Then it should be stated that they are depicted as such in the Warcraft universe, not in the actual game. Satyrs are canon within the novels and RTS games as well. I do think it should be included if the fantasy/game is notable, which Warcraft is. In any case, fantasy worlds are often not only affected, but indeed based upon classic mythology. So there. I suppose it'd be redundant to cite LoTR in every fantasy depiction that includes tall sexy elves, though. --RoSeeker (talk) 05:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In the article, it states that they (satyrs) are part of the demonic Night Elf race; although in other media Elves can be portrayed as evil - I think anyone who has played Warcraft would be hard pressed to label the Night Elves as demonic. 91.109.158.146 (talk) 08:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

In World of Warcraft, Satyrs are Night Elves that embraced demonic magic and have changed form as a result. So as the above commenter says, the Night Elves themselves are not demonic but some have become demons, and those are the satyrs. See WoWWiki for more. -- NRTurner (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The addition of the trivia concerning 'Pan's Labrynth' is erroneous at best and false at worst and should be removed (or fixed to 'Faun' and have the name removed). The faun (not satyr) is never once in the film referred to as Pan (or as a satyr) and is actually specifically referred to as having a name which cannot be pronounced. Furthermore, the only time that the word 'Pan' appears in the film in any translation is in the English title. 68.96.255.13 14:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried not to take out any information that was there, but when I was reading it I noticed alot of repeditive stuff so I tried to put it in an easier to read format and combine some of the repetitive stuff. Hope its ok.
yes.

The article about fauns meantions that fauns differed from satyrs in aving human feet instead of hooves. I don't know whether this is true, but it should be mentioned if it is. 
--Smajie
I was under the impression that fauns and satyrs were one in the same; would someone clarify? (ReBooter)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.90.54.211 (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC) 
I believe that they are the same but that the Romans called them fauns, and the Greeks called them satyrs, but I don't have anything to back that up.131.123.102.78 (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the section on Satyrs as living in caves under South America. The link given was a link to a questionable 'UFO' website.
they live all over the world. they come out night on a full moon,mostly to protect the faun,who eat  mountain flowers,from spring to fall.the fauns are in reality little people,or satyr who have not gone through the change thats an operation done by the king of each tribe.the operation is detaching the upper torso from the goat legs and hips of a dying satyr.these war like beings thy bob up and down ,they carry swords and spears ,when disarmed the end of thier finger tip has poison barb,if this barb it causes fever, memory, loss,and sometimes death.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.79.172 (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC) 

I added a section about the transformation of the Satyr in late greek art and I would like to add more. I recently read an article on Satyrs in Nothing to Do with Dionysos? Athenian Drama in Its Social Context. As Greek society progressed they became more open and secure and they no longer had to depict the Satyr, the symbol of desire, as ugly and wretched with a massive erection. Rather, in late Greek art, they humanized it. No where is this transformation more clear than in Euripes "Cyclops" the last remaining Satyr play. In the play the older Satyr, the sileni lies and cheats just so that he can get drunk, whereas the younger Satyr is much more compassionate and tries to protect Odyesseus from his father's lies. 
I think without talking about this great shift in the iconography of the Satyr the article will remain incomplete.

The image, uploaded by User:Foufoutos who made a handful of edits in January, is a monochrome photo unlikely to have been taken recently; it does not depict a bronze from antiquity, as a glance even of the photo shows: sleek modern surface, inauthentic stylization of features. I moved this here, so we can get some information on where this statuette currently is and see what the copyright status is. Aha! now here is the Greek bronze in the National Archaeological Museum, Athens, of which our illus. is a coarse copy for the tourist trade. Compare just the faces! --Wetman 07:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The concept of satyr as a type of ape is older than the 17th century - The Book of Beasts (T. H. White's translation of a 12th-century bestiary) clearly describes the Satyr as an ape of some sort.  (The illustration shows a traditional satyr, but the description is of an ape). Vultur (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The link sileni lead to the article on ipotanes, which appear to be the orginal horse-like version of satyrs.
The sentence that contains this link is refering to elderly goat-like satyrs, not ipotanes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.177.124 (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC) 

"A Satyr depicted on a Roman mosaic in Villa Romana del Casale, an archeological site near Piazza Armerina in Sicily, Italy Erect penis not pictured"
Is that vandalism, or was the picture censored?  If the picture is censored, why was it censored? Шизомби (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It does not appear to be vandalism. The photo looks like it came from the photo gallery at this link, where it has already been cropped. http://www.flickr.com/photos/xerones/sets/72157594154087291/ Gary (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the "'shaggy demon of the mountain-pass' (أزب الاكب) of old Arab legend" referred to in the article? I don't know how to properly transliterate the Arabic, it's something like Azb Al-Akb (missing vowels). Шизомби (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This description of the Satyr as exclusively heterosexual is wrong. The Satyrs like many Greek deities were pansexual, hence the name pan sexual. This article maintains a heterosexist view that is inacurate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.205.7.88 (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC) 

The whole article needs to be better referenced and thought out. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I thought pansexual came from the Greek word 'pan', meaning 'all'. Wikifan153 (talk) 08:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

An anonymous editor from an IP has systematically removed all the images in the article. Though I've long thought that it was rather in-your-face to have the unusual image of the satyr performing a balancing act with his phallus at the top of the article, I'm reluctant to think that this wholesale deletion was mere puritanism. The selection did seem to have been based primarily on affording the juvenile pleasure of repeating "erect penis" in the captions. There ought to be a greater range of images, maybe, especially to reflect satyrs depicted in later periods, but the text is too short at present for this kind of presentation. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

At the Hittite (also Hurrian) site of Karkamış in Turkey, near the Syrian border, there are is a frieze with creatures that clearly resemble satyrs on it. Perhaps a history of the mythical creatures would be appropriate for the article?
http://www.hittitemonuments.com/karkamis/
http://www.hittitemonuments.com/karkamis/kargamis106.jpg  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.43.160.22 (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC) 

Well if anyone adds this section, might want to reference Plutarch's story about a satyr being captured near Apollonia and brought before Sulla. (Plutarch, Sulla 27) 27.33.43.226 (talk) 09:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Satyr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051030043242/http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Mythology/Satyr.html to http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Mythology/Satyr.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Triton55: You have repeatedly changed the text of the article to say that satyrs were goatlike before their syncretism with the Roman fauni, which is an uncited assertion contradicted by the sources cited here in the article. You cannot just make changes like these by mere assertion. You need to provide citations to reliable sources for verifiability; otherwise, whatever you write is original research. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Nymphs and Satyr, by William-Adolphe Bouguereau.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps this theory deserves a mention? 63.231.140.53 (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

No. First of all, that article is clearly nonsense. Satyrs are ithyphallic male nature spirits from ancient Greek mythology and folklore with horse-tails and horse-ears; they are not "remnant Neanderthals." I do not think there is a single classicist on earth who would even take that hypothesis seriously. Second of all, this is just one article. Any idiot can get any hypothesis published in an article somewhere, no matter how ridiculous it is. An idea like this only becomes significant enough to warrant mention in an encyclopedia article about satyrs when it is widely discussed and written about by a large number of professional scholars. Right now, this hypothesis about satyrs being "remnant Neanderthals" is not a widely discussed or even widely heard-of hypothesis. —Katolophyromai (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I do not think there is a single paleoanthropologist who would even take that hypothesis seriously either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Before, a few days ago, I was trying to remove this quote alot: "The treatise Saturnalia by the fifth-century AD Roman poet Macrobius connects both the word satyr and the name Saturn to the Greek word for 'penis'." Because this quote is irrelevant. It's just an unnecessary quote in comparison to better connections made on the page. It's not a fact. It's also rather troublesome that Google keeps putting it as the thing you need to see when you google "Saturn" and "Satyr" together because of other iterations of Satyr in other media like games example. People who don't have the patience to read, will just jump to the conclusion that something like that is fact when it's actually nothing. Paul August and Haploidavey were against me removing that quote due to it being a thing said in history. But by this logic, you may as well add in any speculatory nonsense someone says on the matter.
Something like this being seen when googled after me removing the quote: https://files.catbox.moe/2063nr.PNG
Is far better than this: https://files.catbox.moe/i3q6dq.PNG
I was told to do this before; creating a post here so that way a compromise can be reached. I would've commented earlier, but I wanted to wait to see what Google would do. I don't like what Google does at times with certain things when you look stuff up. Like for example with the links there. The quote Marcobius even said makes far less sense than how say, the "Sat" in Saturn and Satyr are connected. That mixed with the fact that Fauns are Romanized Satyr is better in general. Now I know what Marcobius said is "apart of history", but that page about is about Satyr not Marcobius and it offers nothing in comparison to everything else being said on there which is more direct and also apart of history according to Paul August. Again, you can add any ambiguous information someone said there by some person. Deleting that quote impacts absolutely nothing. It is also notable that no other site except this one is actually saying something so unnecessary. I wouldn't be against it's removal if Google wasn't so keen on putting this https://files.catbox.moe/i3q6dq.PNG instead of this https://files.catbox.moe/2063nr.PNG .Netero10 17:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
@Rusalkii: how long does it usually take for someone to respond here? I happened to see some posts that are dated back to last year, which is why I was asking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netero10 (talk • contribs) 

@Netero10: Thanks for discussing this on the talk page. The short answer to your comment above is that, while it may be unfortunate that that Google search gives misleading results, we can't let Google search results dictated what we put in our articles.
As I've said before, on my talk page, that Macrobius derived the words "Satyr" and "Saturn" from the Greek word for penis, and explained that, for Satyrs this was because of their sexual lust, is both interesting and significant. The cited source, Don Riggs, thought this to be interesting and significant enough to include it in his entry for "Faun and Satyr" in the The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters. That it was included in that much shorter entry on a  topic in which the scope for the historical views of the derivation of the name Satyr is necessarily extremely limited, lends considerable support for its inclusion here.  Paul August ☎ 12:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
@Paul August: You claim it to be interesting, but you haven't at all said why. All you said was that another person thought it to be interesting. Both things are also in eachothers opinions. Not only that, but just because it's obscure, doesn't mean it is important. In fact, that is all the more reason why it could be unimportant. You could argue that it is important due to how unique the information is. But it's literally just a theory and not a fact. There's more to Satyr than just genitalia, and to people who use other media with other iterations of Satyr will just not recognize that's just a theory and not the case at all once Googled. If i'm wrong in the things I just said to you in  just now, explain why. No one gains anything from that information and it's irrelevant and kind of causes trouble. Because not all Satyr are Male, that's just a thing in Greek myth. Whereas the Roman myth is different and has both men and women Satyr. Other media have female Satyr. Netero10 12:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
@Paul August: I would also like to add, that I don't like what Google keeps doing in regards to that quote specifically. Clearly the one that's not talking about genitalia would be the most general, and informative one instead of just saying "Satyr and Saturn = Penis". I mean, you tell me that's not what that is, but it sounds like it. What else could it mean? I mean even if you were to reverse it and say "the word Penis derrived from Saturn and Satyr" that's just the same thing and it's kind of stupid in my opinion. Netero10 12:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Netero10, one thing to keep in mind from a Wikipedia policy/guideline view is due/undue weight, which basically says that Wikipedia should include minority viewpoints roughly in proportion to how they appear in reliable sources. In this case, it's just a couple of sentences in a long article, so it isn't really unbalancing the article towards a minority viewpoint. The claim is also clearly attributed to Macrobius, so it's not Wikipedia stating the word origin as a fact, but rather stating as a fact that so-and-so suggested that word origin. It's also very much in context within the Ancient Rome section. We have a Roman poet interpreting (or misinterpreting) Greek mythology, as many Romans seemed to do.
Another thing would be avoiding original research. Our job here is to summarize what reliable sources say, rather than deciding ourselves what is or isn't important or true. In this case, a seemingly reliable encyclopedia included this information, so there's not a great reason for us to exclude it.
And like Paul said, what shows up in Google results has no influence on what we include in a Wikipedia article. We just stick to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly providing verifiable information from reliable sources, with due weight. Politanvm talk 18:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
@Politanvm: Despite that suggestion being said in an Encyclopedia and here, it's not actually a thing. Romanized Satyr are different from Greek ones as one(Greek) was more sexually invested than the other(Roman), one was exclusively male only, the other had both male and female Satyr, as well as other difference you may know. I'm not sure if that was a misinterpretation on the Roman's behalf or just re-iteration done on purpose. But either way, when you throw Marcobius's words in the mix, it suddenly doesn't make much sense. But I doubt that really matters to the both of you, as what actually mattered was that "it was said and noted, so we added it here". But I don't think anyone really gains from that really. Especially if a guy was looking stuff up about the race as a whole after seeing an iterations of one in a video game or animation. Netero10 20:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I guess I'm not totally following what the issue is. We have a Greek mythical creature, and there's a section called "Ancient Rome" that talks about satyrs appears in Roman writings, and in that section the article briefly mentions a Roman contemporary's writing about satyrs. I don't really see the contradiction. I would think that someone wanting to learn about satyrs would benefit from knowing how they were described by ancient Romans. Politanvm talk 01:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
@Politanvm: If poets like Marcobius were only looking at Greek myth when making the connection, I guess there isn't really a contradiction. That aside, the quote Marcobius said really just describes a Greek Satyr alone, not Saturn himself. His reason behind that "connection" is "cuz Satyrs are lustful beings". It says something about one end, and not the other, which is Saturn. If someone was looking for information actually having to directly do with a Satyr, that information would not help. Other things being said on the wiki page besides that remark are better in comparison. Netero10 14:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)