Talk:Unicorn

Unicorn was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 30, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Unicorn article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Heraldry and vexillology Unicorn is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Heraldry and vexillologyWikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyTemplate:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyheraldry and vexillology articles Folklore Mid‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Folklore, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the topics of folklore and folklore studies. If you would like to participate, you may edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project's page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.FolkloreWikipedia:WikiProject FolkloreTemplate:WikiProject FolkloreFolklore articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles Middle Ages Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2

An earlier version said that the Bible contains a word "re'em" "which some translations have erroneously rendered with the word unicorn".

This sentence takes the definitive position that this translation was wrong, when in fact, this is debatable and in fact not supported by very strong evidence.

The oldest Greek and Latin translations translate this word as unicorn, which is pretty strong evidence that it meant this, since these translations were done when Biblical Hebrew was still a living language or shortly thereafter. The basis for the arguments that the word "re'em" did not mean "unicorn" was because another ancient Middle Eastern language is known to have a word "rimu" which meant wild ox. However, merely because another nearby language had a word that shared two consonants does not mean they were variations of the same word. For example, English word "parrot" is very similar to the Spanish word "perro", but these words refer to completely different animals and are etymologically unrelated. In sum, there is not enough evidence to definitively say that the translation of "re'em" as "unicorn" was wrong. The article should instead merely state that some versions translate the word as unicorn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomicporcupine88 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Rothschild family uses lion & unicorn supporters on their family arms as granted by the Emperor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.164.87.162 (talk) 10:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Unicorn. 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/20080501140737/http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/parts/ to http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/parts/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630051759/http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/history/ to http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/history/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin//ptext?lookup=Plin.+Nat.+8.31
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin//ptext?lookup=Plin.+Nat.+8.30
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202235051/http://muweb.millersville.edu/~columbus/data/art/WILSON09.ART to http://muweb.millersville.edu/~columbus/data/art/WILSON09.ART

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 04:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Unicorns are born with their horns already developed 86.177.127.31 (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. No source presented. Not a serious edit request. Deor (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

krishna chandra kheti is the most intelligent person 2405:205:1580:9366:171:55DE:3BA3:F326 (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

plz let me edit i have more info about unicorns Omgaunicorn (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Please state the change you want made, citing a reliable source if appropriate. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The theory about the unicorn seal representing an auroch in profile, and thus hiding the second horn behind the first, has one problem: the Unicorn Seal is one of five, and one of the others is a Bull. This shows the bull, despite being drawn in profile, as having two horns offset from one another. The cultural artistic style of the "Harappans" was not necessarily limited in the manner suggested, although it of course remains a possible explanation. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilisation#/media/File:IndusValleySeals.JPG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.220.254 (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The examples provided unequivocally show two horns, clearly an ox/aurochs type of animal. So why are these even used here? It makes the whole Indus Valley section seem as apocryphal as the unicorn itself. BenEsq (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The entire "possible origins" section appears to be a mix of WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and reliance on WP:FRINGE sources. The section appears to be leftover from when proponents of the pseudoscience of cryptozoology ran rampant on the site, slapping together 'possible origins' for complex figures and going more or less unquestioned. If someone can find a reliable source on this topic, such as an academic, then please produce a section built around that source. In the mean time, I'm removing this section. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the section was either unsourced or poorly-sourced. The listed species simply bear a passing resemblance to the unicorn or have had their horns presented as unicorn horns, with no evidence that they are the origin of the myth. –dlthewave ☎ 17:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not totally unreasonable to suggest that there was an animal as big as a horse with one horn. The mythological origins seem to be french/norman. The transformation from a 'big as a horse with one horn' into a creature with magical curative properties and only appears to virgins is a fairly modern invention. My guess is that it started around 16th-19th century with the massive explosion in the germanic world in the interest surrounding curio. English mythologists claim that the unicorn is a uniquely british myth and use, for example, heraldic armour on a war horse in paintings or a man holding a spear with the spear tip passing behind the head of the horse as proof of English origins for the unicorn. Early Scottish heraldry included a man riding a horse, holding a spear and this appears to have been reduced to the unicorn after the conquest of Scotland. Unicorns are usually used to mark fantasy as being of a distinctly British origin, for example Anne McCaffrey's novels however there is no evidence that the mythology has a British origin.

Unicorns dont appear in the matter of britain which is somewhat the equivalent of the british version of the Iliad, a collection of various stories, theatrical performances and king making myths that worked. Modern authors have worked the Unicorn into the Arthurian legends so that people mistake unicorns for belonging to the matter of Britain. 175.36.91.0 (talk) 09:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The picture up at the top shows what appears to be a Mesopotamian winged auroch, or bull. While I understand that the article discusses the connections between aurochs and unicorns, perhaps a more unambiguous depiction of a unicorn would suit the page better. Additionally, the animal in the picture has wings, and "Winged Unicorn" has its' own separate page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diatryma (talk • contribs) 20:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there must be a better image representing a "Unicorn" (without wings) for this page. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even this is better than whats there. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article suggests that the 4-ton Siberian rhino (Elasmotherium sibericum), which survived until at least 39,000 years ago, may have been the earliest inspiration for the legendary unicorn: 'Siberian unicorn' walked Earth with humans. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True and there is some overlap in the Elasmotherium article. 175.36.91.0 (talk) 08:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is no longer a part of this article due to a single vandal.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi, i would like to edit this page because i love wikipedia and i have found a reliable source to cange/edit some things please change unicorns are not real to unicorns are real here is my source https://www.thesprucepets.com/are-unicorns-real-1885833 make sure you check it out and let me know -mystery for now!! 2600:100E:B101:F835:406C:58C:C784:7C3F (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: the last line of that page says that "So while myth and song may be filled with the lore and legend of the unicorn, actual science leaves us little to work with.", meaning that there is little evidence in "actual science" that unicorns are real DannyS712 (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Long ago, I read some articles about modern-day animals found with a single horn. If true, then this would lend credence to the past existence of similar one-horned animals. These examples I read about where considered rare, or anomalies, animals expected to have two horns but had one instead. Can someone with knowledge of these please add them to the article? For they are certainly examples of note and are beyond notable to the common reader, and even to the scientific community. Misty MH (talk) 11:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing: The rhinoceros is an animal that can be single-horned or dual-horned, and quite impressive. Misty MH (talk) 11:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And one example is "Rhinoceros unicornis". Misty MH (talk) 11:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit strange that neither the article nor any section on this Talk page (or its archive) go into the etymology of the word. That it means "one-horn", from Latin ūnus (one, single) and cornu (horn), translating Greek monokerōs.[1] At simple:Unicorn this is mentioned in the very first paragraph. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The last sentence of In Antiquity should be deleted. 2607:FEA8:4CDF:DB52:D136:688B:E0CA:78A5 (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Why ? - FlightTime (open channel) 22:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

one peace of corn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.30.85.100 (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be something like "Royal arms of Queen Elizabeth II used as Queen Elizabeth I in/of Scotland? There are 2 kingdoms, England & Wales and Scotland, and QEII of England is also QEI of Scotland. This is because in the Elizabethan age Queen Bess was only Queen of England, but never of Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.160.150 (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was ruled on by the government prior to Elizabeth's coronation, who agreed on a "higher number" convention. So England will never have a James III, IV, V, VI or VII because Scotland already used those numbers. 134.58.253.56 (talk) 10:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ainkhurn. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 07:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article on them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasmotherium — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.159.63 (talk) 05:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be some content about Elasmotherium in the article, but it was removed in this edit as poorly sourced. Deor (talk) 12:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Quite ridiculous to remove it. There is a lot of media attention about this, and, yet again, Wikipedia are made to look quite poor. 58.179.159.63 (talk) 14:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That media is mostly unreliable and influenced by cryptozoology. There's no evidence that Elasmotherium influenced the legend of the unicorn, if anything living rhinoceroses from India and/or Africa did.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I checked through the history, and this fact was included in this article for over 4 years, until one person, acting alone, deleted the whole thing for no particular reason. That's vandalism surely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.159.63 (talk) 23:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it was removed is explained in the edit summary.—Ermenrich (talk)

False reason given.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It should mention that the one-horned rhinoceros is commonly believed to be the basis of the unicorn myth. This article used to mention it but a single vandal deleted years of research in a single edit. 58.179.159.63 (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was explained in the edit summary. Please point to some reliable sources that we can use to support this. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

this article has incorrectly stated the facts about unicorns they have also not mentioned its relation to the Pegasus Alia.franz (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yall are idiots unicorns are not real — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alia.franz (talk • contribs) 20:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change to entrapment- Addition

Hildegarde von Bingen and Thomas of Cantripe, among others, imply in their tel lings of a unicorn's capture that the animal is skilled in detecting a true virgin at sight. In some stories if the huntress is not truly a virgin she will be killed by the unicorn.

Citation:Shepard, O. The Lore of the Unicorn. Random House UK Ltd. London.1996. p 50. ISBN 0 09 185 135 1 121.215.195.158 (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The reference could not be verified against the claim made ~ Amkgp 💬 11:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is scientifically proven that unicorns exsist! There is footage of this animal... They have been spotted near homes in Linden MI and Canada-therefore unicorns are real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C48:647F:EC81:CC44:6893:CEAD:8374 (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC) unicorns can be fond but they are not wut you exspekt they livd in the years of the wole mamith mabey you can find one like in moves and books let find out.but it is hard to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1130:61CC:50D6:3F55:A84B:D1B1 (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following paragraph has several grammatical errors that I was going to rectify but then wondered if author intended them as direct quotes. If so then shouldn't "(sic)" be employed? It also occurred to me that perhaps author is ESL.

[I tried to investigate source but couldn't access it. Apologies for any errors I have made. I'm no scholar and try to limit my edits to typos and basic grammar fixes. I hesitate to change anything substantial especially when I am not an expert in given field. This is 1st time I've added to a discussion.]

Shanhaijing (117) also mentioned Bo-horse (Chinese: 駮馬; pinyin: bómǎ), a chimera horse with ox tail, single horn, white body, and its sound like person calling. The creature is lived at Honest-head Mountain. Guo Pu in his jiangfu said that Bo-horse able to walk on water. Another similar creature also mentioned in Shanhaijing (80) to live in Mount Winding-Centre as Bo (Chinese: 駮; pinyin: bó), but with black tail, tiger's teeth and claws, and also devour leopards and tigers.[42] SharikaRed (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That text was added in December 2015. It is likely that ESL is the problem—it does not look like a quote to me. Ideally one would check the source but that would be difficult so I guess cleaning the grammar would be best. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Draft:DJTruthsayer. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 21#Draft:DJTruthsayer until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Narwhal, may be, of the negotiation of practical factuality, the origination scenario, of, the creature upon which brazen phoenecians, rode, whilst not, gathering from up the sea bed, nutritious foodies, spongeness, and, pearls, and, the other permutatives as can be supposed, of, activities of times long past.

The noteworthy problem, of, whether Unicorn's ceased to exist on account of their being precluded from Noah, (of biblical notoriety), as, at, the operant, tensation, pertains, the Word of God, that the voyage he amounted to, as operant, to evade, the judgement, and, fulfill, the prophecy, and, assuage also, the faithful, (with the exception of his son, Ham, whose trials, will be explored further in,), that the earth shall not, nay ever be destroyed, except, and, save for,

That Ham, the unlike problem, of, the arrival, of Noah's foundedness, at the drink and, naked, as of the days, of, Adam's youth, and, brought, to an inflammation of cursory, of, the kind, so as to cast Ham, to, the outlands, with the avowed protection of God, that he do no wrong before his sight,

Until such time, as the calamities known reckoned by Fatima, be fulfilled, and, Ham rule all the earth, at, his opprobrium, considering, the unlike son, at the ramparts, as can be considered to have occurred variously, at the cycles, of, the generations, to be,

In power and awe, before the testimony, as beyond reproach, and, the effect elaboration of, the sound of the praise and glory of God who had protected him all, through and throughout the ages,

That, the elaboration, some these nodules, and, noodles, have been long known, the inner most vagary, of, the diffidence considering, the father, and, the nimrod, at times, and, terms, where the huntness was meek, and, the townsfolke cowardly, at, to, and, pertains,

That the son, be at besmirch the fathers, and, operant, to expedite, the 'sons of perdition', to unlike manners, ways, and, methodologies, considering, the fathers,

Do, we consider, anew, the Narwhal, at, it's majestic simplicity, considering, the defacto, juxt, the rumoured, and, what, can be extolled, the either intersect, on, the high day, of, Holy unction, at, the Jubilee of Easter, the week beyond, as, considering,

The Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who repaired we us from these reckonings, and, sealed the bible anew, that, the 'curse' of the law, be, from we us out rebuked, except for the end time, where, the truth be known, of, the prophecy, e'en before, the Heathen, of, the yield of Hams protagony, as, that, and, how, to, reprove, the faith, restored, and, affirm protege exacted. Preposter (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it listed as Greek (though the article does say it has never existed in Greek Myth), Roman, and Persian.

Then there is the issue of Monoceros, should be the Monoceros be considered a imported version of the Unicorn described by the Greeks? Similar to the case of the Greek Sphinx.74.124.162.10 (talk) 04:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted edits that gave prominence to some seals of the Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC) on this page. There is no evidence of a mythology of a unicorn-like beast in IVC. The use of the "unicorn" by colonial archaeologists in the 1930s in describing some seals depicting animals in profile (and thus showing a single horn) is no different than the use of "unicornis" in the specific epithet in taxonomy. See Schizura unicornis, for example; it indicates no mythology, only a latter-day simile. There is a reason that most authors on IVC-related topics place "unicorn" within quotes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have of course reverted this wild POV OR. Perhaps you haven't actually read the passage and the source, by your pal Jonathan Mark Kenoyer? This specifically gives the IVC unicorn as the (admittedly indirect) origin of the "European" unicorn. If you were better read in IVC literature you'd know this in common among scholars, & the fact you don't like it, no doubt mainly due to issues from modern South Asian politics, matters not at all. It is not a matter of "mythology" - of course we only have the visual evidence for that. But how do you account for the unicorn being the most common image on Indus seals, other than there being "a mythology of a unicorn-like beast in IVC". That we have no details of what the mythology was in literary terms doesn't matter.Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have no idea what function the seals had in IVC; most are unused; there could have been a stylistic preference among the artists employed for rendering a zebu bull or an Indian stag in profile. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I have rereverted per BRD. All you seem to be doing is flogging Mark Kenoyer's captions in a volume on an Exhibition at the Met. That is hardly a reliable source. Please find a discussion of it in standard IVC sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kenoyer is highly reliable. Reverting again, and DON'T EDIT-WAR. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph added to the article by Johnbod and summarized prominently in the lead is based pretty much on a long caption of a picture. Here it is. The publication is a coffee-table book accompanying an exhibition, "First Cities," at the Met in 2003 or thereabouts. To give it such prominence, we would need a predominance of archaeologists to have interpreted it so. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's translate from Fowlerese: "is based pretty much on a long caption of a picture catalogue entry. Here it is. The publication is a coffee-table book accompanying an exhibition door-stopper scholarly exhibition catalogue for the exhibition, "First Cities," "Art of the First Cities", held at at the Met in 2003 or thereabouts (May to August)." A different catalogue entry by another expert is also cited. This lady is one of the short list of IVC academics who retain Fowler's approbation (for now anyway). Perhaps that helps? Or this (the whole of Chapter 6)? Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make any difference. Where is this book cited in the scholarly literature in relation to IVC? Its Google Scholar citations are pretty much all to non-IVC topics: Gilgamesh; Sumer; even Crete. The few there are, are by JMK himself. I am suggesting that there was an artistic convention for depicting the plentiful animals around; there was no mythology whose depictions the conventions constituted. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory L. Possehl says pretty much the same in The Indus Civilization: A Contemporary Perspective, p. 131:

The Indus Unicorn: A Real or “Fantastic” Animal? There has been some discussion of the one-horned “bull” on the seals, usually called a “unicorn.” The question centers on whether this is a real animal, with the single horn shown for purposes of artistic perspective, or is it fantastic, a creation of the Indus mind? Mahadevan’s concordance lists 1,159 seals with this device, so it must have been important." C. Grigson is a recent proponent of the fantastic animal hypothesis, which is not without merit. But most others, including Marshall and Mackay, agree that “the artist intended to represent one horn behind the other.” This point of view is supported by the fact that there are a few seals with unicorn-type bulls with two horns. On the other hand, the original reference to the Indian unicorn was made by Ctesias the Cnidian, a Greek physician resident for seventeen years (c. 415-398 B.c.) in the Achaemenid court under Darius II and Artaxerxes Memnon." There are also terracotta figurines that look like bulls with one horn coming out of the middle of the forehead from Harappa, Chanhu-daro, and Lothal.” In the end, I believe that the single horn on the unicorn seals was an artistic convention. This implies that the animal is probably a real bull and that the unicorn of India as reported by Ctesias is a separate matter.

That I believe is a summary of the consensus. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't! Modern museum web pages, like the BM & the Met (cited in the article), who follow these matters, describe it as a unicorn. And Possehl seems confused about Marshall, quoted at length in the Kennoyer 2017 chapter, who thought it was a single horn, though Mackay didn't. We might add a carefully phrased mention of ongoing controversy (though the Possehl is now how old exactly?) but just removing all mention of IVC, as you have continually sought to do, is outrageous POV, and will not stand. Kenoyer (2017) cites various other sources I haven't explored. Johnbod (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have corrected what appeared to have been an (unintentional) misrepresentation of Kenoyer. Recent publications in peer-reviewed publications are always superior to old entries in art-catalogs. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to be more clear: Kenoyer (2013) expresses uncertainty about the validity of his 1998 theory (which he reproduced in the 2003 Met-catalog) of unicorn-motif-circulation, disassociates from it, and reverts to a far-critical stance. I don't know of any more-recent publications where JMK has gone back to the 1998 hypothesis. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  P.S. : Parpola (obviously) disputes Kenoyer and crafts a link with Hindu iconography. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Johnbod, why do you feel a lack of need to take part in talk-page discussions? For your "convenience", I am quoting the passage (p. 122):

  In an earlier publication, I proposed that although the unicorn disappeared in the Indus, unicorn seals carried to Mesopotamia by Indus merchants may have spread the idea of the unicorn to the Near East. From there, it eventually reached the Mediterranean and was finally introduced into Europe (Kenoyer 1998). I am no longer sure if this is a valid explanation given the history of the unicorn motif as explained by Shepard (1978 [1930]). It is possible that some aspects of Indus unicorn iconography contributed to later myths in West Asia, but this is a discussion to be more fully developed elsewhere. It is clear, however, that the unicorn motif did not continue in South Asia...

  In conclusion, it is clear that the Indus unicorn of South Asia is one of the first depictions of a one-horned animal. Although the motif does not continue in the art and ideology of South Asia, it does appear in other adjacent regions at a later time. At present, there is no direct connection between the Indus unicorn and those seen in later periods in West Asia, Europe, East Asia, and possibly Central Asia/Tibet. However, this is certainly a topic that deserves considerable future research.

  TrangaBellam (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That is both insulting and completely untrue - I made no fewer than 8 posts to this page yesterday, far more than you ever have. I suggest you look at the insanity on Talk:Priest-King (sculpture) and other pages he has followed me to if you want to understand why I am reluctant to encourage F&F by responding to every new bit of OR. Your edit left a citation to a book where Kenoyer said exactly the opposite of your text. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Following Johnbod? I did nothing of the sort. The IVC page is what I have been keeping an eye on for aeons. I had never paid attention to the unicorn page, certainly never heard of the IVC unicorn, i.e. the one without quotes, until an editor user:Abductive added a sentence, "It is believed that the legend of the unicorn arose in the Indus Valley Civilisation. " to the IVC page on 25 July 2021 in this edit. I reverted it soon after. I then went to the Unicorn page. There was a section on the IVC. The section had only one reliable reference. It was the book Animals in Stone: Indian animals sculptured through time, Leiden and Boston: BRILL, 2008, p. 41. by the Dutch paleontologist Alexandra van der Geer. But she said, "A large number [of seals] seem to depict some kind of unicorn, but this is in my view a misunderstanding. The image is better interpreted as an aurochs in profile with its typically long, forward curving horn." On the basis of those two sentences, I removed the section. It led to a talk page post by Abductive and a discussion which Johnbod seemed to join instantly and with much more vehemence than the original poster, leaving me perplexed. Until then I had no idea that Johnbod had ever edited Unicorn, much less had any attachment to IVC there. I still don't. In that unicorn-less state, the page lay for a month until yesterday when in a series of short quick vaguely worded edits Johnbod added the morass back but this time cited only to the coffee-table volume. Notably absent was Alexandra van der Geer. Notably present was Mark K's wrung-polishing in the coffee-table book's infirm ladder of connections. Wrung polishing = long captions of pictures. Calling them "catalog entries" doesn't make them any more reliable. Whose catalog? The Met's? When had the Met gone excavating in the dusty Indus riverbanks? The Priest-king (sculpture) and Pashupati seal pages are similar. Someone spun off these pages not long ago. Johnbod ran with them in the same short, quick, impressionistic, edits, and turned them into DYKs. Lo and behold. I became aware of the poor sourcing and rewrote the lead. Again, a month later Johnbod reverted. Never once did he thank me for finding the two crucial images on the page. It has led to an uneasy peace there about the first sentence, a compromise of sorts. I suspect it may have to do with differing standards in history and art history, the latter being much more lax and vague. But the IVC is a history page, a pre-history one, to be precise. It has left us an undeciphered script. We have to be doubly rigorous. I know Indian history. Obviously not every bit of it. But I have read enough to have a good enough feel for it. I can smell out the ahistorical bits from miles away. Johnbod is not the first editor I have so countered, nor I'm sure will he be the last. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  And we're away! Just to keep one foot in reality, Pashupati seal has existed since 2013, & I first edited it (pics and categories initially) in 2015. Afaik it has never been on DYK (no notice on the talk). I'm curious to know how the failings of various Indian governments will turn out to be at the root of issues here. Johnbod (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have just read the description in the history section: "with a body more like a cow than a horse, and a curved horn that goes forward, then up at the tip." I am tired, having driven 90 minutes through driving rain in Henri's tail, but speaking of tails, it is not a horse for sure, as IVC was pre-equine. Rather, it is the aurochs, now extinct, whose European clade Bos primigenius or somesuch was very much around in IVC. The famous horns, preserved in museums, went out and up, then forward and in, and finally in and up (the tip forming a hook). I believe Bridget Allchin and Raymond Allchin mention the aurochs in their all too brief treatment of Indus art in their magnum opus. The aurochs both the European and the Indian were the wild cattle of the Indus. Anyway, my vacation is over. By tomorrow evening I should have my books. I'll take another look. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If you can read German, see Franke-Vogt, Ute (1991) Die Glyptik aus Mohenjo-Daro. Uniformität und Variabilität in der Induskultur: Untersuchungen zur Typologie, Ikonographie und räumlichen Verteilung I. p. 62-64. Baghdader Forschungen: 13. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read German. What does it say?

In order for the Indus unicorn to receive such prominent mention in the lead, we need to be clear about two things: a) what is the object in the seal(s)? and b) what was it used for? I'm worrying about a) here. Not only Possehl, but many others consider the Indus "unicorn" to be a hump-less bull in profile, the single horn, much like the single ear, an aspect of a widely observed convention among artisans. Adam Green, for example in his article, "Killing the Priest-King" (2021), says,

"Indus seal engravings constitute the majority of Indus iconography, depicting bulls, buffalo, bison, tigers, elephants, rhinoceroses, and chimeras, often along with a stylized object that appears to be a manger or trough (Fig. 7). The majority of Indus seals are engraved with “unicorns,” bulls in profile that were depicted with a single horn and wearing blankets and ornaments (Kenoyer 2013). Most also share a standardized shape—square faces with a height and width of ~2.5 cm.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As stated earlier in my post about aurochs, Bridget Allchin and Raymond Allchin in their Rise of civilization in India and Pakistan, Cambridge, 1982, say, "The number [of seals] so far discovered in excavation must be around 2000. Of these the great majority have an animal engraved on them, and a short inscription. The animal most frequently encountered is a humpless bull, shown in profile with its horns superimposed on each other and pointing forward (Fig.8.17). From this feature, it has generally been called a unicorn. In front of the beast stands a short decorated post, variously interpreted as a standard, manger or even an incense-burner. The animal interests us for two reasons: first because it would appear to be a relation of Bos primigenius rather than of Bos indicus," I should add too that in my formulation above, a) and b) are independent, ie knowing one does not help us to know the other. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possehl (2002) argues the unicorn to be a real hump-less bull in profile, depicted artistically. Franke-Vogt takes a similar line, identifies the figure with Bos primigenius primigenius but notes this identification to be a topic of "controversy".

Kenoyer (2013) takes objection. He is satisfied that the seals depict a mythological one-horned animal. Whether that has any continuum with the Unicorn myth, that went on to propagate in different parts of the world, is unknown. Marta Ameri (2013) notes the motif to be the "so-called" unicorn but feels that Kenoyer's (2013) reasoning is "probably correct".

Parpola (2011) unifies these disparate strands and provides many interesting arguments but they shall be read with a grain of salt. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TrangaBellam. Will keep your summary in mind. The problem here is that we are an encyclopedia. What we say needs to jibe with other tertiary sources, i.e. (i) dictionaries and (ii) widely-read textbooks (in this instance on IVC), not monographs. It is essential per the WP:TERTIARY). We can't spam the lead with the interpretations of a few journal articles, or book chapters. There is consensus in (a) (all three major dictionaries of the English language:

• the OED (last updated for this entry in 1924) here) says, "A fabulous and legendary animal usually regarded as having the body of a horse with a single horn projecting from its forehead (cf. sense 3 note); the monoceros of the ancients. The unicorn has at various times been identified or confused with the rhinoceros, with various species of antelope, or with other animals having a horn (or horns) or horn-like projection from the head.

• Its smaller but more updated Oxford Dictionary of English (2010), here, says, "A mythical animal typically represented as a horse with a single straight horn projecting from its forehead. 1.1 A heraldic representation of a unicorn, with a twisted horn, a deer's feet, a goat's beard, and a lion's tail."

• the Chambers 21st century dictionary (here), "unicorn noun 1 a mythical animal in the form of a horse (usually a white one) with a long straight spiralled horn growing from its forehead. 2 heraldry a representation of such an animal, especially as a charge or supporter of the Royal Arms of Great Britain or of Scotland." and
• Webster's Third International Unabridged (here),"a fabulous animal possibly based on faulty old descriptions of the rhinoceros and generally depicted (as in heraldry) with the body and head of a horse, the hind legs of a stag, the tail of a lion, and in the middle of the forehead a single long straight horn held to be a sovereign remedy against poisoning"

But none make any mention of Indus or aurochs unicorn. The journal articles or articles in edited monographs, or research monographs are useless at this stage. I will examine the widely-used textbooks: Allchin and Allchin, Wright, Possehl, Kenoyer (Ancient Cities of ...), and Coningham and Young (2015) when I have them later this evening. But from everything I know and remember, the IVC cannot be in the lead, let alone be the second sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2405:6E00:12BF:5201:6D8E:93CC:F4D7:B84A (talk) 05:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorns are not real…that’s all. The next thing you are going to be seeing is dots. ………..

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 06:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand this revert Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the "Sports" section of Unicorn (disambiguation) shows, the Schwäbisch Hall team is hardly the only team to use the unicorn as its mascot. This article is about the fabulous beast itself and is not the place to list everything that has ever been named for it. A reading of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections might be in order. Deor (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The location of a photograph used on this page denotes an incorrect location in the caption - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Licorne_Edimbourg_Scotland.JPG

It is not located at Edinburgh Castle, it is at Holyrood Palace (officially known as "The Palace of Holyroodhouse").

Sources:

• https://www.rct.uk/discover/family-activities/unicorns (official Holyrood Palace website)
• https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-unicorn-at-palace-of-holyroodhouse-holyrood-edinburgh-scotland-108452063.html

18:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing out the error. Deor (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

700 mm sounds ridiculous, like ‘between 699 mm and 701 mm’. Write something reasonable like 7 dm or .7 m. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.67.227.181 (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the citation that the carving from Shush is meant to be a winged unicorn? It looks a lot like a winged bull in profile, with one horn hiding the other. Winged bulls appear elsewhere in the Fertile Crescent civilizations. 2601:441:4900:A6E0:68F8:5196:2CC9:1DFE (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: I created the section as a landing spot for a redirect that has been discussed for almost 2 months now (with no end in sight) at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 8 § Hornless unicorn. If nothing else has come out of it, it's that a hornless unicorn is not a horse, though contemporary imagery has started to depict unicorns as "horses with a horn". Historic imagery never depicted unicorns as horses (with horns). If you want to say it is so in wikivoice, then you need to provide a source for that.

Having researched the Earls of Rutland, I will tell you some things I found out. (You can easily find the references yourself to satisfy your questions.) The family used unicorns in their family symbols (insignia, coats of arms, etc.) and many of the earl/duke Rutlands were buried with unicorns depicted in their monuments. Henry Manners' father Thomas Manners, 1st Earl of Rutland was buried with a unicorn at his feet; later the unicorn horn had broken off. Based on the sources I read (and there are more online about Thomas than Henry) there is no doubt that the Thomas monument was built to depict a unicorn. Henry Manners's monument also had a unicorn at his feet. The various references I found mentioned that Thomas' unicorn had a broken horn, but they do not mention a broken horn on Henry's unicorn; it has curly hair where a horn would be. (Who knows, maybe they decided to save themselves the trouble of making something so easily broken... but I digress.) Both unicorns have cloven feet and a goat's beard. In addition, Henry's has an ox-tail/lion-tail (Thomas' uni tail is not visible). These animal characteristics, even without a horn, the family symbology, and the similarity of the burial monuments, suggests the animal at Henry Manners' feet is a unicorn and not a horse. The elements (goat beard, cloven hooves, ox-tail) were the common depiction of a unicorn in that period.

Same with the The Lady and the Unicorn tapestry figure. The small figure that the sources call a "young unicorn" and a "baby unicorn" also has cloven hooves, a goat's beard, and an ox-tail. That figure doesn't appear on the other 5 tapestries, and does not look like the various dogs, all of which have toes, shorter tails with no tufts, and no beards. That figure is definitely not a dog. Again, it is a classic unicorn styled figure of the time period.

Lastly, the purpose of the children's story was to bring it closer to contemporary time period. In the story, the young hornless unicorn is repeatedly mistaken for a horse and vehemently denies it at each instance. However, the unicorn has magic and flies, even without her horn.

What I did not provide was a source or content about a hornless unicorn being a horse... because I could not find any. I'm sure there are some sources somewhere which describe how contemporary unicorns have been depicted as "horses with a horn", and by corollary consider a hornless unicorn a horse. Someone else can find that and include it in the section.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going out, but if what you say is true, you should be able to find proper WP:RS, which you haven't. The kid's book is certainly not needed either way. Johnbod (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the tapestry would support this addition. Even if the figures were explicitly labelled as young/baby unicorn, aren't there many horned animals whose young don't immediately have horns? We don't have a "hornless goats" section to cover baby goats. Even if there's a redirect for "hornless unicorn" that goes here, I don't think it means we are required to have this section if there's not actual sources to support it. One instance of a statue with no horn doesn't seem like enough in my opinion. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - all horned animals I think. If you can find a source saying unicorns were believed to have been hornless at birth, by all means add that. After looking again at the tapestries, of which we have good images, I still think the small animal is a dog, and the same dog as sits on a cushion in Mon Seul Desir. I'll concede the alabaster effigy, but this was presumably done because a horn there would have been too vulnerable to breaks. Johnbod (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are we even looking at the same figure? I'm looking at figure 1, and you think it's the same creature as figure 2? Figure 2 looks to me like a lapdog. Figure 1 has hallmarks of a unicorn in contrast with a dog: a beard on its chin, a very long neck, cloven hooves (not toes), long tail with a tuft. I know of no dog breeds that have beards, few with long necks (sight hounds only), few with tufted tails (lap dogs), and zero with hooves let alone cloven hooves. Goats have cloven hooves and beards, but never a long tail; figure 3 is a classic goat. And there are several dogs depicted in the tapestries, all of which have toes, not hooves. All of the creatures in all 6 tapestries are identifiable as species extant today... except for figure 1 (and some creature with multicolored spots) which matches well the description of a unicorn from that period.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No we were not! Your text led me to the small animal sitting on the lady's dress, below the unicorn. I will clarify. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, our own analysis of what may or not be a unicorn in the tapestry is irrelevant because basing article content on that would be WP:OR. The source which calls it a young unicorn is what matters. But again I think this mention doesn't support the section because hornless young doesn't mean the creature is hornless. We should be removing the section in my opinion. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with the 4 lines now there. If we had more details on diet, habitat etc we could work up a zoology section for it to be included in.... Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Horse with a horn has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 26 § Horse with a horn until a consensus is reached. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone,

I'm new to this, and I apologize if it is not an appropriate suggestion for an edit. I am a historian, and I have actually done and published a short article on unicorns in the Hispanic world. They were discussed in Spain, and they actually became an animal that colonial artists, from Peru to Mexico, used to represent personifications of the American continent. My suggestion for a content edit is to simply add a sentence to the paragraph describing how unicorns disappeared from devotional art, but remained important in secular representations of the Americas in Hispanic culture, throughout the Spanish empire.

This is my own published work, but I think it might add more context to this paragraph which would strengthen the page.

Here is the link to my article: https://historyofknowledge.net/2023/09/26/unicorns-knowledge-of-the-environment-and-the-hispanic-mediterratlantic/ ShepherdAaron (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why does "Abath" redirect to this article? the word/name is not mentioned anywhere in the Other Mythologies/Related Creatures section. The implication is there's a relation to the Re'em but if so it should be mentioned somewhere in the section. Mastakos (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]