Talk:Midas

Should this article be split in three?

At the beginning of this article it is said: "Midas was the name of at least three Phrygian kings". (Or rather, at least two real, historic kings and one mythical one?) Shouldn't there therefore be distinct articles about each of them? But what should their headlines be? Perhaps not ordinal numbers like Midas II or Midas III, because they are not generally used of them, and moreover, the history of Phrygia seems to be so poorly known that no one knows if there has been still others before these two.
The mythical Midas is by far the most famous one, and thus the article about him could well retain the headline Midas. But what about the two others? Perhaps Midas, 8th century BC and Midas, 6th century BC? Or perhaps the former could be Midas, Mita or Midas, Mushki, because he is supposedly the king Mita of Mushki, mentioned in Assyrian sources? And the last one? Midas, grandfather of Adrastus? -FKLS (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be split into three. Paul August ☎ 21:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I just removed the one-year-old hatnote {{split|Midas|Midas, 8th century BC|Midas, 6th century BC|date=October 2014}}. Rfassbind – talk 02:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that this article should only be split into two: one entitled Midas, which will be about the mythological King Midas as well as the eighth-century BC Phrygian king, and a second one entitled Midas, grandfather of Adrastus about the sixth-century BC king. As insane as I am sure this sounds, I actually have a reasonable explanation, which is that the older two Midases are often indistinguishable from each other. Take, for instance, the report from Herodotus that that "Midas, son of Gordias" donated the throne at Delphi. It is unclear if he is talking about the mythical King Midas of legend, the historical eighth-century king, or if he thinks that the two of them are the same. Furthermore, the first source we have about eighth-century king (which is the only one that seems to clearly distinguish between him and the mythical one) appears to identify him as the source for the some of the legends about the mythical Midas within the first few pages. This is why I think that the older two Midases should be treated together in the same article. The third Midas, who is clearly unconnected, we can separate.--Katolophyromai (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively one could save people the trouble of jumping around by a little clearer segregation in the lead, and a clearer section headwer below. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

More articles=more confusion. The best suggestion is above in that the article only requires reorganization and clearer layout than splitting. Gotitbro (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support having this article split into three. Vorbee (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I see the principle of having one article per person, but the three Midases are interrelated in Greek mythology, and the majority of the content would require repeating across the pages. It's not uncommon for two or more people to be biographed in a single article. jamacfarlane (talk) 01:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• I think Katolophyromai posited the most reasonable course of action, since it sounds like the mythological king and the eighth-century king might be the same person, and aren't clearly distinguished in the sources, while both are distinguishable from the sixth-century king. The mythological one is definitely primary. P Aculeius (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with this.★Trekker (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Amazingly, this conversation is in its eighth year without having been resolved. I found the article's organization to be confusing, so I just organized it into three top-level sections about the three people. I think it's clear that the mythological Midas and the first historical one are not the same person, since the former is said to have lived in the 2nd millenium BC and have been one of the founders of the Phrygian kingdom, while the latter lived in the 8th century BC and was its last ruler as an independent entity. I'd support splitting the articles completely, but I think this solution is good enough. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 08:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Suicide by "drinking the blood of an ox"?!

Under the heading "Ears of a donkey" the final sentence states "Some sources said that Midas killed himself by drinking the blood of an ox." This is a misnomer. First, drinking blood would not kill anyone; blood is innocuous to the human digestive system. Second, what the ancient sources actually say is that Midas committed suicide by drinking "bull's blood". This is not literally the blood of a bull, it is "realgar" or "sandarac" which was known throughout the Roman Empire as "bull's blood", a red pigment for paint. It is naturally-forming crystals of arsenic sulfide which have a strong red color. Realgar is highly toxic and in addition to coloring paint it was once used as a pigment for inks and dying, and an insecticide, rodenticide and herbicide. In traditional Chinese medicine it was used as a topical ointment. It is also described by Plutarch as the substance that Themistocles drank to commit suicide. In this role, it would have been very effective and fairly fast-acting (if horribly painful), due to the high level of arsenic. Bricology (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is no reference to realgar being known as ‘bull’s blood” in the Roman period. What there is is an incorrect-but-still-common belief that literal bull’s blood was deadly in antiquity, see Nicander Alexipharmaca 310. It’s also in Herodotus 3.15.4 for the death of Cambyses. Just because it isn’t factual doesn’t mean that it wasn’t the attributed cause of death in these cases. Sancinitoj (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

What should the Short Description say?

The short description said "Mythological Greek king able to turn what he touches to gold" but the article said he was a Phrygian king from Greek mythology. I BOLDly corrected it but I really don't know what it should be, especially since the article currently has sections about multiple Phrygian royals named Midas.

Here are some suggestions with character counts. WP:SD40 recommends <=40 characters so it doesn't get truncated.

• Phrygian royals, including mythical king with golden touch 58
• Real and mythical royals, including one with golden touch 57
• Mythical king able to turn what he touches to gold 50
• Phrygian royals, including one with golden touch 48
• Phrygian king from Greek myth with golden touch 47
• Name of real and mythical Phrygian royals 41
• Phrygian name and king with golden touch 40
• King from Greek myth with golden touch 38
• Real and mythical Phrygian royals 33
• Mythical king with golden touch 31
• Phrygian king (Greek mythology) 31
• Phrygian king 13
• Mythical king 13

I went with "Phrygian royals, including mythical king with golden touch" but it's so long that the part about the golden touch, perhaps the most important part, could get truncated. Should I save 9 characters by removing "mythical" since nobody would believe the Midas touch thing was real?

Should it just mention the famous mythological Midas or all the Midai in the article? Would saying "myth" or "mythical" be enough to let people know that this is the article about the Midas touch guy? Is "golden touch" a suitable substitute for "able to turn what he touches to gold" or is it unencyclopedic language? Should it mention Phrygia? People looking for the Midas touch guy might not have heard of Phrygia before but it might help people looking for the real historical figures know they've found the right article. Wicker Mode (talk) 09:18, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Wicker Mode. I've changed the short description to "King in Greek mythology". The purpose of the short description is to complement the title so as to give the reader a general notion of what the article's about, and to disambiguate it from other topics with the same name. "King in Greek mythology" is sufficient for the reader to know that the article isn't about a place in Kentucky, a car company, or a piece of banking software. In addition, it's probably good for the short description to be no more complex than needed; I think "Phrygian" will confuse those unacquainted with the ancient Greek world. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2026 (UTC)