Talk:Phoenix (mythology)

message: Why are there various translations for Phoenix?  This is very unencyclopedic, as encyclopedias are intended to provide information for the topic and not translations.  I would not see such a thing in World Book or Britannica.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.79.7.251 (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple Languages

message: Interesting how this article manages to omit the common fact that one of the biggest cities in the U.S. happens to be named after the Phoenix. Intentional oversight, or just laziness? Starlightmusic 08:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Geography

message: "500 or 1461" years? This seems odd, listing two possibilities with one being very specific. porge 11:09, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Herodotus, and most classical authors following him, say 500. One says 1461. Another says 7006. User:Jheald 06:00, 07 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Instead of "depending on the source," I really think the article should actually delineate who says what. I'd help if I knew which was which and I'm too tired to do the research. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 08:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lifespan

message: I have seen several other lifespans for the phoenix. It appears that the ancient writers used a number that seemed appropriate. Pliny the Elder's description, drawn from Manilius, the Senator, says 540 years, and I saw a reference to 12,994 years. I think that a thorough article on the Phoenix would require references to several sources. There may be more external sites that have good information. PLewicke 21:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lifespans

message: Can anyone find the name of the bird in East Africa that the phoenix is supposedly modeled after?  The Jade Knight 05:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inspiration? 

message: In the category of pop culture appearances, may I suggest that Osamu Tezuka manga - I forget its name? I don't know much about it, but it's supposed to be good and it centres on phoenixes. Brutannica 02:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: D'oh! I should do more research before I post these things. It's under the "Artwork" section. Why are comics and anime classified under artwork? That's not all that accurate... Brutannica 02:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Osamu Tezuka

message: There is a lot of repetition in this article, it really needs to be cleaned up.  E.g.  Two sections give explanations of the phoenix in Xmen and Harry Potter. -- Pheonix2og
Yeah, and who the hell cares about harry potter or the xmen?  this article should have as basis in mythology, not in children's fantasy stories.  if you must mention them, create a section about the phoenix in popular culture. Cwiddofer 04:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetition 

message: Just to let you all know, I'm planning a MAJOR revision of this ariticle.  I will be addressing all the issues stated above...and many more.  I've actually gotten some real books out of the library :-)  I will be posting my revision on a subpage when it's done...I'd like everyone's approval before I go replacing the current article.  I'll give you the link when it's ready. ~ Sarabi1701 02:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey everyone, I've started the new phoenix page.  There's not much to it yet, but you can watch the progress here.  Please, don't edit this page.  If you have any ideas or comments, post them in the discussion section.  Thanks!  ~ Sarabi1701 23:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision 

message: Shouldn't the bird have the ligature and the city not?Cameron Nedland 21:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it should not.  I've been researching the phoenix so I can rewrite this article, and nowhere have I seen it written that way...not even in the scholarly works.  ~ Sarabi1701 00:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the article American and British spelling differences seems to disagree.Cameron Nedland 21:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phœnix 

message: There is also a jewish myth about the Pheonix that says that this is the only animel in the garden of eden that hadn't eaten from the fruit of knowledge when eve offered it and thus he became the gurdian of some things ( I'll have the source on monday)--82.81.21.67 21:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pheonix in jewish mytholegy

message: The "In popular culture" section is out of hand - if not technically an indiscriminate collection of information, then at least it emulates one well. I think some severe culling is in order, but let's just talk it over first.hi
For a creature as widely referenced in Western culture as the phoenix is, it appears to be unworkable attempt to list each and every appearance of the word in literature and arts. I propose as a guideline something more or less like
:The mere fact that an author or artists mentions or depicts a phoenix, or names a character after the phoenix, is not in and of itself relevant in this article. On the other hand, the article should mention works where the phoenix motif has spawned independent scholarly interest. Of course this must be sourced with references to relevant secondary literature. Also, mentions of the phoenix in texts from before (say) 1500 AD may be notable in themselves as historic sources.
This should cover arts, literature, songs, movies, et cetera. I'm still not sure what to make of all of the video game references; some people might consider it excessive to demand academic sources for them. Opinions? Henning Makholm 00:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phoenices in popular culture 

message: I've split the article for what I hope are obvious reasons - as Henning Makholm says, it was starting to be dominated by a rather random list. I hope no-one has any objections. The rest has been moved to Phoenix in popular culture. Richard of York 21:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: The Pheonix Arizona article suggests the city was named after the Egyption bird but I thought that I had heard there was a Native American version that was called a Pheonix in translation. Also are all of the birds listed on Fire bird (mythology) dirivatives of the Egyption bird? --Gbleem 03:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phoenix Arizona and the Indians 

message: The "Phoenix Karatedo Association"... Should we understand this as the Phoenix (Arizona) Karatedo Association? If so, is this important?
Alton 19:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification requested 

message: Without a citation to definitively say that Wellington's name came from the ashes of New Zealand Knights, I've added the word "possibly".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.193.237.146 (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wellington Phoenix

message: From where does come the info in the description about phoenix tear's healing power ? I don't remember hearing about that elsewhere than in Harry Potter so I doubt it should be here. It definitely needs a citation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.10.169.190 (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phoenix tears 

message: Why does the "History" section begin with a reference to the Persian simurgh? The simurgh is not the source of the Phoenix myth, nor are the two even very much alike. If either was the inspiration for the other, logically it would have to be the other way around since Egyptian references to the Phoenix predate Persian references to the simurgh by at least a thousand years. While it makes sense to mention the simurgh in the "Related Usage" section (which really ought to be renamed something like "Similar Mythical Creatures"), it makes no sense at all to talk about the simurgh in the "History" of the Phoenix. I propose that the entire first paragraph be removed. FireHorse (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simurgh? 

message: Lampas with phoenix, silk and gold, Iran or Irak, 14th century. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 15:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Textiles

message: The Hoatzin resembles a phoenix quite nicely.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.189.99 (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Hoatzin

message: i've been hearing stuff about a "Black Phoenix" but i can't find any information neither on the internet nor in books... Does anyone know anything about it ?--Fipas11 (talk) 11:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Phoenix 

message: When I was a kid, I have seen a golden bird together with my sister and aunt. So has anyone seen a golden bird with a long tail and golden feathers before? Can anyone tell me what kind of bird this is?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaraki888 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you saw a golden pheasant. Some of them look extremely similar to the description of a phoenix. -- Fyrefly  (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Phoenix bird in Holland? 

message: The link to firebird in the first paragraph leads to a disambiguation page.  I think the links to the various cultures should direct to pages we have on those culture's version of a fire bird, and the link to firebird be removed.  Also, the See Also link to Fire Bird (Mythology) leads to a disambiguation page and should be removed per WP:INTDABLINK JSellers0 (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to Disambiguation Pages 

message: Why is roc listed in the specific legends section? The only things they have in common are being birds and a very slight connection through Garuda. It certainly isn't a version of the phoenix myth. At best, it should go under a See Also heading, but it needs to be removed from its current location. -- Fyrefly  (talk) 18 May 2011 (UTC)
:Ok, I guess I'm removing it then. -- Fyrefly  (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The roc is not a phoenix 

message: Currently, Phoenix is a redirect page to Phoenix (mythology) and to Phoenix, Arizona. I don't have much of a problem with the disambiguation page, but feel that the qualifier "(mythology)" is unnecessary and somewhat backwards, as the city was named after the creature; this is the actual phoenix.24.22.129.215 (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Recently some information was added regarding Hebrew cho. It lacked the appropriate philological context and simply presented the being as simply another form of the Greek phoenix, free of cultural context. It was therefore reverted. I have, however, since created Chol (bible), which previously redirected to this page. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What the 'chol' was is disputed and we cannot present one interpretation as fact. See R. Van den Broek's book  where he says "We are therefore of the opinion that the rabbinical interpretation of Job xxix.18 proves only that the rabbinical world knew the Classical phoenix myth and that there is no evidence whatever to support the view that in this text the word hoi must be translated as phoenix. This is the reason why Job xxix.18 will not be referred to again in this book." I've reverted the material at Chol (bible) (which should be Chole (Bible) and again from this article. Dougweller (talk) 09:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Hebrew ''chol'' 

message: This article seems to have a severe lack of information on the phoenix. The article barely describes what the phoenix is, the defining aspects of the phoenix, the various mythologies that include the phoenix, the symbolism of the phoenix, etc. And for some reason, someone decided it was appropriate to create a description passage on the "Chol" and paste it at the top of the article above the summary -- that belongs as a portion in a mythology section, not at the top of the article. This article is considerably incomplete and is in desperate need of more accurate and concise information from multiple sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orcrist90 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Information 

message: Recently a bunch of stuff was added to the article in a section titled "In Jewish Scripture". I removed it but, by mistake, I left no edit summary. Here's why I removed it: There's no mention of the Phoenix in these sources, but rather a being identified as some sort of analogue via glossing. We can discuss the glossing where it happens, but it is inappropriate to turn this article into an article about a being from another cultural tradition that has been glossed as "phoenix" when brought into English discourse. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion 

message: here I was excepting to find heaps of info (or at least a sentence) on Fawkes and theres nothing. I know theres an article Phoenix in popular culture but we could possibly mention a couple here and then link to the article. thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occurrence in modern literature section? 

message: in the article, chapter "Etymology", I read
   ... which is derived from Classical Latin phoenīx. The Classical Latin phoenīx represents Greek φοῖνιξ phoinīx ...
Now the penultima syllable of a Greek word can only then have a circumflex accent when the ultima is short. Hence either the circumflex accent or the macron over the i in the transliteration of the greek word (or both?) is definitely wrong. 
The new Greek word Φοίνικας has its accent on the antepenultima, which it couldn't if the penultima (the iota) were long. This makes me believe the circumflex is wrong. The German Wikipedia, by the way, has an acute accent: Φοίνιξ. I was unable to find a dictionary online to confirm this; therefore I didnt change the article right away.
Moreover, I still believe (without a good reason, I admit) that the ultima in φοῖνιξ/Φοίνιξ is short, so the macron over the i in the transliteration would be wrong; if it is then I believe the macron over the i in the latin word (both instances) is also wrong. However, I'd like to leave it to a specialist in this field (which I am not) to change the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.177.198.76 (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly a mistake 

message: Could the word "phoenix" be connected with the "Phoebus" (usually translated as "bright") aspect of Apollo? CFLeon (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection with Apollo? 

message: It is conceivable that the Phoenix myth was a product of unearthed fossilized bones of an instinct raptor of paleontological origin, much as discovered dinosaur bones may have inspired dragon legends of medieval Europe. In this aspect, a bird of ancient origin is given life as it is dug up and has come to existence once again, to reenter into consciousness. Thus, the Phoenix has risen from the perished ashes of old to live again.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by The shaman poet (talk • contribs) 06:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: More likely, the origin is connected with what's called "anting". This is a quirk with some birds of rubbing ants on themselves or rolling in ant mounds. In modern times, birds have been seen doing this with lit cigarettes or ashes, or even small bits of vegetation on fire. CFLeon (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basis in reality 

message: Since this thing is compared to a rooster, and connected to Phoenicia, I'd say it's scientific name wouls be Gallus phoenicia, if it were to exist in real life. Booger-mike (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Species 

message: All editors who are mistakenly removing the disambiguation tag from the hatnote, please familiarize yourself with the above policy. This shouldn't be that difficult, I've referenced the above policy twice now. Might I suggest , that you self-revert your incorrect revert?  Thank you. Onel5969 TT me 12:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:INTDABLINK]] 

message: To me when reading the current article, it didn't seem to confer a correct notion of what the phoenix is - based on the definitions given in the Oxford concise dictionary, merriam Webster and dictionary.Com. I have tried to edit this but I did not know that dictionary definitions cannot be cited as sources... In honesty I do not understand why that is but however... If I can find other sources and list them, I would appreciate some feedback and hopefully acceptance of the revision. To me, and agrees by peers it is clearly that the phoenix rises again from its own ashes. Swansickle (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits and revisions 

message: I would like to know exactly what is wrong with including the phoenix reference in the Nag Hammadi material on this page, as three editors so far have done and one has reverted each time.
*Is the passage believed to be fake?
*If not, is the Nag Hammadi corpus of such little scholarly interest that it shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all? (We'd better take that up with the Wikipedia pages on the subject.)
*Are there better translations of this particular passage that should be referred to instead? Where are they? What do they say?
*Is the concern merely that there exist groups of people whose interest in the Nag Hammadi texts is other than scholarly? (If that's the problem, I have bad news for you about the references to Christianity.)
*Perhaps complaints about "revert warriors" might be taken more seriously if those making them were to make constructive corrections rather than revert-warring themselves?
—VeryRarelyStable (talk) 07:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nag Hammadi material 

message: No it was B52! not 32! 104.151.24.36 (talk) 09:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for that? This source supports B32. Favonian (talk) 09:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motif