Talk:Diana (mythology)/Archive 1

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

Be bold

This entry and Artemis need the hands of a team willing to do some bold editing and step on some sensitive toes. Wetman 05:01, 9 Sep 2004 (

Indeed. I'm no expert but I've had a go at a polite rewrite. The Singing Badger 12:52, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia. I would like to know the original sourch of information on the Goddess Diana.

This is not easy to answer. More than 20 people worked on it, generally speaking each one adding a sentence or changing some bit. Each one must have used a different "source of information" — many must have simply used their own knowledge.
However, if there is a particular bit that look to you fishy, that's much easier. Go through the page history (use the history button at the top) and see when it was added and by whom. Then ask that person. People usually respond very nicely to such requests. You might want to read the relevant policy, verifiability. Gadykozma 17:45, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Huntress

Isn't Diana refered to as Diana The Huntress? Spyco 22:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I think the last paragraph beginning with "In Italy the old religion of Stregheria..." needs to be removed entirely as it is certainly an adaptation of Charles Leland's opinions regarding the subject. Perhaps the creation of a Diana(Neo-Pagan_goddess) page would help and prevent any future "tug of wars" such a removal might cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.64.170 (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced second-hand misinformation removed

A recent edit substituted unsourced "interpretive" assertions, such as:

  • Oak groves were especially sacred to her. See Nerni.
  • She was praised for her strength, athletic grace, beauty and her hunting skills. These are modern praises.
  • With two other Roman deities she made up a trinity: Egeria the water nymph, her servant and assistant midwife; and Virbius, the woodland god. No such linking in a "trinity".
  • Diana was worshipped in a temple... at the city of Ephesus where stood the Temple of Artemis. For the Lady of Ephesus, see Temple of Artemis.
  • Diana was regarded with great reverence by lower-class citizens and slaves. Such a specific group of votaries would need a classical reference.
  • Slaves could receive asylum in her temples.
  • In Freemasonry, she is considered a symbol of imagination, sensibility, and the creative insanity of poets and artists.
  • Those who believe that prehistoric peoples lived in matriarchal societies consider Diana to have originated in a mother goddess worshipped at that time, This would be Juno or Ceres. Diana is not a "mother goddess" to a minimally educated person.
  • Dianic Wicca

The following flight of fancy was also moved here: Diana appears frequently as a sculptural figure embellishing commercial buildings of the late 19th and early 20th century. In this use she was appropriated as a symbol for commercial activity, which is a perpetual hunt for profit and advantage. (!!) --Wetman (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Etymology: "Bright? Goddess"

"Bright" has been inserted into the etymological significance of Diana. Is the meaning "bright" actually part of the name? Can we have a reference to a published discussion of the etymology of Diana?--Wetman (talk) 09:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The recent addition to "Etymology" by an IP

Is really very good, but doesn't fit in that section. Instead of reverting it, can we try and source it? And move it to appropriate sections? --Pstanton (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Citations

I'm a little puzzled as to the standards used to judge which statements require cites and which don't. For example, as I find this article the statement, "[t]oday there is a branch of Wicca named for her, which is characterized by an exclusive focus on the feminine aspect of the Divine" is marked as requiring a cite; whereas a statement that 'Wonder Woman' was named Diana after this goddess is not challenged for a reference.

In response to the challenge on the Wiccan statement, I've simply copied over one of the references to The Witch's Voice (Witchvox) from the Dianic Wicca article. I assume that will suffice - although I don't know whether Witchvox is generally considered a suitable point of reference it is a prominent resource for the Wiccan community and therefore it seems reasonable to use it. - Laterensis (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Bit of vandalism

Her name was given in the first sentence as "Diana Akopyan". Slight error: according to Google, Diana Akopyan is a dentist in Los Angeles. This bit of vandalism lasted for ten weeks ... Andrew Dalby 09:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

antalonian diana

i have to ask, what would the 'antalonian depiction of diana' look like? it is specified nowhere in the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.82.230.165 (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Diana, not Artemis

We have an article on Artemis; it's not very good either, but it exists. This article should be on the Roman cult and myths: One of the chief statements in it should be that Diana was, relatively early, used as the Latin translation of Artemis, and all of the myths of Artemis were told of Diana; but that being said, with a cross-link, we don't need to, and we should not, include any more Greek material. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

Where is the etymology of Diana? Who removed it? Böri (talk) 08:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Site of the original sanctuary

In the article it is stated that it is in the nemus aricinum, however this is not the original site, that was the town of Alba before the Romans destroyed itAldrasto (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC).

siblings

how is it possible that it is not mentioned that DIANA's brother is LUCIFER? it IS mentioned that her daughter is ARADIA.

for the nature of this Knowledge, we have little else to cite aside from the Gospel of the Witches - i shall do some research to find more for citation, but it is absolutely right-out fking absurd that LUCIFER is not mentioned here as the LIGHT created as a brother by the darkness DIANA, his sister.

does anyone have any texts which for citation we can use? occultists: this is no time to keep secrets!

Harlequence (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Article In Need Of Major Over-Haul

This is an article on Diana of Mythology, not the Diana of Wicca or Neopaganism, etc.

The article needs major over haul to rid the free-floating Wiccan and occult depictions of the goddess and perhaps place them within their own category.

To keep the article as it is would be a major embarassment.BoyintheMachine (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Diana is in Chanterbury Tales Too.

Diana is in Canterbury Tales. She is in the Knight's Tale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.57.98 (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

not a diety of chastity

she is not a goddess of chastity, and the sentence in the article does not have a source. this is an attribute of Artemis, NOT Diana. if there is no objection, I will remove the offending sentence. Stregamama (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Editing

This article needs rewriting.. Unfortunately I have no access to sufficient material or good thorough surveys. I found a not too recent one by Françoise Hélène Pairault and shall do some work on its basis.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Virgin Goddess?

Are there soures from antiquity that descrbe her as a virgin? I think that Euripidie's plays refer to her, or maybe it was Artemis...?71.71.87.169 (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diana (mythology). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 12 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 15:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

– While Diana, Princess of Wales gets far more hits, it seems most people don't go through Diana to get there and just go directly to the article. Therefore there is no harm in making this the primary topic for Diana per historical precedence and significance as Princess Di is already naturally disambiguated. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

  • The question is: where do readers who reach Diana go next? I don't think we have any statistics on that, but the page views tell us that the Princess is a far more popular destination in general. Certes (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. That is not how primary topics work. —Xezbeth (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Actually, that is how primary topics work, seeing as how Diana (mythology) gets FAR more page views than Diana or any of the other Diana named topics besides Princess Di.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
      • It's the "besides" bit that's the problem. Elvis (1956 album) gets more views than any other Elvis named topic besides Elvis Presley, but it's not the primary topic. Certes (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Unless you are proposing a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT from Diana to Diana, Princess of Wales, your analogy completely fails. -- Netoholic @ 08:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
          • I think there would be a reasonable case for a primary redirect to the princess. Where there are two credible candidates for primary topic, a dab page is usually a good compromise. Certes (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I would be strongly opposed to any proposal to make Princess Diana the primary topic. The goddess has far greater long-term significance than than princess. I would support either making Diana (mythology) the primary topic or keeping the disambiguation page. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: Announcement of this discussion appears at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. Certes (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose (ec) It is indeed a WP:TWODAB situation. And what does that say? Here's the policy: "As discussed above, if an ambiguous term has no primary topic, then that term needs to lead to a disambiguation page. In other words, where no topic is primary, the disambiguation page is placed at the base name." It's hard to argue that a topic only getting 5-10% of the views of another one beats it to be the primary. Thanks for the stat graph, which shows this very clearly. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Xezbeth and Certes. Not a TWODABS situation and the goddess doesn't even top page views. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support' Diana, Princess of Wales is a totally different article title than Diana, and so is not at all in contention or a consideration for what topic should be primary for Diana due to being WP:NATURALDIS. Obviously, due to the popularity, no matter what article is at primary for Diana, we'd have a hatnote to the princess. The mythological figure is the namesake for (not only the princess) but for the rest of the items on the current DAB page. Being a namesake for so much is proof of long-term significance. The mythological figure also dominates pageviews among articles actually in contention for Diana primary. -- Netoholic @ 08:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per Johnbod, whether or not there is a primary topic here, the mythology page is definitely NOT it. Iffy★Chat -- 08:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - in addition to Princess Di, the given name is another very common usage. -Zanhe (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reasons's set out by Johnbod. Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – the current dab page works. Diana, Princess of Wales gets many more views than the goddess, so having the goddess at Diana would disrupted views. CookieMonster755✉ 01:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
    • @CookieMonster755: Did you read my actual nomination? The Diana page doesn't get many views. The overwhelming amount of people go straight to Diana, Princess of Wales, showing that they don't see Diana as short for the princess.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
      • I think Diana should redirect to Diana, Princess of Wales, per PRIMARYTOPIC. CookieMonster755✉ 01:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Very obviously no clear primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move to Diana (goddess)?

The current title "Diana (mythology)" seems too narrow. Mythology is a (small) subsection of the current article, and the page covers much more now including theology, modes of worship, non-mythological historical sources, etc. Wouldn't a better title be Diana (goddess)? Moving it would be slightly tricky because of all the redirects. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Misleading Article

From the title of the page to the very bottom, it is filled with misinformation and general misleading content. Diana, as described in the article, acts more like a character than the Roman goddess Diana or acts as an accumulation of evolving beliefs or spiritual experiments of a group, which needs to be specified. If that latter is the case, Wikipedia is not the place for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.84.193 (talk) 07:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diana_(mythology)/Archive_1&oldid=1060345390"