Talk:Sol Invictus: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia


Article Images

Content deleted Content added

(16 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{OnThisDay|date1=2013-03-07|oldid1=542305297|date2=2015-03-07|oldid2=649956051|date3=2018-03-07|oldid3=828943821|date4=2021-03-07|oldid4=1010567935}}▼

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=

{{WikiProject Religionbanner shell|class=C|importance=Top}}

{{WikiProject HolidaysReligion|classimportance=CTop}}
{{WikiProject Holidays|importance=Mid|Christmas=yes|christmas-importance=High}}

{{WikiProject Christianity|class=C|importance=Mid|christmas=yes|christmas-importance=High}}

{{WikiProject Mythology|class=C|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome|class=start|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject Rome|class=|importance=Top}}

}}

▲{{OnThisDay|date1=2013-03-07|oldid1=542305297|date2=2015-03-07|oldid2=649956051|date3=2018-03-07|oldid3=828943821}}

== Winter Solstice ==

Line 23:

:

:--Ilyushin <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/77.251.156.185|77.251.156.185]] ([[User talk:77.251.156.185|talk]]) 07:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Actually, Pliny the elder (AD 23/4 - 79) in his ''Naturalis Historia'' (18.221, 246, 256, 312) suggested the four cardinal points of the solar year be placed on the eighth day before the Kalends of the (next) month, i.e. 25 March, 24 June, 24 September, and 25 December. According to Philipp Nothaft, citing various sources, these dates soon became "firmly entrenched". Phillip E. Nothaft ''Scandalous Error: Calendar Reform and Calendrical Astronomy in Medieval Europe'' 2018, p. 31. [[User:Kalator Solis|Kalator Solis]] ([[User talk:Kalator Solis|talk]]) 00:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

CheeseDreams: You are probably right that "Sol Invictus" refers to several ''gods'', and those should therefore be distinguished. It is, however, a single ''title'', and it's worth having a history of that title's usage.

Line 131 ⟶ 132:

::: The new version of this article is absolutely shocking and should be reverted to what it was late last year, whoever wrote it has never read Hijmans or Berrens by the look of things. Do not write on academic subjects if you are not up to date in your readings. The section on Sol and Christianity is so wrong as to be laughable. For the last time, there is nothing to indicate that the Tomb of the Julii is a Christian tomb. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/192.43.227.18|192.43.227.18]] ([[User talk:192.43.227.18|talk]]) 04:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

If you have a [[Wikipedia: Reliable sources]], add it, without deleting the current reliable sources. Keep in mind wikipedia policy of [[WP:NOR|No Original Research]]. [[User:75.0.1.106|75.0.1.106]] 08:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

::: The works by Hijmans are almost 10 years old, and Berrens is at least 2-3 years old now and far more reputable than Halsberghe. Even the briefest search on Halsberghe on google will reveal what most experts think of him.

Line 409 ⟶ 410:

Speaking of this picture: I moved it up as a main image for the article, since it is the only colorful one, and one of only two that are solely dedicated to Sol. Or so I thought. I just realized that Hijmans (2009), pp. 567-578, as cited in the {{pslink|Christianity}} section, saw "no explicit religious reference whatever". But if that's true for the charioteer, why would it not be true for other depictions, such as on the repoussé silver disc? To me, this seems a forced, modern culture-centric distinction; to a Roman, both the sun and the Sun god were simply SOL. If Hijmans's claim were true in totality, then it should be moved out of the {{pslink|Christianity}} section. But where? &mdash; [[User:SebastianHelm|Sebastian]] 09:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

== Merge into Sol (mythology) ==

Line 435 ⟶ 438:

== Proposal to merge with [[Sol (Roman mythology)]] ==

{{archive top|1=Closed by [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] "as a snow fail". [[User:Ribbet32|Ribbet32]] ([[User talk:Ribbet32|talk]]) 23:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)}}

[[Sol (Roman mythology)]] seems completely extraneous and unnecessary; not only are there are four separate references in that article's lead substantiating the fact that Sol and Sol Invictus are essentially the same entity, much of [[Sol (Roman mythology)]] unambiguously refers to the [[Sol Invictus]]. I can't think of any good reason to have two articles at this point. I've put up a {{tl|Merge to}} at [[Sol (Roman mythology)]]. Indeed, the content here could be inserted to [[Sol Invictus]] and take up no more than a single section. [[User:Global Cerebral Ischemia|Global Cerebral Ischemia]] ([[User talk:Global Cerebral Ischemia|talk]]) 01:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

:You've set up a different discussion at each page - there needs to be just one, with links at the other. Have you seen the last discussion just above at [[Talk:Sol_Invictus#Merge_into_Sol_(mythology)]]? [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 02:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

<s>"""Agree""" [[User:भारत का प्रतिहार|भारत का प्रतिहार]] ([[User talk:भारत का प्रतिहार|talk]]) 15:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)</s> <small>Blocked sock [[User:Chariotrider555|Chariotrider555]] ([[User talk:Chariotrider555|talk]]) 13:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)</small>

*{{Disagree}}, Sol Invictus has scope to be expanded and has separate coverage on its own. The lead even says {{tq|that scholars disagree about whether the new deity was a refoundation of the ancient Latin cult of Sol}}. The lead in [[Sol (Roman mythology)]] says {{tq|Only in the late Roman Empire, scholars argued, did solar cult re-appear with the arrival in Rome of the Syrian Sol Invictus, perhaps under the influence of the Mithraic mysteries}}. Both must remain as separate articles. - [[User:Suneye1|<span style="color: orange; font-weight:700; text-shadow: 0 0 10px #fbf306;">SUN EYE 1</span>]] 16:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

*{{Disagree}} Why should we delete references to Sol in the [[Roman Republic]]? [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 12:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

*'''Comment'''. If the two deities are to be treated as one, then it might make more sense to merge Sol Invictus into [[Sol (Roman mythology)]] rather than the reverse, given that ''invictus'' would merely an epithet of the original Sol (though I'm not sure how that would interact with [[WP:Common name]], given how frequently the god is known as Sol Invictus). But I'm not sure that scholars universally treat Sol and Sol Invictus as the same, even now, so long after Hijmans' article in 1996 changed the debate. The most recent source I could find on this issue is ''Time in Roman Religion'' by Gary Forsythe, published in 2012. Its discussion of Sol Invictus (beginning on [https://books.google.com/books?id=hTDku_ZQ0JgC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PP1&pg=PA133#v=onepage&q&f=false page 133]), takes Hijmans' arguments into account but still seems to make a distinction between the relatively unimportant god Sol from Republican times and the more significant Sol Invictus, even though Forsythe treats Sol's growth in importance as beginning with Augustus and the ''invictus'' epithet wasn't attached to Sol until the second century. It's a messy situation, and it seems like something that can and probably should be discussed in one place on Wikipedia, but I don't know the sources well enough to say exactly how. [[User:A. Parrot|A. Parrot]] ([[User talk:A. Parrot|talk]]) 23:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' poorly thought-out nomination; as A. Parrot notes, the opposite merge target would make more sense if this was something to go forward with, but I see no persuasive reason to think this is something to go forward with. [[User:Ribbet32|Ribbet32]] ([[User talk:Ribbet32|talk]]) 23:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

*{{Disagree}} The entity of Sol was always regarded by the Romans as such; the more specific "Sol Invictus" became popular in the third century AD (and encouraged by Elagabalus and Aurelian). The difference may not be clear at first glance, or easy to explain in words, but they are distinct enough to have two separate articles. Merry Christmas, [[User:HalfdanRagnarsson|HalfdanRagnarsson]] ([[User talk:HalfdanRagnarsson|talk]]) 04:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

*'''Comment''', Sol Invictus was an Eastern god amalgamated by the Romans with their existing Sol. The problem is that the current Sol article is terrible and gives the impression that only Sol Invictus was important. It is possible to merge the two articles, but only as A. Parrot says (eg. Sol Invictus-->Sol). [[User:T8612|<span style="color:yellow;background-color:navy">T8612</span>]] [[User talk:T8612|(talk)]] 15:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

*'''Strong Oppose''' Clearly two separate subjects.[[User:HAL333|<span style="background:red; color:white; padding:2px; border:1px solid red;">'''HAL'''</span>]][[User talk:HAL333|<span style="background:black; color:white; padding:2px; border:1px solid red;">'''333'''</span>]] 00:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

*I'm closing this, after nearly a month, as a snow fail. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

== Changes to the opening ==

Per [[WP:BOLD]], I made some changes to the opening. I'm not sure that what I ended up with is "good", but I do find the opening easier to follow now. Any changes/thoughts/replies are welcome. --[[User:Xarm Endris|Xarm Endris]] ([[User talk:Xarm Endris|talk]]) 05:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)