Jump to content

Talk:Gaia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

References

Quote: "Gaia's voice is heard throughout the first God of War, voiced by Linda hunt, telling the story of the main character's, Kratos, journey from Spartan general all the way through to his becoming the new god of war. She also appears in God of War 2 and helps Kratos get out of Hades and on his way to exacting revenge against Zeus" - What is this paragraph doing in the references section? I propose to delete it if nobody objects.Watasenia 19:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


Ok what you say is right and really but from the game play Kratos Killed all Gods in his searching to revenge for Zeus , He win. He will kill the Gods,and Zeus God of Thunder but he will kill Gaia too I really don't know why. Because Gaia was wanting to kill him or because on his mad he throw Zeus in Gaia's heart ,Kratos escapes but Gaia die with Zeus on his heart. 10:57 14 Aprill 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Northred (talk • contribs) 07:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Gaia's children

Wouldn't a comma be more appropriate to insert between the names of the children of Gaia, instead of two hyphens? Because name lists are exactly what serial commas are used for. The hyphen makes it look like the first listed child give birth to the second, and the third. --Menchi 04:39 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hopefully that'll work; commas tend to make things a bit close together. - Hephaestos 04:46 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Subheading inconsistency

A question of style. The header ==Gaia in mythology== has a preceding "1". But I was always taught that you should never have a numerical heading of you're only going to have one of them. If this header is going to be preceded by a "1", shouldn't there be another header down below preceded by a "2"? Is there a way to remove the numerical prefix? RickK 01:16 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

That's because you personalized your Preferences to make it show #s. Most ppl's broswer show a big bold subheading.
--Menchi 01:37 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Moved from Village Pump

Please see Gaia. A question of style. The header ==Gaia in mythology== has a preceding "1". But I was always taught that you should never have a numerical heading of you're only going to have one of them. If this header is going to be preceded by a "1", shouldn't there be another header down below preceded by a "2"? Is there a way to remove the numerical prefix? RickK 01:17 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you're talking about a number that's there because you've got "Auto-number headings" turned on in your preferences, yes? If so, no, I don't think there's anyway to get rid of it (apart from switching off that setting, of course, or rewriting a bit of code). --Camembert
Apparently so. When I unchecked it, the numbering went away. But there's no way in the code to check to see if there are any further numbers below to tell whether or not to turn on numbering? On another note, is there some way to explain to newbies like me what the preferences mean? I keep getting confused by what's turned on and turned off. RickK 01:26 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)
That's a good question actually - we ought to have such a page if we don't already. I don't know of one. Maybe a friendly soul will see this and decide to write one :) --Camembert
Wikipedia:User preferences help. --Brion
Any chance of linking that from Special:Preferences? (Or maybe it's linked already and I'm missing that as well...) --Camembert
Well, it's linked from the Help link at the top of every page. ;) But I'll see about putting in a specific link. --Brion 18:44 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)


End move

Deity and Ecosystem

I side with Anthere in the edit war. Pizza Puzzle 01:57 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps we can relocate Gaia as an modern ecosystem personification to Gaïa, the spelling that Ant uses and presumably used, though not exclusively, in the modern Gaïan environmentalism? --Menchi 02:03 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

what do you mean ? Please explain. Ant

You used Gaïa frequently when referring to the ecosystem entity (not the Greek goddess), right? So I assume:
  • Gaïa = ecosystem entity
  • Gaia = Greek goddess
The uses may not be completely exclusive, but they'd make the distinction clear. And we could mention their alternative names in their respective articles: "Gaïa, also knonw as Gaia, is an ecosystem..."
But if this is not the reason why you chose to use Gaïa, then maybe you did it to clarify the pronunciation (Gah-yiah???). Either that or something I can't figure out.
--Menchi 02:18 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

But those are just different spellings of the same thing...This is a concept named for the Greek goddess. Pizza Puzzle


Unfortunately no, Menchi. These are the same name. You may also add Gaea, which is less often used, and never in the ecosystem theory I think. So...that won't help.:-( ant

Gaea is the spelling I am most familiar with; but its all the same thing. Pizza Puzzle

IMHO Gaia should focus on the mythological meaning of Gaia, since that was obviously the inspiration for Lovelock to name his hypothesis. However, given that Gaia is now primarily associated with the Gaia hypothesis and theory, these should both be briefly discussed in the intro. Perhaps the articles Gaia hypothesis and Gaia theory should also be merged into one. --Eloquence 03:53 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Your rephrase of Gaia is ok to me.

However, merging gaia hypothesis with gaia theory will do no good. Gaia theory is no more about science. It is about social, political...aspects

The point in separating things is that if everything is merged in a whole big article, people will get lost between the scientific aspects of the theory (which rather deal with chemestry for Lovelock hypothesis).
There many different theories. It makes sense to have a specific article about the most famous one, under the name it is famous, which is gaia hypothesis. This said, a tip if you all want to drive me out of these articles, merge everything in one big article, which will be unreadable....and above 32ko :-)

Triple Goddess and other modern Neopagan beliefs

I changed the claim that Gaia was a tripartite goddess, because there is much debate about whether the maiden/mother/crone idea was around before the 20th century. Tuf-Kat

Indeed there is very little antiquarian interest in myth before the 18th century (1700s), and very little collecting of folk tales and mythology before the late 18th century, and very little analysis of myth at all before the 19th century. Still, even though there was no Freud in the 1st century, may not one think of the psychology of Nero, say? Mythology is more than picturesque heathen nonsense, we all agree. I suggest Carl Kerenyi, Eleusis: archetypical image of mother and daughter (available in paperback). TUF-KAT is correct that Gaia is not a tripartite goddess. 'Mother Earth' is Mother Earth. Wetman 13:46, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Dead silence. Now, months later, we have a new editor User:DreamGuy, who is suppressing quite standard information wholesale, apparently on the basis of a mythology course somewhere. The usual vague references to 'scholars" and "some say..." I've had to revert, in hopes of eliciting something better. --Wetman 05:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wetman, you can't complain about my not providing sources when you reverted to an article that was claiming incredibly biased and controversial information as true without any sources of its own. I am reverting back to my version. If you have a problem with it, you should get sources for those things you want to reintroduce, not just assert your side as true and ignore that the other side even exists. DreamGuy 17:51, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

(This user tells us that besides mythology, his other interest is Jack the Ripper, where, one hopes, he is culturally better equipped. "A little learning is a dangerous thing," Alexander Pope said: "Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring. There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, And drinking largely sobers us again." A look at the page History shows what has been subverted by this intoxicated brain who has apparently read one book, but can't recall its title... --Wetman 22:01, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Wetman, all you're doing here is making personal attacks. I have read hundreds of mythology books. I am in my non-wiki life an author and scholar of mythology and folklore, having been cited by other authors for my research. If anything, your boorish attacks show how you have an inadequate understanding of the field. I am, in fact, a recognized expert in the field, for crying out loud. All you've done is whine about my edits, insulted me, and made stupid insunations. You should just give it a rest and try to live up to the scholarly goals of Wikipedia. DreamGuy 03:29, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
This user cannot name a single overview of Greek mythology he finds acceptable. Just one title would give us something to follow, since we must all fall in line with this sophmoric "de-bunker". One title, for our education. --Wetman 22:33, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh, grow up. He's hardly the only editor who would prefer the Triple Goddess POV to be kept out of articles' lead sections. -Sean Curtin 02:18, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Clumsy formatting

Part of the point of a longer introduction before introducing subsections was to eliminate the big blank area that has been returned to this entry... --Wetman 05:10, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you mean the empty space between the subsection box on left and mythology links on right, it's not ideal, but I think it's better than having a subsection index box more than halfway down the article. We can probably come up with an introduction that's a little bit longer (two or three paragraphs with multiple sentences), but I can't see throwing the whole mythology article up there, as that defeats the prupose of having the subsection list. DreamGuy 05:21, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Profile Picture

Someone needs to add one, I'm no good at picking out pictures. JONJONAUG 16:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion Gaia is like vedic Mulaprakriti the principal of material, or, so to say "the soul of the element earth" and not the planet earth. I think, that a later degenerated culture the had lost the original meenings maked her mother earth, or the planet earth. aut. Tom Dorbeck

In Greek Mythology

This section should be cleaned up and reworded significantly, with a little background on the significance of Gaia. It seems too inconsistent to someone (like me) not familiar with the context. (I couldn't understand anything for a long time). I feel it also lacks a good flow. --Soumyasch 06:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Such significance is something one has to apply to Gaia, in editorial interpretations based on readings of remarks made by poets: these have been avoided in this opening explication, which sticks close to the written sources to describe Gaia's inherent nature. Gaia does not appear in Hellenic anecdotal narrative: that is to say, Greeks did not relate how Gaia did this and then she did that, as they did in telling of the Trojan War or the exploits of Heracles. So there's little to tell aside from her natural relationships. I'm probably missing the inconsistencies detected in the article. --Wetman 18:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

In Greek Religion

One thing I've been able to glean from reading various sections of Walter Burkert's Greek Religion is that when an ancient Greek god or goddess doesn't do much in mythology, they're usually important in religious rituals instead. The article should include a description of Gaia's significance in the context of ancient ritual, not just neopagan ceremonies. -- D.M. 69.248.116.112 03:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

see also Ge from Γῆ

...see also Ge from Γῆ


Primordial deities missing

Take a look at the primordial deities table. Chronos and some other deities are missing. Nitro4ce 04:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That's why we call it a Misinfobox. --Wetman 09:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
But shouldn't the missing deities be added to the table? Nitro4ce 14:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Uranus

Was Uranus created through parthenogenesis or with Aether? Or are there different sources stating different views? --jftsang 13:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In the stats box to the right of the article, Uranus is listed as both Gaia's consort and child. I believe the child entry should be removed. Kwyjibear (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalilsm??

I don't exactly know why, but this page has been vandalised at least five times last two weeks. It might be a little too early, but I'd like to propose a semi-prot if it keeps up in this pace... -- Bakabaka (talk) 11:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Gea" [sic]

The following, re the self-indulgent insertion of "Gea" as if it were a correct spelling in English— which it is not— is copied here from User talk:Wetman Wetman (talk) 10:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC):

Wetman, what you said is correct but this is true for every word. That is, every term is a modification of more ancient ones. By the way. e is NOT an elision of æ, but a change based on pronunciation (æ was in fact pronunced e like in bed). Gea is used in several middle age documents, whereas Gæa was Latin one. Gea is still used in modern languages as Italian, by the way. I hope this helps.--Dejudicibus (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
It is no more of a "change" than Caesar to Cesar— which is also incorrect in English— or encyclopaedia to encyclopedia. And equally useless to the Wikipedia reader, who may be led to think it is actually an alternative spelling, as it is in fact presented by you as an alternative spelling— rather as if "middle age" were an adjectival equivalent of "medieval". This is copied to Talk:Gaia (mythology), where it belongs. --Wetman (talk) 10:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Citations

I would like to suggest that not only does the section on Neopaganism need "additional citations for verification," but the other sections do as well. For example, "Interpretations" and "In other cultures." -- Lindamulder (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

At the beginning of the third paragraph of the Neo-paganism section it states; "Some who worship Gaia attempt to get closer to Mother Earth by becoming unconcerned with material things and more in tune with nature.". Where is the source for this and what does it even mean? I would think if anything the worship of Gaia would foment an appreciation of material things. [The word material][[1]] may even be etymologically related to the Latin Mater, or "Mother" (as in Terra Mater, Gaia's Roman equivalent).Lily20 (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

"Material Things"

At the beginning of the third paragraph of the Neo-paganism section it states; "Some who worship Gaia attempt to get closer to Mother Earth by becoming unconcerned with material things and more in tune with nature.". Where is the source for this and what does it even mean? I would think if anything the worship of Gaia would foment an appreciation of material things. The word material][[2] may even be etymologically related to the Latin Mater, or "Mother" (as in Terra Mater, Gaia's Roman equivalent).Lily20 (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Still confused by this.Lily20 (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

A Personal Essay. If we stick to reporting what's been published, with cited quotes, few will be confused.--Wetman (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That whole paragraph is very vague and contains no sources. Consider the sentence "Many sects worship Gaia, even more than worship Themis, Artemis, and Hera." for example. I am going to be bold and delete the paragraph. Lily20 (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No one seems to have piped up to support any of it these last months.--Wetman (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Titan?

In the beginning summary it states that that Gaia is a titan. Aren't the titans Gaia's children with Uranus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.252.168 (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

There are no references for the proposed etymology.If in Gaia the root ge is pre-greek and is combined with the proto-greek aia,then the same method could apply for the names of other gods as Uranos and Helios which are considered to be derived from PIE roots.Why the greeks used a local word for the earth,which they knew long ago?It is more possible that the root ge is connected with agricalture.(Sumerian Ki,Akkadian ge,Egyptian geb).In Minoan Creta propably deai meant barley.(Deo=Demeter).Elaia (olive) is a word of an Aegean language (perhaps Cretan).The etymologies of some greek words from PIE are sometimes controversial.Axosman (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In other cultures section

The 'in other cultures' section was about the Earth Mother in general and not the Greek goddess in particular so I moved it to the Earth Mother article. This article is about a Greek goddess and modern usages of the name. Ekwos (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Source and children

The article says that "Some say that children marked with a * were born from Uranus' blood when Cronus defeated him." Who said that? A source is needed.

The list of children clearly combines a few sources. I'm fairly sure that it's not all Hesiod's or Homer's work. I wonder if it would be possible to put signs like $ or # next to each children based on who wrote about them in literature.

ICE77 (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This is all rubbish

Like all religions, this is all a bunch of rubbish and fairy stories. Who made this all up? Who is the original author of this? I would like to see some facts that support any of the dogmatic assertions in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.11.248 (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The ancient greeks made it up. Though your hostility suggests that you're just looking for a fight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.23.238.227 (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

The article asserts:

Most scholars assert that the Doric form da meaning earth is the element of "Δαμάτηρ"

for which it cites Liddell-Scott. That struck me as odd, because the reference for the later "but this is debated" is the Online Etymology Dictionary which quotes Liddell-Scott as labeling this derivation "improbable".

Perseus apparently isn't working very well right now, but if you download the 1883 edition of Liddell-Scott from archive.org and look up "Δαμάτηρ", it informs you that this is a Doric vocative of "Δημήτηρ", and directs you to the entry on "Δα" for further discussion. Under "Δα" we find that the given derivation is as explained by anonymous scholia. Whether this was the view of "most scholars" even in Liddell and Scott's day isn't clear, but even if it were, they were writing in 1882, and this reference cannot be used to support a claim of scholarly consensus today. Liddell and Scott also take care to cite Ahrens (de Dialecto Dorica, p. 80) to the contrary, and at considerable length. We are evidently not to agree with the traditional etymology. We are left with no reliable references for this being even a possible etymology, let alone probable. 192.91.172.42 (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The linked Perseus version of LS also just refers to the scholia. In any case, I'm pretty certain that the 'most scholars' claim is just wrong (and that Demeter's own page accurately summarises the debate as to the etymology), so I've removed it. There does seem to be another issue though: why are we discussing the etymology of Demeter here? Presumably we're reaching towards (but don't quite make) a claim that Demeter can be identified with Gaia, but such a claim wouldn't really belong in a section on the etymology of Gaia. I'm somewhat inclined to delete the whole paragraph. Havelock Jones (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok: no-one's responded to my previous comment, so I'm going to go ahead and delete the section. Only the first sentence is on-topic, and that just replicates information stated in the lead. If anybody has anything interesting and relevant to say about the etymology, feel free to reinstate the section. Havelock Jones (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

On second thoughts, that was probably a bit too drastic, and violated WP:Conserve. I've reinstated the section with the two sentences which are potentially on topic, and also added back the 'ma-ka' citation I previously removed from the lead. I don't understand why 'ma-ka' is said be "transliterated as Ma-Ga", when it's been written as 'ma-ka', and I doubt that "Mother Gaia" can be a good translation, as Gaia is simply a Greek word for Earth. However, that is what the source says.Havelock Jones (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Neopaganism

User:Machine Elf 1735 has just cut most of the content from the section on Neopaganism, which may well be fair enough, as it has been flagged as needing citations for nearly 6 years. However, I can't help thinking that the section as it now stands is too short. Perhaps it should be merged into Interpretations, and that section could be renamed as Gaia in modern culture? Also, I've copied the old section below, in case anyone wants to dig up references.

Many Neopagans actively worship Gaia. Beliefs regarding Gaia vary, ranging from the common Wiccan belief that Gaia is the Earth (or in some cases the spiritual embodiment of the earth, or the Goddess of the Earth), to the broader Neopagan belief that Gaia is the goddess of all creation, a Mother Goddess from which all other gods spring. Gaia is sometimes thought to embody the planets and the Earth, and sometimes thought to embody the entire universe. Worship of Gaia is varied, ranging from prostration to druidic ritual. Unlike Zeus, a roving nomad god of the open sky, Gaia was manifest in enclosed spaces: the house, the courtyard, the womb, the cave. Her sacred animals are the serpent, the lunar bull, the pig, and bees. In her hand the narcotic poppy may be transmuted to a pomegranate.

Havelock Jones (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Did she died?

Cause the introduction is in past tense. Zeus seems to be alive. Darsie42 (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

She was the goddess or personification of the Earth in the ancient Greek religion. I believe that's the usual way of referring to figures in historical religions; certainly that's how most modern sources refer to her. It's inherent to the nature of the Wikipedia that we can't adopt a completely consistent style over all articles.Havelock Jones (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's more common to refer to figures in ancient religion/mythology/literature in the present tense—e.g. Odysseus is a hero from Ithaca, whose son is Telemachus; he returns home to Ithaca from the Trojan War and slaughters the suitors of Penelope in his palace. Gaia is the earth personified as a goddess, and in Hesiod's Theogony she gives birth to the Titans. This usage is, I suppose, an extension of the historical present. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, one sometimes needs to switch between tenses, presenting myth and surviving cult objects in the historical present, and historically attested religious practices in past tense. Of course, when myth and history can't be clearly teased apart, it can all get a little murky, as in Romulus and Remus, which various bods seem to think should be treated as historical narrative, despite all those divine ancestries and interventions (and my own protestations). Haploidavey (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Saying "Actually, it's more common" doesn't make it so. From the books I happen to have to hand, the Britannica (1997) says of Gaia (spelt Gaea) "Cronus separated her [from Uranus], she was also mother of the other Titans;" the Hutchinson Dictionary of World Myth says of her "Gaia, causing life to spring from the earth, was also the sacred energy which endowed some sites with oracular powers. Delphi ... was the site of Gaia's most famous oracle. It became the chief shrine of Apollo after he had killed the dragon Pytho, which Gaia had set to guard it." The historical present is rarely going to be encyclopedic.Havelock Jones (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
And similarly, "After the fall of Troy the returning Greek fleet was scattered by storms, and Odysseus' ships became separated from the main body. Thus began the wanderings recounted in the Odyssey. After the storms Odysseus and his crew came to the city of Cicones, which they sacked" and so on.Havelock Jones (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The point is that either past or historical present is acceptable, as Akhilleus and Haploidavey indicate: Hansen's Classical Mythology from OUP, for instance, uses "Gaia is". The historical present for myth is comparable to using the present tense to talk about literature. It's the difference between saying "Julius Caesar was assassinated on the Ides of March" in reference to the historical figure and "in Shakespeare's play, Julius Caesar is assassinated on the Ides of March" in reference to the character in a literary work. Since Gaia never existed (apologies to believers), she never stopped existing; or to put it another way, she never stopped being the earth goddess of the ancient Greeks. Haploidavey has nuanced it nicely. The historical present might be used in the context of literature or the retelling of a myth: "In Hesiod's Theogony, Gaia gives birth to ... " The past might be used, however, in a construction like "According to Hesiod's Theogony, Gaia gave birth to ... " A finer nuance is the difference between "Gaia was depicted in Greek art" and "Gaia is depicted in Greek art"—the former emphasizes the making of the art by agents in real historical time, while the second emphasizes the content of extant art as one views it now. "Gaia is depicted in Greek art" is analogous to the historical present in writing about a literary work or myth in emphasizing the present experience of the audience. There's just a slight difference of aspect between saying "Gaia was the earth goddess of the ancient Greeks" and "Gaia is the earth goddess of the ancient Greeks", with the latter asserting that the factuality of the statement continues in the present (that is, that Gaia was and is the earth goddess of the ancient Greeks). I have no idea why Havelock Jones thinks this isn't "encyclopedic", since the historical present is actually a fundamental aspect of how myth works.[3] But it seems like a lame thing to argue about, since neither the past tense nor the historical present is incorrect. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

1 February edits

Can somebody with the power to do so please revert the article to its state as of 27th January? 176.225.54.31 has made some rather peculiar edits swapping the names of Kronos and Uranus, which was partially fixed by 76.187.96.84, and then there were some intervening edits regarding the title of the picture, and I'd rather not go through the article by hand. Incidentally, the picture title has been edited several times. I think the issue is that we're using the spelling 'Gaia' in the article, but the artist spelt it 'Gaea', so should we retain that spelling as the title of the picture?Havelock Jones (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted - as a registered user with plenty edits under your belt, you too have the power! It doesn't really matter what spelling or variation the original used, as long as our own identification of the painting complies with the scholarship. For consistency's sake, Gaia seems preferable throughout, and on the whole it seems to be the standard in modern anglophone sources - some online catalogues offer the Gaia spelling, others the other. However that may be, our Wikipedia Commons titles and descriptions of works can't be considered authoritative unless they cite a recognised authority. Very few of them do. Substituting Kronus for Cronus, and Ouranos for Uranus seem to be popular pastimes around here; and substituting Cronus for Uranus (or vice versa) may just be a refreshing new variant of the game. Haploidavey (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

A Possibility of 'Five' Basic Elements?

She [Gaia (Earth)] bore also, besides the goddess Nymphai, the fruitless deep with his [the fruitless deep’s] raging swell, Pontos (Sea), without sweet union of love (without the sweet union of Eros). -Theogony 115 In this we "appear" to have an "inkling" of five elements (earth, air, fire, water, and love): (1) Earth (Gaia; Gaea), (2) Air (Ouranos; Uranus) [Gaea with Uranus giving birth to, all of the seven, Oceanus, Tethys, Cronus, Rhea, Coeus, Phoebe, and Iapetus], (3) Fire (Tartaros; Tartarus) [Gaea with Tartarus giving birth to Typhoeus (according to Hesiod), Typhon and Ekhidna (Echidna)--according to Apollodorus 1.39 & 2.4, and the Gigantes (according to Hyginus' Preface) and the Telekhines (Telchines) according to the Bacchylides Fragment, (4) Water (Pontus) [Gaea with Pontus giving birth to, all of the four, Nereus, Thaumas, Phorcys and Ceto], and (5) Love (Eros) [Sappho, Fragment 198 (from Scholiast on Apollonius of Rhodes) (trans. Campbell, Vol. Greek Lyric I) (C6th B.C.) : "Sappho makes Eros child of Ge (Earth) and Ouranos (Heaven)."]. Earth, then, has "incestuously" had children with "three" of her sons and, possibly, her grandson (Eros). [For more indepth study, refer to: http://www.theoi.com/Protogenos/Gaia.html, http://www.theoi.com/Protogenos/Ouranos.html, http://www.theoi.com/Protogenos/Tartaros.html, http://www.theoi.com/Protogenos/Pontos.html, and http://www.theoi.com/Ouranios/Eros.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.198.51 (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 16 March 2015

An RfC on this question has been opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Extension to RfC and is still ongoing, so no action is necessary at this time. Sunrise (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

– As per long but unanimous discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Disambiguations of divinities, there is a significant POV in regarding present day faiths as "religions" etc. but also regarding previous or less regularly practiced forms of faith as myth. GregKaye 16:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I don't think I can do better than to provide two quotes to address this concern. First, from the template "Mythology note" (all emphasis in original):

Categorising a story as a myth does not necessarily imply that it is untrue. Religion and mythology differ, but have overlapping aspects. Many English speakers understand the terms "myth" and "mythology" to mean fictitious or imaginary. However, according to many dictionary definitions, these terms can also mean a traditional story or narrative that embodies the belief or beliefs of a group of people, and this Wikipedia category should be understood in this sense only. The use of these terms in this category does not imply that any story so categorized is historically true or false or that any belief so embodied is itself either true or false.

Secondly, with an excerpt from a response to your inquiry on this matter elsewhere:

I think this imposes a bias where none existed before. The religion wikiproject has basically unilaterally decided that mythology belongs to them, and the only valid point of view from which to study mythology is a religious one. Those of us interested in the historical, anthropological, artistic and literary aspects of traditional storytelling are apparently wrong and can just pack up and go home.

I hope that Nicknack009 will not mind my quoting them. As these explain, "mythology" should not be taken to mean what this nomination asserts it to mean, that calling something "mythology" is calling it a religious belief that "doesn't count". Since that is the case, this proposal is attempting to fix a problem that is not there. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Egsan Bacon I will also quote the related comments that I also made in the thread you mention which, I believe, present both sides of the issue. This is in reply to your quotation of another editor with wp:canvass attached.
  • "According to the online Oxford dictionary definition of: myth, there seems to be no major problem with the first definition.
1. A traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events:
If this was viewed in isolation there might be no problem as the word might be considered to neutrally present a narrative on a religious theme. I am not sure when or how the second definition definition was developed/was first used but I consider this to present the problem.
2. A widely held but false belief or idea:
The result, I think, is that present day religions are falsely differentiated from previous faiths."
While any use of the word mythology may well have the intention of presenting neutrality, due to connotations generated by the second definition, the word will often not be taken neutrally. Comments made by contributors to the original "#Disambiguations of divinities, who I will not quote or ping, make this clear. GregKaye 08:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that the problem here goes far beyond a mere #Expression of doubt but that the usage goes as far as to WP:ASSERT falsity when the same stance is not adopted with present day faiths. See the articles Creation myth (which I am not necessarily arguing against) and Genesis creation narrative for examples of this.

Oppose - I think that, for the ancient Greeks, Gaia was primarily a mythological (and cosmological) figure, and not a religious one, with little or no religious aspects, no cults, temples, sanctuaries, rites, or religious practices, that I'm aware of. See for example Wlater Burket's Greek Religion, which has no entry for Gaia in its index. So for me "mythology" seems like the better disabiguator. I also oppose changing the lede from "In Greek mythology, ..." to "In ancient Greek religion" as was recently done. Much the same could be said for Uranus. Paul August ☎ 17:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment Other similar moves have already been done: see for example Pontus (mythology). I think these should all be reverted pending the outcome of this discussion. Paul August ☎ 18:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Paul August and have made a request at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves for the reverts to be done. Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose I think Egsan and Paul August both make good points. I also don't see a huge need to impose consistency on articles about gods and mythological figures; was there a crying need to make sure that articles about ancient Greece, India, and Japan all use the same conventions for whatever goes in the parenthesis after the figure's name?
It's also worth saying that calling an ancient religion a "faith" is imposing a modern conception of the nature of religion on the ancient Greeks, Romans, etc. So I'd question this move on that ground also. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment, my argument is that there is currently WP:SYSTEMICBIAS in favour or present day faiths. Present day faiths are automatically classified as "religions" etc. while within Wikipedia previously practised faiths get regularly classified as "myths" and "mythologies". There is no balance here and I think it opens door wider for abuse. At the extreme people bulldose ancient archaeological sites. This all happens in a context in which we endorse the view, in various people's thinking, that their modern belief has validity while everything past is endorsed as being in error. Respect for culture can be absent and can be replaced by systemic disdain. GregKaye 22:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, everyone understands the argument that you are making. But then, everyone in turn is pointing out that this is not the religion issue you perceive it to be. I would argue that ignoring the very nuances that are leading others to tell you that this one-size-fits-all approach to a worldwide collection of different cultures is not "respect for culture", but the opposite of that. As for the suggestion it opens door wider for abuse, and the comment about destroying ancient archaeological sites, if this is a reference to ISIL's destruction of ancient Assyrian artifacts (I know that ISIL-related things are an interest of yours), the expression "not even in the same ballpark" is such an understatement as to be wholly wanting. It is in a building thousands of miles away from the ballpark that isn't designed for any sport at all. What's going on there is not because of how things are phrased here on the English Wikipedia. I don't think it would be putting words in anyone's mouth to suggest that the editors opposing your suggestions are doing so because they like and respect ancient cultures, not because they don't. Egsan Bacon (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Myths, as properly understood, are stories. Stories can be either true or false, or a combination thereof. The Iliad of Homer is full of Greek stories about the Trojan War, involving their gods and their legendary heroes. Whether these are entirely fictional or based on some historical event is unknown. To what extent the ancient Greeks, in whole or in part, believed such stories to be true, is difficult to know. These ancient stories are part of the traditional stories of the ancient Greek culture, and the collective body and study of such stories is called — by the scholars that study them — "Greek mythology". Wikipedia is bound by policy to follow current scholarly usage. Paul August ☎ 00:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Paul August, I don't think anyone is disputing this point. The point is that the descriptor (mythology) doesn't necessarily apply to deities that have no extant mythological literature or material associated with them. And it seems that this might be the case with a large number of the deity articles using this convention. So using "mythology" in disambiguating and naming their articles is not just inaccurate, but seems also to have been previously based on at least some amount of systemic bias stemming from a modern popular understanding of "mythology", rather than the academic usage of the term. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Weak Support. While acknowledging Egsan and other's point that "mythology" can be understood with a neutral meaning, it is nonetheless true that one of the common understandings of "mythology" by the public is that of a fictitious entity. That association, even if partial, is still probably undesirable if the disambiguation can be accomplished without having to bring in issues regarding veracity. For that reason, I think it is generally preferable to use terms like "(god) / (goddess)" in disambiguation rather than "(mythology)". I think "(deity)" is an okay approach, though personally I prefer the gendered terms, at least for cases where gender is unambiguous. Ultimately though, I think it is better to address the "(mythology)" label issue first via a broad discussion that tries to achieve consensus on all sides rather than discussing a few pages at a time. If there is an established consensus for moving away from "(mythology)" then that should resolve most cases, and then we can discuss possible special cases on a individual basis, such as pages where it may be unclear whether or not entity X was generally regarded as a "(god)". The desire to address the broad issue first is why I labeled this as a "weak" support. Dragons flight (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Paul August of course it is a issue pertaining to religion. Gaia was religiously regarded as a goddess while Mars, Saturn and Uranus were all religiously regarded as gods. Please consider results from scholar:

gaia AND deity got "About 4,830"
gaia AND mythology got "About 7,600 results"
mars AND deity got "About 23,700 results"
mars AND mythology got "About 32,900 results"
jupiter AND deity got "About 24,800 results"
jupiter AND mythology got "About 26,900 results"
uranus AND deity got "About 3,730 results"
uranus AND mythology got "About 4,970 results"

Searches in the web in general on one of the figures gave a similar pattern of results. The combined references to similar figures of, for instance, Ancient Greek mythology / Ancient Greek religion as goddesses, gods and deities far outstrips their unfortunately prejudging references of the pertaining to mythology. I honestly thought that this kind of move would be a no brainer. GregKaye 07:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Egsan Bacon Paul August Akhilleus, as parallels to the proposed moves can I ask you what you think would happen if a disambiguation was, for some reason, required for articles such as Allah, Brahman, Jehovah and Krishna? My conjecture is that they would be given disambiguations such as ".. (god)", ".. (deity)" or similar would be used. I do not think that article title for figures of present day belief would ever be allowed along the lines of:
Reasons for objections to these titles would certainly include POV. Do you disagree? Please also see articles such as Holy Spirit (Christianity). Should this be renamed Holy Spirit (mythology)? Even as a now non-religious person, I would object. The second pillar of Wikipedia is NPOV. In the context of this guideline how can this discrepancy be allowed? GregKaye 10:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I find the POV argument uncompelling. This discussion should be about the name of this article, not about trying to impose a uniform convention about disambiguating titles across a range of articles about different time periods, cultures, etc. In general if there's some problem with the name of an article it is best solved locally rather than globally. In this case, Gaia/Gē has few attested cults, if I'm remembering right, and the presence or absence of a figure in religious practice is an important factor in determining whether "Gaia was religiously regarded as a goddess". If this article were solely about Gaia's role in religious practice it would be pretty short, but since Gaia is an important figure in myth (e.g. Hesiod's Theogony) there's actually a lot to say. Her presence in ancient and later art isn't covered in this article, but there's quite a bit of potential material there too. Art shouldn't automatically be equated with religion, nor should myth; the relationship between myth and religious practice is far more complicated than you seem to think. If there's a POV problem here, it's that you're treating ancient Greek religion like a modern religion: you seem to think that mythology is the sacred scripture of the Greeks, just as the Bible is the sacred text for Christianity and Judaism. I'm far more annoyed by this anachronistic attitude than any alleged problem with the article name.
I wouldn't really have a problem if the article were named Gaia (goddess). I find Gaia (deity) really grating. The use of "deity" seems like a dodge to me, an attempt to avoid the reality of polytheism--reducing Zeus, Athena, Apollo to "supernatural beings" rather than gods. Isn't this another way of privileging Christianity, by allowing it to retain "God" while calling Hera a "deity"?
But I don't see any need to change the article title, because there's nothing wrong with Gaia (mythology), and it in fact arguably captures more of the subject matter that ought to be in the article.
Of course, the best title would simply be Gaia...
Oh, and Google Scholar hits are virtually useless. If you actually look at the result pages for those searches, most of the results are not about ancient Greece, or about the literary/artistic legacy of the goddess; they're about the Gaia hypothesis or modern ecofeminist/neopagan ideas. Interesting stuff, but not useful for determining the name of this article. For that, you want to look at scholarship on ancient religion and mythology. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Support: I have no sympathy for the POV argument, but I don't think it is appropriate for deities to be disambiguated with (mythology) because most of them have an existence beyond mythology - some of them (e.g. Victoria (mythology)) have no mythological existence whatsoever. Gaia and Uranus are admittedly probably the characters for whom this argument is weakest, but the rest should change and it seems that having both (mythology) and (god/goddess/deity) will require case by case debates about whether a given character is solely mythological or not. Furius (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This move discussion seems to be part of a larger program to discredit the term "mytholgy" and replace it with the term "religion". See for example these two discussions:

which wants to add the terms "myth" and "mythology" to "words to watch" in WP:LABEL, and

about with these:

Apparently, as part of this program, there has been the systematic replacement of "Greek mythology" with "ancient Greek religion'" in many articles, so for example:this edit (to this articel) [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] and as there seem to be many more like these. I think that these edits need to be identified, examined and possibly reverted. Paul August ☎ 15:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Paul August are you sure that it is not the current Wikipedia editing behaviour, which I question and that other people have questioned on the RfC, which is not out of step. There are mixed comparisons from parallel Encyclopaedia Britannica articles.
Gaea Greek mythology - Gaea, also called Ge, Greek personification of the Earth as a goddess. Mother and wife of Uranus (Heaven), ... (words with the base myth are then not used in the short article).
Mars Roman god - Mars, ancient Roman deity, in importance second only to Jupiter. Little is known of his original character, and that character (chiefly from the cult at Rome) is variously interpreted. It is clear that by historical times he had developed into a god of war; in Roman literature he was protector of Rome, a nation proud in war. ... (The word myth* then first appears in the fifth and last paragraph of the article and is used just twice).
Saturn Roman god - Saturn, Latin Saturnus, in Roman religion, the god of sowing or seed. The Romans equated him with the Greek agricultural deity Cronus. The remains of Saturn’s temple at Rome, eight columns of the pronaos (porch), still dominate the west end of the Forum at the foot of the Clivus Capitolinus. ... (the second paragraph speaks of Roman myth which, clearly, comes in the context of the first paragraph speaking of Roman religion).
Uranus Greek mythology - Uranus, in Greek mythology, the personification of heaven. According to Hesiod’s Theogony, Gaea (Earth), emerging from primeval Chaos, produced Uranus, the Mountains, and the Sea. From Gaea’s subsequent union with Uranus were born the Titans, the Cyclopes, and the Hecatoncheires. (The word myth then appears just once in the three paragraphs). The examples seem to present Greek myth and Roman religion.
All of the parallel Wikipedia articles are disambiguated with "... (mythology)" and make early and repeated reference to "myth". Section titles are written on a base of the word mythology.
Thank you for providing links to the other relevant threads. If anything, I think that it is Wikipedia that is out of touch across articles clearly in comparison to Britannica. However I appreciate that I went too far with some of my edits on Greek divinities. GregKaye 17:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - For this I would reference Religion and mythology article, which distinguishes a difference between a religion and mythology, that while they are some overlapping aspects, mythology is considered a sub-component of religion. The ancient Greek and Roman Mythology that are known and talked about are the compilations of those stories and the characters within them, not specifically related the religion in which the stories may have been told. If you reference the article Ancient Greek religion then you will see that mythology is a smaller component of the larger religion, and being specific that the article of Gaia or any other deity is about the mythology aspect, not about the belief of ritual associated with them, would make the use of mythology a better, more clear description for article titles. WildWikiGuy (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
So we should have separate articles for the non-mythological aspects of Greek and Roman deities? I think this is backwards. Furius (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
There are no non-mythological aspects of the deities, there were practices by the religion based on the mythology of these deities, however the deities themselves are in fact mythology.WildWikiGuy (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
WildWikiGuy Even if we just reference the article Religion and mythology to note that "Religion and mythology differ but have overlapping aspect", I would still like to propose a great many tons of masonry and a plethora of artefacts as evidence that there is a lot more to these subjects than can be solely categorised as "mythology". As you note, in the article Ancient Greek religion we see that mythology is a smaller component of the larger religion. Surely your content indicates support. GregKaye 16:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Similar to above, masonry and artifacts are nothing more than the human creations based on this mythology to either continue to tell the mythological story, or for some religious practice related to the religion, however deity themselves are all mythology. I would also say that mythology is the common name to use given the difference in web search results being almost 4:1 for "Greek Mythology" versus "Ancient Greek Religion", plus it's just shorter and easier to type and has been in this format for how long now? What problem is this actually fixing? Are their some ancient Greeks who are upset?WildWikiGuy (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
WildWikiGuy this is where the WP:SYSTEMICBIAS comes in. Christianity has its churches. Hinduism and other "religions" have their temples. Islam has its Mosques. These are not regarded as evidence of myth but, for whatever reason, as evidence of religion. What do you see as the difference?
Some say that myth developed from religion. Some say that religion developed from myth. Let me point out that Wikipedia has two articles: Chicken and Egg. GregKaye 08:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
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:Gaia/Archive_1&oldid=1136748767"