User talk:Givennames

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Givennames, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing four tildes (~~~~); our software automatically converts it to your username and the date. We're so glad you're here! Meatsgains^(talk) 00:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages

Givennames, thanks for your edits to Mukhtar (disambiguation). I have made some changes to the page based on MOS:DAB. In particular, I removed Mukhtar (Indian lawyer) because I could find no mention of him in any article. If you have any questions about that or my other edits, feel free to ask on my talk page or at Talk:Mukhtar (disambiguation). If you reply at Talk:Mukhtar (disambiguation), be sure to start your message with {{ping|Leschnei}}, so I will be sent an alert. Leschnei (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Secretaries of the Mabeyn

A tag has been placed on Category:Secretaries of the Mabeyn indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Mabeyn

A tag has been placed on Category:Mabeyn indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red

Hi there, Givennames, and thanks for your interesting article on Chahla Chafiq. If you intend to write more biographies of women, you might like to join WikiProject Women in Red where we are trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 09:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chthonic

Hi Givennames, can I ask if you have a source for the changes made in this edit? I am not aware of the idea of a "proposed class" of chthonic gods, and stating this in the lead sentence seems to me to be slightly misrepresentative of the article's content. To my knowledge, when scholars refer to a god as "chthonic", they generally just mean they were associated with the underworld (or perhaps fertility or the earth) in some way. As far as I can tell, the article is about the term, touching on how it was used as an epithet by ancient writers, and as a descriptor by modern scholars, with the (I think largely outdated?) idea of "chthonic cult" also being discussed because it contains the word "chthonic". – Michael Aurel (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, by “proposed class and associated cult”, I meant one that some academics have opposed to Olympian deities and “Olympian cult”, but I’ve changed that sentence (I hope it is more clear).

The epithet of these deities is usually written as “Chthonius/Chthonia” (with upper case), as the article itself names these deities individually. There are already the set index articles “Chthonius” and “Chthonia” which are categorized in Category:Epithets of Hades, Category:Epithets of Demeter etc.

Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we shouldn’t write an article on the words “chthonic”/“chthonian” (which are just adjectives in English and not only used in mythology but also in “chthonic law”, “chthonian planet”…). These deities are usually referred to collectively as the “chthonic deities” or “chthonian deities” in English.

If we want to “center” the article on the epithet, it should be at “Chthonius (epithet)” (Wikidata item: Chthonius (Q131314187)), and be categorized in Category:Epithets of Greek deities. Givennames (talk) 07:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are largely seeing eye to eye on the important things here, but we seem to be losing each other on the finer points. To be clear, I don't think there was any issue with your moving of the page to "Chthonic deities"; Brill's New Pauly, a highly reliable source, titles their article as such, so I think it's fine for us to do the same. Also, "chthonic", as a lone adjective, is an awkward title (we don't, for instance, title our article "Bipedal", but "Bipedalism"). Where I think the confusion lies is with respect to the degree of separateness of the different sections of the article; from what I can tell, the page covers the following topics:

the term "chthonic", its etymology, and usage generally
the epithets "Chthonios" and "Chthonia", used by ancient authors
the adjective "chthonic" (or "chthonian"), used by modern scholars to refer to deities associated with the underworld (or the earth or fertility)
the idea of "chthonic cult", a grouping of various religious practices in older scholarship, which I believe is generally viewed as quite problematic nowadays

For the most part, all I think that really connects all four of these is that they use the word "chthonic". For example, we can't assume that the deities referred to using the epithet are the same deities being referred to in the idea of "chthonic cult". Essentially, my main point is that there isn't an enumerable group of "chthonic deities", and that by calling them a "class" and saying they had an "associated cult" seems to imply this. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it seems you've edited the above comment and reworked the lead since I started writing my response (I didn't notice before posting). I think my above comment still applies, though. – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that the lead sentence I wrote was very confusing! I hope that it makes more sense now. Givennames (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I don't know if I'm making myself clear. The issue is that, because the article covers multiple, only somewhat (not directly) related topics, all of which are denoted by the term "chthonic", we can't define the article's subject as just one of them, or present the assumption (explicitly or implicitly) that the "chthonic deities" given as part of, or associated with, each of these topics are all the same group of "chthonic deities". That is, we can't say that the deities to whom the epithets are applied are the same as those described as "chthonic" by modern scholars, or that either of these notions of "chthonic deities" include the same gods as those involved in the idea of "chthonic cult". Does this make sense? Probably we shouldn't try to define "chthonic deities" in the first sentence. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see what you mean: some deities are known to have been called “Chthonios”/“Chthonia” in antiquity, and scholars are assuming that other deities might have been “chthonic” although we have no archaeological trace of this; is that right? Givennames (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ might have been regarded as “chthonic” Givennames (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, mostly, I think. It might help if I give an example. Zeus is sometimes called "Zeus Chthonius" by certain ancient writers, but, in general, at least in the vast majority of contexts, scholars would not call Zeus a "chthonic deity". Basically:

group of deities to whom the epithets are applied by ancient authors ≠ group of deities often called "chthonic" by modern scholars

Additionally, the religious practices surrounding Zeus would not fall (at least not in general) under the label of "chthonic cult". – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about something like this?

“Chthonic deities or chthonian deities may refer to those Greek deities whose main attributes are related to the earth and/or the underworld, and who may have been the object of specific cultic practices during antiquity (see § Chthonic cult). The notion of “chthonic deities” may also refer to the Greek deities who were given—regardless of their main attributes and even occasionally—the epithet Chthonius (masculine) or Chthonia (feminine) during antiquity.

These epithets (Chthonius and Chthonia), as well as the English adjectives chthonic and chthonian, are derived from the Ancient Greek word χθών (khthṓn) meaning 'earth' or 'soil'…”

etc.

Givennames (talk) 12:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing this up, this all looks mostly good to me. Feel free to add this. I think we could probably remove "and/" (doesn't necessarily have to be an exclusive or), and omit "regardless of their main..." (as in most cases there is probably correlation between the two), and I also might rework things a bit, and add a few sources, but I think your proposed text works pretty well as a summary of the article as a whole. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]