Talk:Zagreus

There have been various attempts today and yesterday at this article and our Demeter, Dionysus and Zeus articles to assert that Zagreus is, in Greek mythology, the child of Zeus and Demeter, and that Dionysus is the child of Zeus and Demeter. No clear citations of reliable secondary sources have been provided, nor even of primary sources. Text has been added claiming that Nonnus or Apollodorus somewhere are sources for this claim, e.g. "The best-known source mentioning the story of Zagreus as the son of Zeus and Demeter, who later is reborn as Dionysus, is the "Library" of Pseudo-Apollodorus ...". It's not said where in Apollodorus that claim is made and the latest edit summary when re-adding that text at Demeter contradicted it, saying "There is no specific citation in the poems attributed to Nonnus of Panopolis or in the "Library" of Pseudo-Apollodorus that explicitly states that Zagreus is the son of Demeter."

Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, a core policy, All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Per WP:SYNTH, we must not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Vague statements, well-phrased but making peculiar claims alongside superfluous digressions to add the appearance of veracity (much in the manner of LLM-generated text) are not citations. NebY (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware no ancient source says that Zagreus was the the son of Zeus and Demeter. And I don't believe that Apollodorus mentions Zagreus, nor does Nonnus mention Demeter in connection with Zagreus. However, Zagreus was sometimes identified with the so-called "Orphic Dionysus" and, as pointed out in the section "Allegorical accounts" Diodorus Siculus:

knew of a tradition whereby this Orphic Dionysus was the son of Zeus and Demeter, rather than Zeus and Persephone.^[1]

But such a tenuous connection hardly justifies the bald-face assertion that Zagreus is the child of Zeus and Demeter. Paul August ☎ 02:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

And such an at-best idiosyncratic parentage should certainly not be listed in any infobox. Paul August ☎ 02:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't really know anything about video games, nor the game mentioned in the "In popular culture" section, but some of sources cited there don't really seem the greatest to me, mostly being online articles (and a youtube link?). A book from De Gruyter, however, seems to have a chapter on this video game, which apparently mentions "Zagreus" 85 times, so perhaps the current sourcing in the "In popular culture" section could be replaced, partially or fully, by sourcing to that chapter. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

As the existing section was the product of an RfC, it seemed prudent to bring the matter up here before altering it significantly; seeing, however, as this suggestion didn't receive any opposition, I've gone ahead and replaced the sourcing in the section. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I restored a few of the sources that are industry outlets (Wired, etc) listed at WP:VG/RS as reliable sources. Online articles are fine as sources (& tend to be more accessible to readers) but I agree the book is a stronger source than a few of them (such as Forbes). Sariel Xilo (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that those you've restored do seem to be reliable sources in the context of video games, but more relevant here I think is whether they are in line with MOS:POPCULT. In particular, sources in popular culture sections should cover the subject's cultural impact in some depth, which, looking more closely at these articles, I don't think they do. I think the example given by MOS:POPCULT about bone broth and Baby Yoda outlines a useful distinction here; while the chapter by Cameron is from a book about Greek culture and mythology, and their reception in the modern era, these articles are about the video game, and only reference the Greek mythological Zagreus. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that these sources are passing mentions (which is what the bone broth example highlights); pulling what an editor said in the previous RfC these sources "show that the game makes serious reference to the Zagreus mythology". MOS:POPCULT also states: "Consensus at the article level can determine whether particular references which meet this criteria should be included". These sources were all vetted during that RfC; instead of removing them, I would suggest doing a more formal RfC to see if consensus has changed. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Before resorting to an RfC, we ought to wait for opinions from page watchers, notify relevant Wikiprojects, or ask for a third opinion, as recommended by WP:RFCBEFORE. As to my own position, while MOS:POPCULT does say that Consensus at the article level can determine whether particular references which meet this criteria should be included, this is referring to whether cultural references should be included, as indicated by the preceding sentence, not whether specific sources (ie., "references") should or should not be used. What MOS:POPCULT does say about the standard to which a source cited in a popular culture section should be held is the following:

A source should cover the subject's cultural impact in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, video game, television show, or other cultural item.

My stance is that these articles don't cover "the subject's cultural impact in some depth". It's important to note that just because a source may use the word "Zagreus" a number of times, this does not mean that it covers the subject's cultural impact "in some depth", as the subject of our article is not the word "Zagreus", but rather the Greek god Zagreus. Reading the three articles, this is all they seem to say about our article's subject, and his cultural impact:

Farokhmanesh: When the team took their holiday break, Kasavin kept researching. He eventually stumbled across myths about Zagreus, Hades’ son. Something clicked. [...] ["]Hades is one of these super iconic like household name level, Greek gods. And yet there’s so few stories about him and he has a son?”

Wired article: Hades focuses on Zagreus, who plays such a minor role in myth that, as the titular god of the underworld’s son, he makes a great canvas to fill in for the player character.

Wiltshire: “I ran into this detail that there’s this little-known god called Zagreus who, according to some, is a prototype of Dionysus, but there’s also a shred of evidence that he might be the son of Hades. Like, woah! What’s that about? Then I researched Hades more, and it turns out there are very few stories told about him.” [end of para] Zagreus was a perfect subject: the lack of stories about him and his father gave Kasavin space to imagine new ones, [...]

Looking at this, I do not believe that these sources cover the Greek god Zagreus's "cultural impact in some depth". In addition, the bone broth and Baby Yoda paragraph of MOS:POPCULT mentioned above asks that sources should provide [...] in-depth coverage of the subject of the article, which these articles do not. Furthermore, this same paragraph seems to me to heavily imply (especially the part on the Bon Appetit magazine) that popular culture sources should also be reliable in the context of the article in which they are cited, and these sources are not reliable in the context of Greek mythology. Contrast all of this with the book chapter by Cameron, which discusses how the mythology of the Greek god Zagreus is rationalised by the video game, and explores the aspects of his mythology which the game adopts; it is also a reliable source in the context of Greek mythology.

Apologies for the length of my response, but I felt it was helpful to provide quotes, so that others can more easily see what it is we are discussing. As we seem to disagree, I recommend we leave a note at WT:CGR, which is the relevant WikiProject here, asking for the input of others. An RfC is not yet appropriate. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

As this hasn't received any response or opposition in two weeks, I've removed the sources again. If there is continued disagreement with this change, I'm happy to discuss it further. – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, I still think this lacks consensus & should be reverted. If I have time later, I can ping editors who participated in the first RfC and relevant projects rather than hoping they caught a stray comment in their watchlists. Sariel Xilo (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

What do you disagree with in what I wrote above? – Michael Aurel (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that the sources (especially Wired & Rock Paper Shotgun) lack cultural depth; these are not simply reviews of the game, but sources that discuss the character in the context of Greek myths & culture. You said the book "discusses how the mythology of the Greek god Zagreus is rationalised by the video game, and explores the aspects of his mythology which the game adopts" which these sources also do. The video game character Zagreus is the intersection of Greek mythology and video games - the RfC came to a consensus that reliable video game sources (such as industry outlets outlined at WP:GAMESOURCES) are acceptable for this subsection. Until the consensus changes, I don't agree with your unilateral decision to remove the sources so I'm going to restore them. Based on your Nov 19 comment, I kind of assumed you were going to notify relevant Wikiprojects, ping editors, etc but I can do that next so we can get a more robust discussion. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The point is not that the sources "lack cultural depth", but that they do not cover the subject of the article's, that is, the Greek god Zagreus's, "cultural impact in some depth", which is what MOS:POPCULT asks for; that they do not do this is shown by the quotes I gave above, as those quoted sentences are the only parts of the articles I could see which might be taken as doing this. I do not see how these sources discuss the character in the context of Greek myths & culture, as they are, unlike the book, not sources about Greek mythology or culture, but about video games. Their usage runs directly contrary to the sourcing requirements stipulated at MOS:POPCULT; see, in particular, the example given about the banana article and the Worms video game. The RfC was only about whether the reference should be included, which I'm not arguing against. I didn't notify any projecs or other editors because my reply didn't receive any sort of response or opposition, so, after waiting two weeks, I assumed you no longer disagreed with the change. – Michael Aurel (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cougroyalty, Paul August, Furius, LokiTheLiar, Rosguill, Andrew Dalby, Dege31, Sea Ane, HAL333, RSSP-2020, Llywrch, Idealigic, Rhododendrites, and PraiseVivec: pinging everyone who commented in the 2021 RfC to see a) if the consensus has changed on using WP:GAMESOURCES for the pop culture subsection and b) thoughts on using multiple sources (book & articles) versus using a single source (just the book). See above discussion for additional context. If I've missed anyone, please ping them. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

It’s difficult to assess this dispute without seeing what content is being proposed as a replacement with reference to the DeGruyter source. If it can be used to back essentially the same claims, its academic character makes it a stronger source than the current citations. That having been said, RPS and other cited sources in dispute are generally reliable for claims about video games, so without knowing which claims or phrasing is specifically on the chopping block it’s hard to know what to say here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The sources in question are these ones. There is no dispute over any actual content (that is, either way, the actual words in the article will be identical and all statements will be adequately sourced). – Michael Aurel (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I agreed with replacing some of the weaker sources with the academic book Michael Aurel found (although I haven't reviewed the source since I don't have access to it). My point is that I don't really understand the need to remove the more specific sources (such as Wired & Rock Paper Shotgun) which are a) reliable, b) more accessible since they're online and c) cover the topic in depth. The section is stronger by having multiple sources of different types rather than a single book. I disagree with Aurel's interpretation of MOS:POPCULT & that these sources lack the depth as required by that policy. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The sources (Verge, Wired, RPS) are reliable, and perfectly fine for asserting basic, non-contentious statements like the ones in question. That said, WP:TRIVIA sections like "In pop culture" type sections are generally frowned upon, so I also see no problem with dismissal on those grounds if there's no better way to integrate them into the article. Sergecross73 msg me 20:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was suggesting total removal of the information. I'd certainly not like to see that. Furius (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

As Furius says, I'm not suggesting we remove the cultural reference (or any words at all from the article), but am saying that I see no reason to use online articles about video games, which do not describe the cultural impact of the article's subject in any depth (see MOS:POPCULT), and are far from reliable in the context of this article, when we already have an academic and very much reliable source which does a far better job of this. – Michael Aurel (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

If we've got other sourcing from an academic source, then what's the problem? Sergecross73 msg me 20:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The sources do not describe Zagreus's cultural impact in any depth (see the quotes in my long comment in the initial discussion), nor do they tell us anything meaningful about how Zagreus's mythology has been adopted or rationalised by the game, nor are they reliable in the context of Greek mythology (which is what this article is about), and using them would be contrary to what MOS:POPCULT says about the sort of sourcing we should use; see, in particular, the statement at that guideline that If you want to add a fact to the banana article stating that bananas are used as weapons in the Worms video game series, you should cite a reliable source focused on bananas. Suggesting we should keep such sources because we already have another source in line with MOS:POPCULT is analogous to saying that WP:V allows us to keep unreliable sources referenced to a claim as long as we have a single reliable source cited there as well. That we should include such sources because they are accessible would be like saying we should start citing online articles in the section about the anthropogony because people may not have access to the books cited there. – Michael Aurel (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that, I'm suggesting we use the academic source and move on. This feels like a waste of time. Sergecross73 msg me 21:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so you agree we should use just the academic source? And yes, this discussion is very much a waste of time. – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this isn't the sort of content that requires multiple sources. Use the academic source and move on. (Sorry, I'm not used to such low-stakes disputes where no one is trying to remove content and there's already sufficient sourcing available.) Sergecross73 msg me 23:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, cheers; perhaps I was misunderstanding your original comment. Agree on the second point. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Zagreus is the protagonist of the 2020 video game Hades. This statement is currently cited to three different sources. The Cameron chapter is clearly the best of these sources for a discussion of the reception of Zagreus. Personally I wouldn't bother with the other sources, but I can see the argument for also citing a source which readers without Wikipedia Library or similar can access. Do we really need to cite both The Verge and Wired for this, though? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree there's little reason to cite lower quality sources that don't engage with the standard in MOS:POPCULT when there exists a source which does meet that standard. Combining two statements above, use just the academic source ... and move on. Ifly6 (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I was invited to comment. I find that I hardly need to write anything new because I agree with @Sergecross73: as quoted by @Ifly6: with one word omitted: use ... the academic source and move on. If other sources meeting Wikipedia's general standard are used to add detail, let them stay -- as long as the detail is both uncontroversial and relevant to readers of this article. Andrew Dalby 09:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

As I was also pinged, I also agree w Andrew Dalby's agreement with Sergecross73: use ... the academic source and move on. P.S. This is a lot of angst over disputing the removal of two sources which have little to no usefulness in this particular context. Paul August ☎ 14:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I've re-removed these sources, as there seems to be a consensus by now that they don't need to be cited (note that I hadn't seen Andrew Dalby's alteration of their comment when I made the edit, so my statement that three supported removal maybe isn't entirely true now, though I do think Andrew still (probably?) agrees, as no content or added detail was actually removed, only sources). Whatever the case, if consensus somehow entirely flips around then we can add them back, but, unless that happens, I don't see that we need to use up any more editor time with this. – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Michael Aurel: You were watching carefully! I agree, removing those sources is OK and doesn't affect the substance of the article. Andrew Dalby 20:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I had removed this page from my watchlist years ago, so thanks for the ping! The new book source sounds like a a much better reference. However, I'm not convinced that we just can't have both sources. My main concern over removing the online sources is the "accessibility" argument. The average reader can easily pull an online article, versus finding an offline book source. HOWEVER, stylistically, the majority of the article, and it seems all Greek Mythology pages in general, are cited by book sources. My typical Wikipedia stomping grounds (Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life) is the opposite, and heavily cited by online sources (scientific journals). So I guess, "when in Rome" ... ? I have no strong opinion either way, so long as the actual content of the article - the Zagreus pop culture reference - stays as it is. Thanks. Cougroyalty (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Most of the previous commentators, myself included, are of the view that those online sources do not meet the standard in MOS:POPCULT and they should be removed. If you have access to Wikipedia Library, by the way, you already have access to the referenced chapter: https://www-degruyter-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/document/doi/10.1515/9783110773729-016/html. Ifly6 (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I wish I had my time back from trying to understand this discussion. Is this really not even a fight over content but over whether to include an additional source? What exactly is lost by supplementing one source with a second? One establishes a sufficient connection to get over the MOS on "on popular culture" and the other adds context from video games. This is not a case where we must maintain some kind of Disciplinary Citation Purity such that this is worth's anyone's time. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)