Talk:Zeus

Pseudo-indoeuropean-Theorie

since years refuted. It´s an unscientific dogmatic geopolitical Ideology. The same with fake term pre-greek.

It´s from the helleno-pelasgian Homoglossy, proto-greek root deF diF für bright shining.

INDO : India :IN from greek EN in the doric dialect for in, middle, Do from dea dia for day, greek dialect makedonian IndeFa, Indea = Midday engl. day.

Helleno-pelasgian root SdeF , F = Digamma, and S from es as ek ak ex eks for outshining. SD / DS = Z.

Ζευς Zeys Zeus spoken Zevs, Δευς Deys Devs Deus Υυ Yy is not pronounced as an u, it`s pronounced as a v.

The root gives a the thema DiF with - Fon ending : DiF-Jon Citynames Dion Capitalcity Makedonias and Zion : both City of Light.

'''ZeF'''s '''Ζευ'''ς Zeys '''Zev'''s Zeus  '''DeF'''s '''Δευ'''ς  Deys '''Deu'''s  Devs Verb '''δευ'''ω  deyo '''dev'''o to water, to pour something. Wheathergod, Rain, Fertility, lightning thunder , Dynamis, God, Sun, Light.

Zen Zan Tan Zeus Zevs Ze '''Zo'''e ''' Life, Zoon, Zoa living beeing, from zeo to boil, to heat, seeth, bubble up, well up. Zesti warmth.

En'''zy'''m '''Ζευξ'''η  Zeyxi Zeuxi Zevxi '''Zevk'''si for to connect toghether. The city Ζευγμα '''<u>Zeugma</u>''' Zeygma '''Zevg'''ma.

<u>''Sumerian'' '''Zius'''udra</u> aithria adraia, ''<u>Araukanisch Gott '''Ze'''n Zen</u>''.

''<u>'''Ze'''n Pater</u>'' '''Zo'''e Life pater father : Father of Life. Zeus Zus Father Palatals K/G/CH/H/J transforms throu the Tsitakismus : J to Dsch Jupiter.

Zagreus Zagrys Zagrevs Life/Animalcatcher Hunter = Jaguar 2A01:C22:AC26:8000:FDBB:AC7A:652D:555B (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

You have to WP:CITE WP:RS in order to change the article.

I have no dog in the fight of proponents vs. adversaries of that theory, just saying that WP:OR is not the way to settle content disputes around here. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Deity equivalencies

@Βατο: In the article all we claim is lingustic equivalency between the names of the deities; we do not claim that the deities themselves are "equivalent". Unless the sources cited (I don't have access to them) state that Zeus and the deities in question are equivalent, we cannot include them in the infobox. In addition, per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the equivalencies would have to be significant enough to Zeus himself to be considered key facts about Zeus. Zeus is one of the best known deities from the ancient world, and information in the infobox is given prime placement at the head of his page; such a deity being equivalent to Zeus might be an important piece of information about that deity, but this does not mean the converse is necessarily true. Furthermore, note the following two sentences of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE:

The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Some infoboxes need to use more than a handful of fields, but information should be presented in a short format, wherever possible, and exclude unnecessary content.

If you feel that I am applying personal or otherwise arbitrary criteria here, I would direct you to this discussion [1] between members of WP:CGR (the main WikiProject covering this article's topic), where I think there was quite a clear consensus. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Michael Aurel: they are well sourced, and already described into the article's body. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide whether an equivalent is worth of inclusion or not, it is decided by reliable sources, which expressly describe them as clear equivalents, furthermore they are from neighboring traditions. So your removal, which by the way was explained with a false edit summary ("Not sourced or mentioned as such in the article" and "Same as last"), is not an improvement. And actually, you are "applying personal or otherwise arbitrary criteria" that contrast the discussion you mentioned above ([2]). – Βατο (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Βατο: My edit summaries were not false, or intentionally misleading: I stated that the deities are "not sourced or mentioned as such" (emphasis added); that is, they are not mentioned as being equivalent deities to Zeus (only their names are described as being linguistic equivalents to his), and so, presumably, the sources cited do not claim this. If the sources cited do claim this, then please provide quotes of this. As clearly stated in WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, if we had such sourcing for the deities being equivalent, and we added mention of their equivalency as deities to the article, it would then be a matter of whether this equivalency is significant enough to Zeus to be considered a "key fact" about him, and if this were the case, then it would be appropriate to add this piece of information to the infobox. These criteria are not "personal" or "arbitrary"; they are based directly upon WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which states that The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. In addition, I think they are very much in line with the local editorial consensus achieved at the linked discussion; you apparently disagree, however, so I would ask that you specify where you think my position contradicts the consensus in that discussion. Or editors who participated in that discussion themselves (some of whom likely watch this page) could comment. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Your edit summary is false, because they actually were already described as such in the article supported by reliable sources: "Albanian Zoj-z and Messapic Zis are clear equivalents and cognates of Zeus." The already cited Søborg (2020) expressly states: "Zis is surely the equivalent and cognate of Gk. Ζεύς, Alb. Zojz < *di̯ḗu̯s ‘sky(god)’. The consensus in that discussion is, obviosuly, that "equivalents" expressly described as such in reliable sources can be included in the relevant part of the infobox. Before removing accurately referenced content, the burden is on you to check the cited sources, which btw can easly be found online. – Βατο (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Describing someone's edit summary as false suggests deliberate falsification rather than error. As the obvious place in this article to find mentions of equivalents is Zeus#Identifications with other gods and neither Zojz or Zis are mentioned there, it would be at most an understandable error to say that they weren't mentioned in the article. Please, Βατο, don't insist on describing that summary so.

I haven't yet been able to read the relevant passage of Søborg (2020); your quotation from it is interesting in its use of "surely", a qualifier which I take to indicate, roughly, an assertion which the writer believes to be correct but for which they cannot provide such evidence as to state it with unqualified certainty. It also reads more as an assertion that the words are equivalent than that the deities are, and the title of the thesis, Sigmatic Verbal Formations in Anatolian and Indo-European: A Cladistic Study, does suggest it's a work about words rather than religions. If you're familiar with that thesis, can you also say how as a PhD thesis it stands with regards to the Dissertations section of Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Scholarship?

The other source for Zjoz is Hyllested & Joseph 2022, p. 232 in The Indo-European Language Family : A Phylogenetic Perspective. That page has

In both Albanian and Greek, the original clusters *ti̯ and *di̯ underwent affrication to *ts and *dz, and in initial position, the former further assibilated into *s-. In Albanian, assibilation was ultimately completed in all positions, resulting in s and z, a development which happened late enough to affect Latin loanwords. The only relevant lexemes shared by both languages involve the voiced cluster: Alb. Zoj-z ‘Albanian sky god’ ~ Gr. Ζεύς < *di̯ḗu̯ s (Mann 1952: 32) and Alb. dhjes ‘to shit’ (with secondary final devoicing) ~ Gr. χέζω ‘id.’ < *g̑ ʰed-i̯ e/o-.

Once again, that's about words; it isn't sufficient for an assertion here in the infobox that they're equivalent deities. Are there any works about ancient religions which make that claim?

If their equivalence as deities can be established with WP:RS, we will then have to consider MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and WP:DUE - is such equivalence a key fact about our subject, Zeus, of such significance to merit placement in the prominent infobox? Indeed, if the answer to that is negative, further work on sourcing becomes redundant. NebY (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

is such equivalence a key fact about our subject, Zeus, of such significance to merit placement in the prominent infobox yes, it is. They are all Indo-European equivalents of the sky and lightning god, also from cultures that neighbored each other, and probably stemmed from a common Indo-European stage as per current research. Describing someone's edit summary as false suggests deliberate falsification rather than error. I don't know whether it was deliberate or not, I know that the explanation provided in edit summary "Same as last", i.e. "Not sourced or mentioned as such in the article" was not true. – Βατο (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the status of these equivalencies as being "key facts", I think my comment below addresses that, but ultimately this will be determined by editorial consensus. Regarding the edit summary, in my mind "Not sourced or mentioned as such in the article" is saying the same thing as "Not sourced or mentioned as being equivalent deities to Zeus in the article" in the context of the edit I made, since I was removing the claim that the deities in question were equivalent to Zeus (obviously I wasn't suggesting that the deities weren't mentioned in the article at all). This was my intended meaning, which I suppose I assumed was clear, but perhaps not; regardless, I hardly had any nefarious motive. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

They are all Indo-European equivalents of the sky and lightning god, also from cultures that neighbored each other, and probably stemmed from a common Indo-European stage as per current research would not make the existence of Zojz a key fact about Zeus, any more than the existence of my second cousin is automatically a key fact about me. Did the cult or mythology of Zojz influence that of Zeus? Did believers in Zeus point to Zojz as a significant version of Zeus or as shedding any light on Zeus? Will readers of the article understand Zeus better if we tell them that Zojz was an Albanian deity, or will a significant portion of the readers already know of Zojz and understand Zeus better if we list Zojz? Of course, that's all predicated on your assertion that they're equivalent deities, for which we have as yet no sources. NebY (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Søborg, Tobias Mosbæk (2020). Sigmatic Verbal Formations in Anatolian and Indo-European: A Cladistic Study (Thesis). University of Copenhagen, Department of Nordic Studies and Linguistics. is a high quality source published by a university, and cited in several reliable sources, and it expressly describes the three deities as obvious "equivalents", other than linguistic cognates. would not make the existence of Zojz a key fact about Zeus, any more than the existence of my second cousin is automatically a key fact about me that's your own opinion, as are the others, not based on Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. If you consider Søborg's work to be non reliable, then feel free to remove Zojz from the infobox. Concerning Zis, it cannot be removed so easly, because there are countless reliable sources that describe them as "equivalents". – Βατο (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:ONUS, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOT; your opinion that "yes, it is" remains unsubstantiated and repeating the title of Søborg's 2020 thesis merely reinforces that it concerns sigmatic verbal formations, not religions, and does not discuss Zojz's significance vis-a-vis Zeus. NebY (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thankyou for quoting the thesis by Søborg; I've now read both sources. A linguist, speaking in the context of linguistics, saying that the names of two deities are equivalent and cognate is not the same as the statement that the two deities themselves are equivalent. This linguistic equivalency might suggest that the deities in question have a common ancestor, or are related in some manner, and of course two deities which are equivalent will very likely possess a linguistic parallel, but to suggest that this alone is enough to say the two deities are equivalents is to ignore, for instance, whether the people at the time identified the two gods, and mythological, iconographic, and religious parallels between the two figures. And while it might be possible to point to such parallels between Zeus and the deities in question, we need a reliable modern source, which, on the basis of these parallels, calls the deities equivalent, otherwise this is WP:OR. This is in notwithstanding the fact that I still think that such an equivalency would not constitute a "key fact" about Zeus himself. A useful way to measure whether a piece of information is a "key fact" about Zeus is to see whether it is mentioned frequently among sources which focus on Zeus; while a great many such sources mention and discuss Jupiter, I don't expect many would discuss the deities I removed from the infobox. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Michael Aurel here. The sources provided only show a linguistic relationship, which in no way established any sort of "deity equivalency". But even if "deity equivalency" were shown (for the sake of argument), it would still not be a key fact about Zeus, hence not in line with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The entire "equivalency" field in the infobox is anyway a bad idea and only leads to disputes such as this. Same situation over at Aphrodite by the way. Khirurg (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I think my favourite justification for an infobox equivalence entry remains The tradition of Cethlenn having drowned in a river and Marzanna having been drowned in a river according to her cultic practice isn’t indication?[3] and for its re-instatement, Any lack of critical thinking and basic comparison skills from a random user are also unsubstantiated as well. Study Irish mythology and look at Cethlenn’s role in the mythology. Short sightedness is acceptable but closed off stupidity isn’t.[4] NebY (talk) 09:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree completely that the equivalency field is all-around more trouble than it's worth, and only results in eating up the time of editors. Regarding the placement of Prende in Aphrodite's infobox, she isn't mentioned in the aritcle, nor does the source cited even come close to calling Prende and Aphrodite equivalents; she should be removed from the infobox. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I would support removal of all the "X_equivalent" fields from the "infobox deity" template. Paul August ☎ 18:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I would too. Reliable sources rarely use such cut-and-dried language; they instead focus on how deities were identified by ancient writers or cultures, or on the mythological, religious, iconographic, and linguistic parallels between gods, which are usually carefully treated as part of a nuanced discussion. The condensing of all of this into the form "Fooian equivalent: deity X" as though we can simply say "deity X = deity Y" presents a reductive view of ancient mythology and religion, which likely reinforces unfortunate misconceptions people may have (such as that there are clear sets of "equivalent" gods across different pantheons, as though each culture has a different cast of actors playing the same characters, eg. a "god of war", a "god of love", etc.). Not to mention the tendency for gradual accrual of (often problematic, or even incorrect) equivalencies (this [5] being an especially egregious example), which are stored at the top of pages and seen by most who view them. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I've left a short note at Template talk:Infobox deity, asking others what they think of this suggestion. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

How is the offspring table supposed to be sorted?

While fixing the entry for Persephone by Rhea (it had them in the wrong columns) it occurred to me that there didn't seem to be much of a consistent method in how the table is ordered by default. Did anyone define a proper order for this table? Arcorann (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Currently, there isn't any real default order (you can see the discussion which led to the current version of the table here). I think sensible default orderings could include having the names of the offspring in alphabetical order, or having the dates of the sources in chronological order. I would probably lean towards the latter of these, but I'd be interested to hear the opinions of others. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Rearranged (mostly) as such. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Indra

Michael Aurel has removed an edit I made that was attempting to create a version of this article similar to (but not the same as) an older version of this article I remember reading a long time ago. The old version I am thinking of can be found here but my edit can be found in this link.

According to Michael Aurel this is giving undue weight in the lead section. I assume this is because the relation of Jupiter to Zeus is seen as more important and notable than the relation of Zeus to other deities, so only Jupiter should be mentioned in the lead section.

If this is the case, I would point out that Indra is considered a very notable/important deity within Hinduism which is the third largest religion in the world with over a billion followers, much more than any religions that worship Zeus or Jupiter in modern times, so this makes Indra a very known and therefore notable deity in Hindu countries/communities, even if Indra is not as well known in western countries. When I was in India people I met knew more about Indra than Zeus or Jupiter.

I also noticed the sentence before the one I created with my edit only said Zeus was related to Jupiter in a cognate way but does not say they have mythologies that are related, which is an important part of the relation between Zeus and Jupiter, unlike what this article originally said in the older version of this article linked above which explains there is a relation between the mythologies of Zeus and Jupiter, just like what my recent edit also explains.

There are also other deities who are equivalents of Zeus, but I am unsure how important they would be considered in relation to Zeus. However, I think it would be useful to restore my edition or a similar edition. FantasticHappyJoyous (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@FantasticHappyJoyous: Thanks for bringing this up here. The most relevant guideline here is WP:LEAD, which says that:

As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

It is reliable sources about Zeus which determine how much weight we give to information in the lead; going against this is giving WP:UNDUE weight to certain information. Major reliable sources about Zeus don't deem information such as perceived parallels with Indra (or any deity other than Jupiter) to be signficant enough to mention in summaries of him; for example, see the entries for Zeus in major reference works such as Brill's New Pauly, the Oxford Classical Dictionary, and Grimal's Dictionary of Classical Mythology, none of which mention Indra (in contrast to Jupiter). The relative importance or popularity of Indra or the religion to which he belongs isn't relevant here; all that matters is the significance of this information to Zeus, and on Wikipedia we judge this by its weighting in reliable sources. Furthermore, Indra is currently only very briefly mentioned in the article, so adding such information to the lead, especially in such a prominent position, would also go against WP:LEAD's definition of an article's lead as a summary of its most important contents.

Jupiter probably shouldn't be mentioned as prominently in the lead as he is currently, but I would say that he is likely the only "parallel" deity who ought to be mentioned there (before any other such deity could be added to the lead, their parallels with Zeus would, at a minimum, need to be discussed in the article's body, with reliable sourcing). I would be opposed to adding back a sentence which resembles the old one, as it would go against both WP:LEAD and WP:DUE (in the same way a sentence mentioning just Indra would). Furthermore, such a sentence (just like the highly problematic "equivalent" fields in the infobox) would invite the addition of various factoids about perceived "parallel" deities to Zeus, none of which are of any significance to Zeus himself. As to the notion of other deities who are equivalents of Zeus, see the last comment I left in the #Deity equivalencies section above.

To your criticism of how Jupiter is currently mentioned in the lead: lampooning the current lead is entirely justified; it really, like most of the article, ought just to be scrapped and rewritten from scratch.

Hope this answers your questions. – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not Indra (or any other deities) is mentioned in the lead section, I feel like Indra could be added to the infobox since he is already mentioned in the lower part of the article, so this would make the infobox summarize what is already stated without adding as much content. Though I would see it as relevant/useful to add more information about Indra/other deities in the part of the lead section I edited or anywhere else. FantasticHappyJoyous (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Infoboxes should generally be reserved for "key facts" about the article's subject (this is explained at MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). The best way to determine whether something constitutes a "key fact" about Zeus is probably, again, to look at reliable sources about Zeus, and see whether they treat that thing as being a "key fact" about him. From what I can tell, the sorts of reliable sources about Zeus we would look to for this, such as major reference works, don't mention Indra, so his inclusion in the infobox probably wouldn't be appropriate. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Very shortly, I'll just say that, per Michael Aurel's explanation, the proposed opening to the article, even if it was sourced, appeared indeed somewhat undue. Similarly, the infobox seems to include core information that is part of Zeus' canon, such as abode, familial ties with other deities etc., the equivalent of a religion that had limited interaction with ancient Greek religion, might also be undue, especially when compared with the rest of the information that is provided there. The Roman counterparts are a sui generis situation, since ancient worshipers actively syncretized the two, treating them as the same deity, and often so does modern scholarship in the context of what is called Classical, or Greco-Roman, mythology. Piccco (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)