Talk:Thoth/Archive 1

Pronunciation

Does the name rhyme with "pot"? --Yath 22:50, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes.

And Seshat?

Seshat's article describes her as Thoth's consort. Here it says daughter. Clarification? –Hajor 22:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Probably both. On the occasions when Thoth was considered the creator god, he would be technically be father of everything even his wife. Hathor was in the same situation - daughter and wife of Ra. ~~~~ 18:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about Plato?

Is this Egyptian god the same as the one Plato tells about in Phaedrus? It goes by the name of Theuth in the Platonic text. Thank you

Ancient Egyptian gods dating?

"The association with baboons lead to him occasionally being said to be dating Astennu, one of the (male) baboons at the place of judgement in the underworld, and on other occasions, Astennu was said to be Thoth himself."

Is this a typo or are you using the modern American concept of dating to describe a relationship between to ancient mythical gods? Please use a more appropriate term.

The word is modern American/English. But dating is almost as old as sex. --Victim of signature fascism 23:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Format

I found a lot of information on Thoth that I will be adding, but since the article will grow immensely, I think it would be only right to change the format some. I was planning on one as such:

• Intro
• Etymology
• Attributes
• Mythology
• History
  • Earliest Times
  • etc
  • Modern Times
• Thoth in Pop Culture
• Endnotes
• Sources

KV 04:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added a modicum of information, much of the time was taken in adding in Egyptian hieroglyphs and Greek characters..... but much more is to come. I also think I'll have to rewrite the introduction.

KV 06:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

A thought

Just a thought, but will anyone be adding heremes on this page? Zos 05:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

A brief mention will be made, as there is an explanation I found as to the title Thrice Great turning into Hermes Trismegistos

KV 05:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

History

I haven't seen any actual citations for what I moved into the History section, and much of it, looks right now like Original Research. Of course, if someone has stated that reasoning, or it is based upon cited facts which logically must come to that conclusion, it wouldn't be. But, there are no actual citations at all, and I don't know if it comes from the sources listed but not cited below, or if those are old and apply to nothing. So, while I add my citations later for this article in the mythology section, and go work on Maàt and Nut (goddess) for a few days, I'll see if someone can cite that, otherwise I'll have to remove anything I find that conflicts as uncited.

KV 18:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thoth-->Djehuty

I think the name change should be discussed first here as the Greek-derived version is for historical reasons more commonly used in the English language. Similarly, Iesous Khristos and Omeros appear somewhat different in common use. I don't think the issue is Eurocentrism, just familiarity. Let's talk. -TheLateDentarthurdent 07:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved it to Thoth per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Thoth is just much more common. If there's a problem, let's discuss it here first.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved it back as per the fact that an article on Thoth would have to describe Thoth as the Greek transliteration of the name of the Egyptian god Djehuty.... which makes no sense. Thoth is mentioned early on, it redirects here, and the issue of having to ramble on with qualifiers is alleviated. Back when I more than doubled this article's size I fixed that.

KV(Talk) 21:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Shazam

It says here that Thoth is one of the gods behind Shazam's powers (or something to that effect), and that the 'Z' in 'Shazam' stands for Zehuti, an alternate spelling of Djehuty. However, on the Shazam page, it states that the 'Z' represents Zeus.

I'm not an expert on the Shazam comic, but I'm just a casual observer of this discrepancy. It's a comic that has been around for a very long time, so I'd assume that a series dating back to the early part of the century would be more likely to reference the popular Zeus than an alternate spelling of an alternate name for an Egyptian god that most people might not know anything about.

However, I'm not positive if the background story has been changed over time, so I'm not confident to remove this trivia fact.

I have never heard this before. I assume it's wrong. I'm going to remove it ... if someone can source it, it can go back in, but I'm pretty sure it's a fabrication. - CheNuevara 16:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. -999 (Talk) 20:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Djehuty → Thoth … Rationale: Thoth is the much more common version of this god's name, I moved it before but it was moved back by the page's major contributor. I'm filing with requested moves to see what everyone else thinks.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as nominator. As I've said before, the page should be at Thoth per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names).
• Support per naming conventions. SynergeticMaggot 19:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support - after checking the numbers, I have to go with this too. Thoth gets 2.26 million ghits, while Djehuty get only 74,800. Surprisingly, Tahuti gets even less at 32,400 ghits. -999 (Talk) 20:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose because using its correct name is the right thing to do. The name Thoth can redirect to this page. Takhisis 00:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support because "correct name" has no relevance on Wikipedia, but "most common in English" does. This is an encyclopedia, it should be useful, not pedantic. --Dhartung | Talk 03:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support this is after all the English language encyclopedia. --Yath 04:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support for above reasons, though native Egyptian names should stay, but not as article title because interpretation of hieroglyphics and onomastic changes through history are debatable. The primary apellation in Western and, especially, English language history is not. TheLateDentarthurdent 04:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Analogous cases would be Spain being at Reino de España or Mainz Cathedral at Mainzer Dom des heiligen Martins. Guideline is to go with the most common name in the language the article is written in, with redirects from other possibles. - CheNuevara 16:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, Leave Thoth as Redirect: As I've pointed out it would make 0 sense to have to reword the opening to restate it as being the greek transliteration.

KV(Talk) 00:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support; using the name most common in English is policy, and common sense. Septentrionalis 01:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• Comment: You could also start an RfC if the major contributor (I'm assuming this is K.V.) will continue to contest, or maybe you can just do it now to gain further consensus. SynergeticMaggot 20:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• It was a very poor transliteration at that. Thoth does redirect to Djehuty and it is clear in the writing that Thoth redirects to this page. Renaming it Thoth would only end up confusing things. Rather, we should use the actual Egyptian names (rather than adding cultural bias) and making other names used redirect to it for ALL Egyptian deities.

Another problem I saw before I initially moved it was that there were heiroglyphics that said Djehuty but were being stated as saying Thoth for the sake of making it agree with the page.... in fact Thoth could not be accurately displayed in heiroglyphics.

The page name Djehuty is what makes the article clearest with it remaining accurate. The opening statement is "Djehuty, commonly known by the Greek name Thoth, was considered one of the more important gods of the Egyptian pantheon." which is absolutely clear, accurate, and changing the article's name to Thoth would only confuse this, and require the article not be about the god, but about the transliteration!

KV(Talk) 00:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no confusion with other Thoths, so it's quite accurate. There are literally tens of thousands of articles on Wikipedia that use the English name of something and explain the native name in the introduction, e.g. Germany, Sweden, Ireland. We don't put those at Deutschland, Sverige and Eire. --Dhartung | Talk 06:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point. This is, afterall, the English Wikipedia. I just don't see what the fuss is about. Thoth is the more common name. SynergeticMaggot 10:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thoth isn't the English name though. If it is to be the name of any group, it's the Greek name. Thoth and Djehuty could both be considered English names, with Djehuty being a direct transliteration as opposed to Thoth, which was a very poor transliteration.KV(Talk) 16:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, there's no argument about that, I think. It's simply that the WP policy is "most common" not "most correct". To follow this policy, the article needs to be moved according to consensus about how to interpret the policy in this particular case. So far the overwhelming majority is for moving the article. -999 (Talk) 17:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to also point out that I originally changed the name from Thoth to Djehuty when I realized the intro was forced to be horribly written and otherwise unsalvagable.KV(Talk) 17:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the other editors might be able to wordsmith it better. The fact that you don't know how to phrase it yourself is not a particularly compelling argument, certainly not compelling enough to dump WP guidelines on the matter. -999 (Talk) 17:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to work on making a new Naming Convention specific to Egyptian Deities, as per allowed in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) KV(Talk) 18:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

But until then? I mean you do realize that that wont stop consensus here from moving it, and whatever you propose also needs to gain consensus. In which you have about seven votes already from here, to oppose.SynergeticMaggot 19:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Heres a link to K.V.'s proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process page, before it hits the rest of the community: User:King Vegita/WP:Egyptian Deities. SynergeticMaggot 19:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, he put it in the proposed cat! SynergeticMaggot 19:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to state, that as it currently stands, you are right that it technically has to be named Thoth. But I would appreciate if someone could try to reword the intro to make it work for the meantime, and we need to make sure that Djehuty as the Egyptian name is held prominently and that there needs to be some sort of agreement that the heiroglyphics are not changed to say "Thoth in Heiroglyphics" since there is neither a 'o' or 'th' in the Egyptian language and that is not what the heiroglyphs say.

KV(Talk) 01:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there's nothing incompatible with Wikipedia policy or practice with the present intro standing under Thoth; although it should make plainer that what we know directly is the hieroglyphics, and the vowels are therefore less certain. This arrangement is quite common when we are dealing with an English name which is not the local name. Septentrionalis 22:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Since we are now in agreement, shall we not move the page and begin work on the new introduction, which should really include the full difficulty of transcripting the Egyptian (or kmt if we use the aforementioned naming convention, although the vowels can be approximated from Coptic) language, as well as multiple name forms and the onomastic history in Western sources. TheLateDentarthurdent 20:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

References

It's extremely bad form to remove references. There was a time when references did not have to be cited inline in the article. By removing references, you may be making another editor appear to be a plagiarist. Please don't do it. -999 (Talk) 14:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

None of those sources can be guaranteed to be in the article. If they are not cited properly within the article, it reduces the legitimacy of Wikipedia to back statements that cannot be verified with sources that may or may not actually be used within the current article.

KV(Talk) 17:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

References don't have to be used in the article. End of story. Don't take out references. They are a list of reading materials and WP has in the past and I believe still does solicit the addition of references on a topic even if they are not used in the article. Please also see WP:DICK. -999 (Talk) 17:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Then put them in a different section as "additional reading".

KV(Talk) 17:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

on WP:DICK "This is an essay expressing the opinions and ideas of some Wikipedians. While it can help explain and understand existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, this is not an actual policy or guideline. Feel free to update this page as needed, or use the talk page to discuss major changes."KV(Talk) 17:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry KV, I agree with 999. There is no way to tell whether any of the material in the article came from those references. Asking on the talk page is not sufficient to determine anything as editors leave WP all the time, may no longer be editing the article or have taken it off their watch list. Since if someone DID use it as a reference they could be accused of plagiarism if the reference is removed, we must err on the side of caution and leave it in. Please "Sources" is not per the Manual of Style. Sorry. Also, please read WP:3RR before reverting again. Thanks. —Hanuman Das 18:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am well aware of 3RR and only reverted 3 times. Please read up on any policy you point out before you bring it to another's attention.KV(Talk) 18:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Its standard to warn and or address the matter once an editor has reached his 3. SynergeticMaggot 18:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It is done in a manner in violation of WP:CIVIL due to tone. I have been aware of WP:3RR for most of my history here.

KV(Talk) 18:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Tone? He apologized two times while making the comment, and I'm aware of no tone. You might just be a little jumpy. He wasnt violating WP:CIVIL :) SynergeticMaggot 19:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not see this covered in WP:MoS, can someone point out the area where this would be covered?

KV(Talk) 20:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What specifically do you need help with? I doubt you mean 3rr and civil. SynergeticMaggot 20:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Citing Sources#Why sources should be cited which states, "To credit a source for providing useful information and to avoid claims of plagiarism." Can you prove that the source wasn't used for a single idea included in this article? I don't think so. Also, you will note in the same article that all notes on WP are considered footnotes, not endnotes, and should be titled "Notes". -999 (Talk) 20:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not citing a source, that's listing it in a references section, a bibliography. using ref tags is citing, as is using Harvard reference (author name in here, page number, no ref tags). And you haven't pointed out where it states these things, other than the citation mistake.

KV(Talk) 20:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been here a lot longer than you, and things haven't always been done the same way. It used to be that people just listed a reference and were then done with it. I'm not going to argue with you about it. It's simple common sense, something you seem to be oh, nevermind. -999 (Talk) 20:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not it has always been done isn't the question. Wikipedia evolves and in the spirit of WP:IAR, though I'm opposed to it, what makes the encyclopedia better is what should be done. When you say references, that tells people that it is being used in the article, and once you graduate from highschool you need to use actual citations to provide credibility, something the Wiki community is struggling for.

"A bibliography is a list, either indicative or comprehensive, of works" - bibliography

That is what it is. Especially because articles change so much, there is no guarantee that the citation is used at all, and to separate it is only sensible to ensure credibility. What was once used may no longer be used. No one is accusing anyone of plagiarism, and saying that I don't know that this is used anywhere, so let's call it additional reading as a compromise. Wikipedia states that wikipedia's standards are growing, so your lesser standards may not still apply.

KV(Talk) 22:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless you can prove it wasn't used, you can't remove it, period. There are plenty of other editors who will say the same thing, and we will collectively stop you. Do you enjoy beating your head against a wall? Oh, and by the way, imo your above comment is both pedantic and condescending. You're not listening to my argument, but only quibbling about definitions. The distinction you are trying to make is rarely observed on WP. -999 (Talk) 22:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)