Talk:Gurzil

Source

E. L. Mayer A. F. 1982, 'God Gurzil in a Neo-Punic inscription from Roman Tripolitaia', Libyan Studies, Vol.13. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:BB5A:B900:3989:675B:F0D3:F1E6 (talk) 06:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

BC/AD and Lepcis/Leptis

@Vishal Kandassamy: You are wrong on both counts. See MOS:ERA. Regarding Lepcis/Leptis, see Mattingly, Tripolitania, p. 194. The spelling with C is found in local inscriptions in Latin and reflects the Punic pronunciation. Srnec (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Leptis Magna is the common name of that city in Tripolitania, Libya in the ancient times and also the modern times and it is the name that is present throughout the Wikipedia article on the city of Leptis Magna also, which is why i edited it in that way, because the Punic name was made from Lpt and not Lct as mentioned in that article on Wikipedia and it is the same name Leptis Magna and not Lepcis Magna in Latin also, which is mentioned commonly in the Wikipedia article for the Libyan city of Leptis Magna and you can see it in the Wikipedia page Leptis Magna itself. Vishal Kandassamy (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Both "Leptis" and "Lepcis" are correct. Which is why it is no correction to change from one to the other. Same goes for BC/BCE. In both cases, the rule on Wikipedia is leave it be. Srnec (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Nowadays people use BCE and CE instead of BC and AD with Leptis Magna instead of Lepcis Magna, so what i am saying is correct now by convention. 2409:4072:711:5110:E8D4:CE98:141D:B304 (talk) 11:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Previous Edits

Hello @Srnec, I can see that you have put a lot of effort into making this article and I just wanted to expand upon it if you want, I do not want to ruin or destroy your original work, I wanted to add information and pictures and sources related to it Lobus (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Here are my issues with the changes: Some of the information added does not seem to line up with the claim that He is known from two sources (only). What is the basis for connecting the two added images with Gurzil? My main concerns are the addition of an infobox (too definite for this topic) and the images. I do not object to a fuller account of what Corippus says. You may like the following source:

• Merrills, Andy (2023). War, Rebellion and Epic in Byzantine North Africa: A Historical Study of Corippus' Iohannis. Cambridge University Press.

Srnec (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, concerning Gurzil, I am taking information about him from several sources including the famous french historian Gabriel Camps he has multiple works in French on North African deities as well as Elmeier. I attached 2 images to the article, one depicting Gurzil on a vase and another depicting the Symbol of Gurzil found in Tiddis, you are free to use either one for the article I do not mind if you remove or alter the images. overall I hope that you revert the edit back and make any changes you wish, I am a big fan of your works and I would love to learn to edit like you do.

Thank you for the provided source I will surely look more into it :) Lobus (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

You do not need my permission, but I do oppose the infobox and the images unless sources for the images are cited. I have fixed and restored one citation from your edit. I have not restored the Corippus details because the citations are either incomplete or inconsistent (e.g., "Camps et al. 2011", "Johan. II, 404-406" and "Corippus, V, v.23-25"). Can you clean this up? Srnec (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

deities wiki pages all contain infobox for the deity, I suggest keeping the infobox containing the information of the deity in question as it sums up key details, I will try to clean up the citations :). I will take a few days to read up more on mythology of the deity and perhaps I could add and cite more information concerning that. Lobus (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how any of the sources cited for the infobox image are either reliable or relevant. I do not see how the Neo-Tifinagh script is relevant. The entire "Mythology" and "Popular Work" section are pointless and have nothing to do with the historical deity. The most that Wuming's book deserved in an encyclopaedia article on Gurzil is maybe one sentence. Srnec (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Srnec for your feedback, it’s insightful to learn from someone with your experience. I completely understand your concerns and appreciate your efforts to maintain the quality and reliability of the article. let me summarize in bulletpoints some of your key concerns :

• Regarding the infobox, I believe the infobox serves as a useful summary for readers unfamiliar with the subject. Many deity-related Wikipedia pages use infoboxes to highlight key details, which greatly helps with readability and accessibility.
• When it comes to Tifinagh, Gurzil is a deity rooted in ancient Berber culture. The Tifinagh script is one of the historical writing systems of the Berber people and the official script of North African states today, people interested in the deity in question can easily find the article by looking up the deity in tifinagh 'The official writing script', since the deity is related to these people they are the most likely population to cross the article, putting tifinagh version of the latinized name "Gurzil" allows the article to have readership access to a larger audience that is related to the article in question historically and culturally.
• Including Tifinagh also helps reinforce the connection between Gurzil and his indigenous origins as Several academic studies and modern historians, such as Gabriel Camps, reference Berber deities in conjunction with their linguistic and cultural contexts.
• On the "Mythology" and "Popular Work" sections, I see your point about them possibly detracting from the historical focus of the article. The reason why they were included is to illustrate the mythology behind the deity, since the author draws from actual historians including Greek, Roman and local historians and poets and writers, this gives the reader the ability to look into historical mythological names, events and places related to the deity, for example "His father Ammon", "the God Mosh", "The Libyan Amazons"..etc where we do see ancient historians, writers and poets talk about these aspects in the historic sense which may interest the reader to also access further articles about these deities and personalities on Wikipedia. PS: Note that the author Wuming also draws from popular local stories on mythology surrounding Gurzil which represent an important aspect today to consider in the survival of the deity in question in popular culture today
• the broader cultural impact of Gurzil and his depiction in modern works, which might interest readers is important to highlight the interest in the deity today in popular works, I am in the progress of identifying which movies portray the deity in question also to include it in "popular works" section
• If you see that the popular works section or the mythology section should be shorter please do not hesitate to edit it further, alternatively, let me know if you want ME to summarize it further down to a much smaller section for clarity, although this would come at a cost of sacrificing some historic personalities, events and locations related to the deity in question

If you have any additional suggestions or edits, I’d love to hear them. Your guidance is invaluable as I learn to improve my contributions :) Lobus (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)