Jump to content

Talk:Jupiter (god)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Jupiter(Mythology)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Jupiter(Mythology) 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/2023 April 24 § Jupiter(Mythology) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Dies piter" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Dies piter 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/2023 October 1 § Dies piter until a consensus is reached. Edward-Woodrow • talk 18:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 November 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter (mythology) → Jupiter (god) – Eight years ago, there was a thorough discussion in Wikiproject Religion about how the widely used "(mythology)" dab in many cases is unsuitable and not preferred. Although the discussion closed without consensus (because there was no one-size-fits-all convention that could be adopted), it was agreed that changes should be made to articles case-by-case. Jupiter was agreed to be an example where moving from "(mythology)" to "(god)" or "(deity)" would either be a clear improvement, or should at least be discussed.

The arguments can be summed up by the fact that Jupiter's primary significance in Ancient Roman religion was not so much the myths about him, but rather his cultic role as a god.

To that, I can add:

  1. "Mythology" only accounts for one out of seven sections in this article, and only about 5% of its overall length (as determined by word count).
  2. "God" would be preferable to "deity" in this case, because:
    1. This is by far the more common term used to describe him (such as in the lede of this article).
    2. "God" is more specific than "deity," and would be accurate here.
    3. There is no gender ambiguity about Jupiter that would motivate the need for a gender-neutral term.

While this issue has been left untouched for quite some time, I see no reason not to press forward with what would be a significant improvement over the status quo. — Uiscefada (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Mythology includes gods, and I am not a fan of a disambiguation implying that something is "real" when it has not been proven by science. "God", "goddess" or "deity" are not disambiguations that clearly show that the subject is purely theoretical in nature, regardless of what a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS believes. Jupiter is not a commonly worshiped god in the modern day that we have to avoid stepping on toes by labeling it mythological. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Mythology" does not mean a "dead" or "false religion." This issue was already covered in the discussion I linked to.
Mythology refers only to the stories that were told about various figures — usually (but not always) involving certain gods from the religion. Since Jupiter's significance, and the vast majority of this article, has to do with issues besides his mythology, the "mythology" dab is clearly inaccurate to the article. This was widely agreed.
There are many gods who were worshiped without having any known mythology. Vice versa, there are gods known from mythology who have little to no evidence of cultic devotion. The "mythology" dab is appropriate for the latter, not the former.
Furthermore, your stated intent to use the term "mythology" to assert that the god is a false one goes against Wikipedia's NPOV. Whether or not a religion is "common" is not grounds for Wikipedia to deny that the religion classifies them as gods.
Lastly, the "deity" and "god" disambiguations are already commonly used on equivalent topics elsewhere in Wikipedia. See Set (deity) and Min (god), as examples. — Uiscefada (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You state that "mythology" asserts that a god is false. I do not think this is the case, and believe it is a neutral term. Therefore, there is no need to move away the article from a totally neutral term to a different one that, at best, will need a different version for each gender, and at worst, implies moreso than mythology that they are real beings. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your words were, "I am not a fan of a disambiguation implying that something is 'real'" — something that "god" does not even do (many people who don't believe in gods still use the word to speak about them). I'm not sure how else to interpret that, except as thinking that "mythology" implies something is not real.
I've been very clear that the issue raised here is not focused on neutrality, but simple accuracy and relevance. I also explained to you how some articles should be disambiguated as "mythology," per the Wikiproject discussion — just not articles that aren't primarily to do with mythology, such as this one.
Your objection about needing different gender dabs was a point raised against making a universal disambiguation to apply across all articles. When disambiguating articles case-by-case, it is not an issue. But more importantly, it is not even an argument in favor of "mythology," since "deity" is a gender-neutral option. — Uiscefada (talk) 12:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean oppose. While I still believe that (well-known) deities should be primary over the things named after them, the disambiguator "mythology" is fairly neutral and is used for nearly all Greek and Roman gods and goddesses—since most of them have well-known things named after them—and when the choice comes to one disambiguator over another, consistency becomes important.
As far as I can tell, nothing in the article suggests that Jupiter does not exist or is not a god. Mythological articles are written neutrally, and take no position on the underlying reality of their subjects, except to the extent that notable debates about their reality may be relevant to the topic, and again Wikipedia doesn't take sides. This is as true for gods currently worshipped by large followings as it is for those primarily known from mythology.
But the word "mythology" doesn't mean "fictional"—there's plenty of mythology associated with modern religions, even if their adherents tend to avoid using the term. As such, I see no significant advantage to the proposed move, which would be inconsistent with most similar and related article titles. P Aculeius (talk) 11:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised you changed your mind, since you seemed supportive of the change in the previous Wikiproject discussion.
I'm disappointed that responses are choosing to fixate on whether or not mythology is "neutral," which was not an argument I made, nor is it the general thrust of the previous discussion I linked to. I already made clear that Jupiter's significance was not primarily mythological, and only a tiny portion of this overall article is dedicated to mythology — the current dab is simply inaccurate and poorly chosen. That is the issue that responses should address.
"Consistency" is also a poor justification for keeping the status quo, because there is no reason that only Jupiter's article should be changed. In articles about Ancient Egyptian religion, "god," "goddess," and "deity" (since gender is sometimes ambiguous) are used consistently, and the same can be true for Greek and Roman religion — however, this has to be handled case-by-case, as the Wikiproject discussion noted. Uiscefada (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The project seems to have fairly consistent titling and results for these discussions—there comes a point where further argument becomes pointless. Consistency has its place and its limits. But where one disambiguator is used fairly consistently among related topic titles, mixing different ones together is disadvantageous to the reader. In cases where no disambiguation is required, consistency is trumped by common sense. That's not the case here. It may be that a few articles are titled inconsistently with the majority, but that doesn't mean that consistency should be ignored when proposing a page move.
If we wanted to consider whether the entire class of deities currently using the disambiguator "mythology", or at least Greek and Roman deities, should have "mythology" replaced by "god" or "goddess" (or "deity"), then internal consistency would be less important; most or all of the entries concerned would be changed, and remain consistent (or become more consistent than before). That might lead to a different response from editors—although it might also bring out more responses, both for and against the change.
You're the one who raised the issue of "mythology" meaning "fictional", which is a popular misunderstanding. This is an encyclopedia, and technical terms can be used in their technical sense without indicating truth or falsity. We have to balance the same understanding when describing legends and folklore. Articles may mention or discuss debates about which gods exist, but need to avoid taking sides in such debates; the word "mythology" in this context merely acknowledges that most people are familiar with the subject through the lens of mythology, rather than direct worship. P Aculeius (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're creating a Catch-22 that contradicts the conclusion of the Wikiproject discussion. It was decided there that not all articles dabbed as "(mythology)" could be moved together, because they must be changed case-by-case. Now you are arguing that we can't change them individually like that, because it would create "inconsistency".
First of all, it should go without saying that consistency is not a good thing when many of the articles have been poorly labeled.
Secondly, you have not explained how relabeling Jupiter from "mythology" to "god" would be confusing or detrimental in any way to readers.
Thirdly, I've pointed out there are already other religions on Wikipedia that consistently use the convention proposed here, and have all along. This has been successful and not caused any problems. Adopting their consistent convention for Greek and Roman religion too would be an improvement. But as already decided, it has to be done individually.
The results of past discussion on this issue was generally supportive to move away from "(mythology)" for cases like Jupiter. There is not a strong argument against the move, it's merely been inertia and inactivity on the matter.
And for the record, no: I was not the person who raised the issue of "mythology" being fictional. I was responding to another opponent who implied that. — Uiscefada (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a Catch-22—that concept has no application here. And I didn't say that all such articles needed to be moved together: I said that articles about gods or goddesses should be discussed as a class. That doesn't begin to cover all mythological topics. Your claim that consistency isn't a good thing because the titles are bad assumes that the choice of disambiguator is a bad one. It's not. It might not be your first choice or mine, but it's neutral and encyclopedic, which makes it an appropriate choice.
The other editor you've been arguing with because you refuse to accept the validity of his opinion didn't claim that "mythology" meant "fictional". He was arguing that changing to "god" might be understood as implying "non-mythological" in the sense of "real", which misunderstands the definition of "mythology" and seems to imply that Wikipedia is taking a stand on which gods and goddesses exist or are thought to exist and which aren't. He didn't claim that "mythology" meant fictional, so you've been building a straw man argument around a misinterpretation of someone else's words.
You're arguing that the title of *this* article should change because time has passed and you may be able to obtain a consensus that wasn't possible before—but that a group of somewhat consistently-titled articles can't be addressed together because at some time in the past there was consensus against doing so. If you think that decision was wrong, then that's the place to discuss it and perhaps develop a new consensus. Otherwise the result of this move would be a hodgepodge of article title styles, where you could have "Jupiter (god)", "Mars (mythology)", "Venus (deity)", "Neptune (divinity)" and no predictable way in which even the articles within a class might be labeled. Just because something was decided one way in the past doesn't mean it has to stay that way forever; but it makes no sense to treat the individual articles making up that class as though they each represented a different type of subject, and as though the way they're organized has no effect on the rest of the class.
Lastly, I strongly suggest not WP:BLUDGEONING everyone who disagrees with your proposal. You can convince people by making a stronger argument—one that addresses their concerns—not by contradicting everything they say and replying to every response that you don't like, forcing them to restate and defend their opinions over and over again. People other than you are entitled to their opinions. You just have to get used to that. P Aculeius (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will not respond at length again, since I agree it did not serve the discussion to have us go back-and-forth. We should instead let other editors add their voice to the conversation.
That said, it is not "bludgeoning" to clarify accusations and misstatements lodged about me or the proposal. Your claim about a resultant "hodgepodge" is untrue, and goes against what I had explained, as well as what was already established in the previous Wikiproject discussion that was linked.
If you have a good faith concern on that point (or any other) that you would like to pursue, you are welcome to message my talk page. — Uiscefada (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator. God is a more concise description than the broad sounding mythology. Killuminator (talk) 10:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

I do not think Japheth should be included in the see also section. There is no mention of any connection in this article, or in the Japheth article. I would assume the association is based on some concept of Japheth as the Genesis progenitor of Europeans and Jupiter as somehow fulfilling the same role euhemeristically but I am unaware of any serious historical belief in such a concept and it comes off as a crank theory that is not mentioned in the relevant article. Thoughts? Cyndane5 (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the association is not cited to a reliable source, any editor can remove it, or add a citation needed tag. Various policies and guidelines (e.g. WP:DUEWEIGHT, WP:VERIFY, WP:FRINGE) would thank them for doing so. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have deleted it. I have carried out further research and the connection is not mainstream to say the least. The best source I could find was Conservapedia, which may very well have been the origin of the idea. That may represent a mistake as the citation on their article seems to be making the argument for an identification of Japeth with the titan Iapetos rather than Jupiter. Cyndane5 (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 February 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter (god) → Jupiter (mythology) – Consistency: Revert back to old name in keeping with other Roman deity articles that are followed by "(mythology)" instead of "(god)". See Mars, Mercury, Juno, Venus, Saturn, etc. el.ziade (talkallam) 14:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jupiter_(god)&oldid=1263574440"