Talk:Tages

message: "Also Roman spelling Tages. God of wisdom. Mentioned by various Roman authors (Cicero, De Div. ii 50, 51; Ovid, Met. xv 558 ff; Lucan, i 637). He commonly appeared at ploughing-time and taught Etruscans divination. He is either the son or grandson of Tinia (Roman Jove), or he was born directly from a freshly-plowed lot. He was depicted as having two snakes for legs, and some sources claimed that he was a daemon."
I removed this from the list in Etruscan mythology, which was tagged as original work. It cites some Roman authors. These need to be checked out by reading what the author says and then seeing if the conclusions can be drawn from what is said. Then it needs to be worked into an expanded article as Tages is not the least significant figure of Etruscan religion. But that is not why I removed it. A list is a list not a second article. The details if such they are (and some are) belong here in this article. So here it is. In the list I'm following Bonfante's list (so far) so I said some minimal, appropriate thing. The link leads to this article. For the blocking, I seemed to have been blocked from sticking this in the article. OK, you'd rather have it here. Fine.Dave 21:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Badly worded text, insufficiently thought out, dumb usage of lot, but original? How can a few lines of description with three classical references be imagined as "original research? If there is no mention of Tages remaining now at Etruscan mythology, the reader is Wikipedia is being disserved. Dictionary thinking divides subjects into minute bits, like this one, which might as well have been blanked. Who will ever find this here? Not I. --Wetman 12:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blocked? Shocked.

message: I can't remember now what the original issues were; I doubt they are true now. The list was moved to its own article and it contains a link to this article. Seems OK to me. A lot of these "issues" (what issue?) occur over stubs or minimal articles, which, when filled out, make the issue disappear. That may be the case here. So, the time is better spent filling out the article. Also now we have a bottom box listing this article so it isn't going to be neglected. When all the other articles are filled out the issue will not even be one. Incidentally I noticed no one has been working on all the Etruscan articles and I may have found the reason why. The Tages myth it seems springs out of a cult of infanticide. That's right, human sacrifice. I do not know why we are so shocked as nearly all the peoples before 1000 practiced it. It reminds me of the first discovery of human sacrifice on Crete, a shocking event, denied strongly prior to then. I don't know why. The whole end point of a triumph was the slaughter of captives on the capitoline, unless the notable captives could talk the senate out of it. We just ignore these things we do not want to see. How can you give a people a fair shake when you know they sacrificed children? Nevertheless it has to be undertaken; we can;t go through history with blinders on, seeing only what we want to see, not if we want to know the truth and the truth shall set us free.Dave (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Shocking update

message: The translation is not too good and as it appears without citation and apparently is the editor's I am taking the liberty of correcting it. Typically translations are not cited on Wikipedia and editors often translate themselves without anyone making issues of it unless it is a bad one. Rather than plagiarize someone such as de Grummond I am just going to change this translation. If this is all too objectionable we can get a translator whose copyright has expired (provided we give him/her credit).Dave (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Shocking translation

message: I removed this:  "He was depicted as having two snakes for legs,Compare archaic chthonic figures of Greek mythology such as Typhon/Typhoeus, Echidna, Campe, or Cecrops. and some sources claim that he is a daemon." This is unsupported. The part about the snakes for legs comes from a novel by Steven Saylor, and novels are not sources. The Routledge Dictionary shows on p 179 a bronze mirror with an engraved bearded male figure whose lower torso merges into snakes on the rim. Apparently those editors never heard that Tages had no beard (being child-like) and nothing on that mirror identifies it as Tages. That note about the chthonic deity is quite interesting but it is not a source. I am sure someone somewhere makes Tages chthonic but the editor does not state who, where, when or why. For the demon, well, it isn't a demon it is a genius. Back in the 19th century Winckelmann translated by Lodge got a bit overzealous about Tages being the son of Genius and started seeing genii in every winged figure. None of those however are labelled Tages and that the wings represent genius is only his speculation, a theory, let us say, of geniuses. Maybe his own elevated him beyond the evidence. What a genius, we might say. He has taken flight off the earth, the site of Wikipedia, sources and evidence.Dave (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tages the Teufel

message: Tiktok Passport Change 120.89.104.99 (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiktok Passport Change