Talk:Satyr

message: ===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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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)
thread_title:  Horse/Goat featured

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  warcraft universe? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Satyrs/Fauns 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Subterreanean Satyrs? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Twentieth Century Tourist Replica

message: 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)
thread_title:  Satyrs as Apes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Something that might cause confusion... 

message: "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)
thread_title:  "Erect penis not pictured"? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "shaggy demon"? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  images 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  History/origin of the satyr 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title: Horse-like, not goat-like

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Perhaps this theory deserves a mention? 63.231.140.53 (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Satyrs as remnant Neanderthals