Talk:Sisyphus

Comments

Shouldn't this be the page first linked to, instead of the Pink Floyd song of the same name??? EunuchOmerta 03:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Irish example

There is an Irish example of this myth, 'Salisbury Sisyphus', 1887. Type this into google and you will find an old newspaper article in which the Sisyphus punishment is compared to the the punishment like trouble of fixing the problems of Ireland. It is an interesting and historic reference to the myth and should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.79.15 (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanatos or Hades

Right now it says: "When Hades came to fetch him, Sisyphus put him into fetters, so that no one died till Ares came, freed Hades, and delivered Sisyphus into his custody." But I had understood it was not Hades but Thanatos who came for Sisyphus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanatos That would also make more sense. (The Dutch and German versions of this page both mention Thanatos as well in this context) (I've changed it, the above now only is what it said before)

Right now it says: "Zeus then ordered Hades to chain Sisyphus in Tartarus. Sisyphus slyly asked Thanatos to try the chains to show how they worked. When Thanatos did so..." -- This is starting to make no sense. Did Thanatos just show up after Zeus asked Hades to do it? I don't care if it was Thanotos or Hades but this is hard to read. I am going to change the first "Hades" to "Thanatos" so that it reads consistently. If anyone sees fit to change it back, make sure it still makes sense. -- abfackeln (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

Currently there is a piece of the intro that says "Today, Sisyphean can be used as an adjective meaning that an activity is unending and/or repetitive. It could also be used to refer to tasks that are pointless and unrewarding." The second sentence seems repetive and seems to overlook the meaning that Albert Camus lent the tale in his essay The Myth of Sisyphus. Unless there is an objection, I'd like to remove the second sentence and replace it, so that the paragraph reads: "Today, Sisyphean can be used as an adjective meaning that an activity is unending and/or repetitive. To those familiar with Albert Camus, the term may also refer to a sense of contentment following such an activity." Alphachimera (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Myth

Currently there is a piece of the intro that says "Today he is seen as fictional though the Ancient Greeks believed in him." I would think that is obvious the Greeks believed the myth. Also, "Today he is seen as fictional" is a pretty big assumption with no proof that no Zeus worshippers exist today. I'm going to delete it. Lesssthan (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I just opened my copy of the American Heritage Dictionary 4th Ed. and the word Sisyphean does not appear.

Ares was outraged, the wars he caused were no longer pleasure to him because no one died, Ares broke the chains that imprisoned Thanatos. Free, the God knew his first target..... Athena Parthenon (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Dark Tower

Maybe Wikipedia needs a second spoiler template that says ENORMOUS UNNECESSARY SERIES-RUINING SPOILER WARNING instead?

Seriously, isn't that a seriously big spoiler for an article that isn't actually about Dark Tower or Stephen King? My eyes completely skipped past the spoiler template. I was planning on reading that series, too.. --Kalthare 06:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If there's no objection, I'm going to remove the Dark Tower spoiler. --Kalthare 22:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Biog of Sisyphus removed - why?

Anyone any idea why the 'biog' section was removed (11th September), wholesale? Without it, the whole Sisyphus business loses its sense and the current very brief allusion neither does the story justice nor supplies the punter with the reasons for the punishment of Sisyphus. Furthermore, the article is supposed to be about Sisyphus, after all. - Ballista 05:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we revert it, so that it is re-instated? - Ballista 04:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Since there's been no objection to your suggestion and it seems like useful information, I've gone ahead and restored the Biography section. - Krinsky 16:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There has got to be some better word that can be used than "Biography", which rather makes it seem like Sisyphus was a living person. Robert K S 06:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sisyphus Legend - a Summary

I've always found this dynamic gif a nice succinct summary of the Sisyphus legend. --Dunstan ^talk 10:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

References

I like the animated gif. Anyway, the references in the article are not listed at the end of the article. Does anyone have the information to add them?--Kenneth M Burke 02:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Solar theory

Can anyone define the "solar theory" which is referenced by this article? It links to solar deity which does not explain it. -- Beland 17:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the "solar theory" bit is a direct-quoted remnant of of the EB1911 text. Lacking proper citation, that text should probably be obviated away with a more cogent, attributable analysis. Robert K S 19:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Name

Sisyphus is the Latinised form of the Greek name Sisyphos. The article should be renamed to that and Sisyphus should redirect to this page. All references of Sisyphus in the text should be changed to Sisyphos. Although this guy is well known by his Latinized name the article should use the real one. Gerd Eichler —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC).

No. — Chameleon 01:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Heracles punished?

Heracles is listed in the section "Other figures in Greek mythology punished by the gods include:". Is this accurate? How was he punished? Did I miss something? -- abfackeln (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think someone though Heracles' 12 Tasks was a punishment by the gods? 89.241.226.253 (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

no POV

This article seems heavily concerned with how cool Zeus is in comparison with Sisyphus. Can someone please remove this bizarre bias? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.76.193 (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad continuity

The actual recited myth mentions no boulders at all. --193.166.137.75 (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Triangle (2009 film) in Popular Culture

Triangle is given as an example of Sisyphus in popular culture without any details regarding this being given. The article for the film makes no mention of anything of this sort, either. Can anyone knowledgable of the movie provide some indication of why it should be mentioned here? Ravenicus451 (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed a mention of Triangle being a "retelling" of the story. It is not. The myth is mentioned in the film. I don't think this is the location to have a list of any film, story, book, etc that references a particular mythos.AbramTerger (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Error

There is a homophonic error in the article where it refers to the tv episodes featuring Sisyphus. It says that he slept with another man's wife in order for her to 'bare' a child to be his heir, where 'bear' is in fact what she would do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.83.133.250 (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I changed the pronunciation from /ˈsɪsəfəs/ to /sɪsɪˈfʌs/. The main difference being in how to pronounce the "y". This letter is pronounced in all sorts of different ways in English: as /eɪ/ ( like the pronoun, I, e.g. dynamic), as /ɪ/ (like i in in, eg. amethyst) or as /ʌ/ (like a u in us, e.g. bathycolpian — can't think of a better example, sorry—). The OED gives the "y" as the "i" from "is", while here it was as "u" from "bus". I have only heard it as the former and not like the latter, so must concur with the OED. Minor differences are regional, as some parts of the US will read "us" as /əs/ not /ʌs/; the same goes for the "y" which may be read /ɨ/ — there is little difference between /ɪ/ and /ɨ/. --Squidonius (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Sisyphus Modern Interpretation.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Sisyphus Modern Interpretation.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Sisyphus Modern Interpretation.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Pointless archaic pedantry?

"Ephyra (elder name of Corinth)"

While the word 'elder' is technically correct the usage is archaic. Why not just use the word 'older'? It's clearer and clarity is always preferred in expository texts. This sort of pedantry stops the reader in his tracks while he questions the author's motive: did he wish to demonstrate his erudition or to add a certain tone to the article, maybe the author is not a native speaker of the language, maybe he's a D&D aficianado. Who knows? But the point is it interrupts the flow and induces the reader to add a new section to the talk page. If in doubt consult a style manual, there are many to choose from and they all agree: never use an archaic term when a perfectly good modern equivalent exists.75.157.135.57 (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You realize that you don't need to make a whole new talk section for a non-controversial, one-letter change to the article, right? You can just edit it yourself. This page isn't protected. It almost seems as though you're talking about yourself with the whole "This sort of pedantry stops the reader in his tracks while he questions the author's motive: did he wish to demonstrate his erudition or..." -- Fyrefly (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Ha ha. You got it in one Fyrefly. It's my sport, it's my hobby, it's my curse. The hand of God came down and smote me and He said, "Be critical, be very, very critical." To which I replied, "Redundant intensifiers are bad style. One 'very' will do."75.157.135.57 (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Why does this article contain an info box about the Greek Underworld?

The entire content of the box is incidental, at best, to this article about Sisyphus. Does anyone object if I remove it? 81.135.67.84 (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

"He was the father of Glaucus"

Well, where is the misunderstanding about someone being a parent and someone being a child and not to exclude any one else someone being a relative. It would be interesting to how is it to undo something that is so fundamental--relastions. How can you undo something such as who is and who is not your relative?

Oh, he gave his sperm but he is no longer my father since yesterday.66.74.176.59 (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It is very difficult to understand what you are saying because your sentences are ungrammatical. When a father and son are dead, that is in the past, so we say "X (father) was the father of Y (son)". Please listen to others when point out issues with your edits since there appears to be issues with the use of English. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I am certain you understand much more than what you want to convey with your insult and attitude. "Genealogy" and the Latter-day Saints have one up on you with that "logic". As far as I understand ones relatives that have come before them are still relative as are those that follow. Just because you may apply a rule to something is not a reason to justify that the statement should ever be used. It happens all the time in language.66.74.176.59 (talk) 07:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Funny thing about rules. When I was putting away my review material today had a chance to look over the pull out chart on writing rules that was included in the first ed. of the encyclo. britan. Interesting how what once was acceptable is now just a stack of nothings that probably could have helped along a few less books that should have survived.

But what is at issue is does the relationship between two change? No. If there is no change then it is current. You cannot undo what has been done. If "so-n-so" is the father of "so-n-so today" then it is tomorrow and so forth. There is never a need to change an "is" to "was". It is pure mathematics; It all adds up but this attempt at mental agility to impose a former on what never changes is just plain illogical. I asked the six year old and his nanny from the local university. And before the housekeeper went off duty I asked her about the situation and she said that they may think what they have said is correct but then it is like twins that when they decide on something it does not matter what others think because they believe they will carry the day. I am focusing on the relationship father/son and it seems that what is being championed on the other side is there has been a change where there has been none. So if no change has occurred then no change should occur in the expression. It can be long ago. People can be dead. But a parent is a parent and a child is a child.66.74.176.59 (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I came here from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Is or was. You may wish to join that discussion, since it’s explicitly about your edits. Anyway, while I agree with the logic behind your edits (death doesn’t end blood relations), Wikipedia’s style is to use past tense for the dead. (I don’t believe that applies in the case of this article, since mythological beings like Sisyphus never actually lived, but that’s beside the point.) But rules can change; maybe we should use present tense for blood relations. That MOS talk page would be a great place to get people talking about it and considering it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sisyphus. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://religionandscience.sites.yale.edu/about-us

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Kierkegaard does not comment on Sisyphus

As far as I can tell, Kierkegaard does not mention Sisyphus in any of his writings. The quote in the article does not mention him, the context of the quote does not mention him, nor does any other work of his that I can find. Therefore I am removing the reference to Kierkegaard from the article. OneGyT (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sisyphus. 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/20110629173245/http://www.oup.com/us/companion.websites/0195153448/studentresources/chapters/ch25/?view=usa to http://www.oup.com/us/companion.websites/0195153448/studentresources/chapters/ch25/?view=usa

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 22:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Location of Sisyphus' Kingdom

The article describes Sisyphus as a king of Ephyra, today known as Corinth. This association between Ephyra and Corinth is debatable, and it seems to come exclusively from the research of Sir James George Frazer, as footnoted and retrieved. Following the link to Wiki's own article on Ephyra, you arrive at the page for Cichyrus, for which Ephyra was an earlier name. This article makes no mention of Corinth (or Sisyphus, though it does detail a number of other myths associated with the city). Likewise, the Corinth article describes no association with Ephyra or the Sisyphus myth. Based on excavated ruins, the present-day location of Cichyrus/Ephyra seems to be in the area of Ioannina, which is quite a ways away from Corinth. So, something is not right here.

Aside from this particular issue, perhaps this demonstrates that the Sisyphus article should be reviewed and updated generally, as I worry it relies too much on the work of a 19th century mythology scholar not privy to 20th century archaeology or any other more recent and relevant work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.156.136.229 (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Sisyphus dialogue in the see also section

I see no reason to have Sisyphus (dialogue) linked in the "see also" section. That page is linked in the disambiguation page already, and the name is the only thing that connects the pages. I'm removing it, and unless I get pushback here, I will revert future additions of the link and if they occur frequently I will add hidden text in the article alerting editors not to add it. OneGyT (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, WRONG

This page states that the king (Sisyphus) was punished by Hades this is incorrect, he was punished by Zeus tho roll the boulder uphill IN Hades. Davekat1976 (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

2023 Meme worth being added?

In the first half of 2023, a semi-popular meme appeared. It consists of characters (typically ones from videogames) pushing boulders up a hill, with "Me and the Birds" by Duster playing in the background. When the boulder inevitably falls, an image of Sisyphus appears. This meme is connected with "The Myth of Sisyphus", by Albert Camus, and often uses the line "One must imagine Sisyphus happy." I'm not an expert on this, so more can be found here: [1] Is this noteworthy enough to be added to "In popular culture"? Would this fit better with "The Myth of Sisyphus"? Or are meme trends like this generally ignored? (I'm new, so I thought I'd ask first.) Terrarialord201 (talk) 04:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

To add this here, we would need reliable, secondary sources which indicated that this reference is significant to the mythological figure of Sisyphus; see MOS:POPCULT and WP:IPCV for what Wikipedia's guidelines have to say on the matter. By your descriptions though (semi-popular, trends), I would expect that this isn't significant to the mythological Sisyphus, and so shouldn't be mentioned here. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I say we should. For the culture. More people are going to know about Sisyphus from this meme than any other boring Greek mythology book out there. 2400:ADCC:133:DF00:1DA0:787:53D2:3127 (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

An ephemeral meme may be one reason that people may recently want to know more about a mythological figure that dates back thousands of years, but that doesn't mean the meme itself is of such lasting significance to that mythology that it should be documented in this encyclopedia article. NebY (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

This page is about the figure of Sisyphus from Greek mythology (the one from the "boring" books). This means that unless a popular culture reference is sourced in a way which indicates that it is of significance to the mythological Sisyphus, it should not be here. – Michael Aurel (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

References: Yahoo! News, In the Know, and Greek City Times (they are essentially identical to each other)

So there is just one article that substantively covers this meme. Yahoo! News is considered reliable by RSPS. So what do you think about this source from Yahoo! News. AlphaBeta135talk 02:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I read the Yahoo! article, and it's not related to the meme I was thinking of. That one you posted seems to be about a modern 'spin' or interpretation on The Myth of Sisyphus by a random user on TikTok. The article also fails to have any significant depth, spending half the length simply telling us who Sisyphus was. It also came out before the 'Character pushing boulder up hill' meme became important. Terrarialord201 (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Do these two entries in the "In popular culture" belong here?

• Sisyphus is the subject of the song "Sisyphus" by Andrew Bird, on the album My Finest Work Yet (2019).
• Sisyphus is a character in Hades, a 2020 indie rogue-like game developed by Supergiant Games, voiced by Andrew Marks. His history of cheating death twice is mentioned, the Furies are responsible for the whipping that causes Sisyphus' boulder to roll away from him, and Sisyphus named the boulder "Bouldy". The player character Zagreus is given the option to lessen Sisyphus' sentence in Tartarus.

References

I deleted these entries with the edit summary: "No sources establishing relevance, significance and notability with respect to the article's subject. Mere existence in some other context is not sufficient reason to warrant mention here", but was reverted. Are there good reasons to have these two here? Paul August ☎ 15:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I reverted because I disagree with your statement that there are "no sources establishing relevance, significance and notability with respect to the article's subject". I think these two entries are well sourced & that this a canned statement you use regularly - both with removing this section previously & in other mythology articles (thus suggesting an RFC on pop culture sections at maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology or another project to develop project wide standards). I also think reasons outlined at Talk:Zagreus#RfC about adding In Popular Culture video game reference work for why this section should be included (one of the two entries is about a character in the same video game). Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

We do not include every ancient Greek mention of Sisyphus, however precisely and reliably it can be sourced, and take it for granted that we will apply editorial discretion there. Why should modern mentions be included solely on the basis that their existence is sourced? NebY (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sariel Xilo: You say that these two entries are well sourced. I agree that these two entries are sourced well enough to establish their existence, but are you saying that you think the sources given establish their relevance, significance and notability with respect to the article's subject? If so could you please cite some passages from these sources which do that? Please note according to MOS:POPCULT:

Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist. A Wikipedia article may include a subject's cultural impact by summarizing its coverage in reliable secondary or tertiary sources. 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, television show, or other cultural item.

My "canned" [not sure why you think that's relevant?] edit summary, is my standard paraphrase of this paragraph.

Paul August ☎ 18:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@NebY and Paul August: On "we do not include every ancient Greek mention of Sisyphus", I think limiting entries to media with their own articles (in this case, My Finest Work Yet & Hades) helps prevent section bloat & is part of their relevancy. When I said something is well sourced, I should have clarified that to me being "well sourced" is not just existence but also that the source shows notability of the entry. Sisyphus is part of the narrative of the media (significant & not a cameo in the media) and it highlights the entry's interpretation the source material.

• For the Andrew Bird song, NPR states: Fans of the musician won't be surprised to see him taking inspiration from such an erudite figure [...]. Our protagonist struggles not against a boulder, but a crudely carved stone head; Bird scales the hillside with the weight of the world, not to mention his intellect, perched precariously atop his shoulders. Despite its heavy subject matter, the track's angst is offset with buoyant and sonic optimism.
• For the video game, Vulture states: The real mythological forebear of Hades is not any of the Greek gods but really Sisyphus and his boulder. He too appears in Hades, reimagined as someone whose endless toil has made him cheerful, reflective, and possibly a bit mad. The task of pushing up the boulder has not changed, but he seems to enjoy it. Drudgery is daily practice. It’s a bit of straightforward optimism I’ve held onto during the pandemic, a hope that I may emerge from quarantine better than when I entered it

Re; "canned": I flagged the canned statement because when you use it often, it gives the appearance of not evaluating an individual section on its own merits. In 2023, you removed this section twice before with this statement (March & May) & used it in other mythology articles. So instead of going article by article, an RFC to determine the standards of these types of sections for this project (mythology? another project?) might be really useful. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sariel Xilo: Re the source shows notability of the entry: notability of the entry it not the issue, rather it's whether the entry has something notable to say about Sisyphus. Quoting from MOS:POPCULT again: A source should cover the subject's cultural impact in some depth. I don't see where the passages you quote (thanks for them by the way) have anything notable to say about Sysyphus, or anything about Sisyphus' cultural impact. Do you? If so could you please say what that is? And re Re "canned" whatever the "appearance" (and again I'm not sure why you think that is relevant) may be, I assure you that I always evaluate every entry that I remove from such sections on their individual merits, i.e. on whether there are sources establishing relevance, significance and notability with respect to the article's subject. Paul August ☎ 20:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

(fixed indent, hope that's fine) I don't think it's necessary to have an RFC, as the standards used in the removals you are referring to (on various pages) seem to me to be directly in line with MOS:POPCULT, and complying with a guideline shouldn't require consensus first. Unless you disagree that these removals are in line with that guideline? If you do think a broader discussion of popular culture sections in Greek mythology articles would be beneficial, you are welcome to start one (WT:CGR would be the best place to do this). – Michael Aurel (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sariel Xilo: Based on the above discussion, unless you (or someone) can supply some reason compliant with MOS:POPCULT why these two entries warrant mention here, I intend to remove them again. Paul August ☎ 12:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I guess we disagree with our interpretations of MOS:POPCULT because I think the sources (included the quoted bits) show it meets the threshold. Since we've stalled out, I'll drop a note at a few projects so we can hopefully get to a consensus (per WP:NOCON, without consensus we would commonly retain the section as is before your edit). Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a consensus to remove; it is MOS:POPCULT. Ifly6 (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sariel Xilo: Can you please answer my question to you above: I don't see where the passages you quote ... have anything notable to say about Sisyphus, or anything about Sisyphus' cultural impact. Do you? If so could you please say what that is? Paul August ☎ 11:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This proposal has been listed at the following projects: WikiProject Greece, WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, WikiProject Mythology and WikiProject Vital Articles. Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Here from WT:CGR, I have to agree with Paul August: I don't see what either of these entries tell us about Sisyphus, and I don't see how just mentioning X notable cultural thing includes/references Sisyphus is useful. To be honest, I think the "literary interpretations" section suffers from the same problem: there may well be something interesting to say about the portrayal of Sisyphus in e.g. Homer, but Homer describes Sisyphus in both Book VI of the Iliad and Book XI of the Odyssey, cited to the lines of the poems which mention him, is not it. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• I agree these entries should be removed. They are TV Tropes entries, and do not belong in an encyclopedia. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• I also agree that these entries should be removed per MOS:POPCULT. If we are to have a popular culture section it should be based on citations to journals on classical reception to establish relevant notability; it should not be an un-curated collection of mere mentions. Ifly6 (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

As this discussion seems to have culminated, and since the consensus seems to be to remove these two entries, I will now do that. Paul August ☎ 13:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)