Talk:Jupiter (god)

message: The intention is to keep this page as focused on the Italic god as much as possible.  The track-record of Roman god-pages is that they tend to accumulate stuff from Ovid that's more relevant to Greek myth.  Someone therefore combined this page with Zeus a while ago, which I think was a wise choice given the material that was there.  I've separated it and added more Rome-specific material.  I'm not the king of Wikipedia, but please consider whether the material you want to add is relevant to Jupiter (god) or Zeus.  Bacchiad 23:44, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: Okay so in latin class we learned that the v sound in latin is prounounced like a "w" sound and j sound  like y. If that's true then isnt Jove the same as Yahweh?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.120.60 (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: In my recent readings of Roman history I've come across a reference to a temple of "Jupiter Trophonius", which is perhaps another one of Jupiter's titles? I'm having trouble finding any information on it specifically. Could anyone help clear this up for me? – Quoth 11:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jupiter Trophonius 

message: I found an epithet. Does anybody know? I heard from the radio, I think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.77.216.252 (talk) 07:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jupiter Exobotanist 

message: Would something about Jupiter Dolichenus be suitable for this page, or would a separate page be better? I see that most epithets of Jupiter have been redirected to this page. --Nantonos 05:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add any epithets you've got to the page; I've done the same recently with Mars (mythology), Mercury (mythology) and Venus (mythology). If the list gets too long, we can easily make a daughter article, Epithets of Jupiter, to list them all. -Silence 07:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jupiter Dolichenus

message: Constructive edits since 23 December 2006 are pitifully few: see my corrective edit today. This article needs closer adult supervision. Semi-protection is apparently unavailable. --Wetman 03:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adult supervision is needed

message: Jupiter was adopted by the Celts after their lands were conquered by the Romans. He was given Celtic epithets in different places, and was also equated with local gods (for example, Jupiter Beissirissa, by a tribe in southern Gaul). Since this article is concentrating on the Italic Jupiter, I was wondering, would be appropriate to list those epithets here, or in a separate article? T@nn 06:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! Discuss them fully here, as an aspect of Jupiter. If any individual sections were to get long enough, they could be cut and pasted to start individual articles. But an encyclopedic treatment belongs here. Keep up the good work! --Wetman 12:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Celtic Jupiter

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: IS A PLANET !!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.123.19.146 (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jupiter 

message: This is taken from the italian wikipedia entry. Anyone with the appropriate knowledge of italian should add this to the article.
===Epiteti===
Questi sono gli epiteti conosciuti di Giove, secondo la lista compilata dallo storico svedese Carl Thulin e riportata dalla Paulys Realencyclopädie (1890), pagine 1142-1144. La sigla O. M. sta per Ottimo Massimo.
Translation:(These are all the known epithets of Jupiter according to the list compiled by the swedish historian Carl Thulin and which appeared in Paulys Realencyclopädie (1890), page 1142-1144. The abbreviation O.M. stands for "All Powerful")
----This translation may be way off because i'm translating from 1 month's failed Italian classes and my spanish knowledge. It looks right though!
:The problem is that a list without context is a dead-end. Many epithets are purely local: to know the locality would be a start. --Wetman (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epithets of Jupiter 

message: Questi sono gli epiteti conosciuti di Giove, secondo la lista compilata dallo storico svedese Carl Thulin e riportata dalla Paulys Realencyclopädie (1890), pagine 1142-1144. La sigla O. M. sta per Ottimo Massimo.
Translation:(These are all the known epithets of Jupiter according to the list compiled by the swedish historian Carl Thulin and which appeared in Paulys Realencyclopädie (1890), page 1142-1144. The abbreviation O.M. stands for "All Powerful")
----This translation may be way off because i'm translating from 1 month's failed Italian classes and my spanish knowledge. It looks right though!
:The problem is that a list without context is a dead-end. Many epithets are purely local: to know the locality would be a start. --Wetman (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Epiteti

message: One of the pictures of Jupiter and juno are inappropriate for kids who do reserach  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.253.197 (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not censored. That said, I am not sure the picture added much. Rather than restore it, I will post it here for now. -- Secisek (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that removal is a decent idea. Primarily, this is because the picture is quite a minor variation on portrayals of Jupiter, while the other pictures in the article give a better impression of how Jupiter is normally shown. Including this image might constitute undue weight. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: If Jupiter has the same root as Tyr, then why is Tyr associated with Mars and not Jupiter? Tiwaz mentions nothing at all about Jupiter - and as Jupiter's associated with Thursday (and not Tuesday), the mention seems to confuse rather than clarify. Any of you have insight or suggestions about this? --moof (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's confusing. Obviously someone's strayed a little off topic there. I'm removing the excessive Tuesday info. I'm not an expert but I believe that Tyr is associated with Mars because of shared characteristics, while, at the same time, he shares an etymological link with Jupiter. Think of it as Dyēu-pəter being the "father" term for both *Tiwaz/Tyr and Jupiter, while Mars and Tyr represent a kind of mythological convergent evolution. I hope this makes things a little less confusing. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  etymology: mention of *Tiwaz? 

message: Jupiter was born on 3 September 1624 dc he had 20 children 10 girls and 10 boys he love them, but they hat to have children with there brothers and sisters. They thought that was right they hade 20 children each,it was a very big family.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.6.64 (talk) 09:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  when Jupiter was born and information on him 

message: The article credits Jupiter with being the father of Proserpina, (whose mother is Ceres). I can find nothing to support this. Jupiter and Ceres? Can anyone? Is this not an error?--Wetman (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Father of Proserpina?

message: Aldrasto (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins   

message: The introductory section was preoccupied with genealogical material; genealogies often differ depending on the tradition (Greek, Roman, "Orphic," etc.), and these were misleading. The sources were of poor quality, and this WP preoccupation with describing the "family" relations of the gods misses the point. Moreover, see Mars (mythology)#Birth: Ovid says plainly that Mars was not the son of Jupiter, but of Juno alone, and I've been unable to find a source that says otherwise. Hesiod, however, says Ares was the  son of Zeus and Hera. 
Many mythology handbooks pass along erroneous information about Roman deities because they assume that everything that's said about the "equivalent" Greek deity is also true of the Roman god. (In some cases, they bizarrely assume the reverse too.)  There's ample high-quality scholarship online that analyze the ancient sources, and actually cites them specifically. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  misleading info in lede 

message: I propose that the date format for this article be reverted back to BC/AD since no discussion of date format change was put onto the talk page. This means that there was a violation of WP:ERA which says "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors." As no reason or consensus was visibly given, I feel that the revert is necessary to ensure that the policy is adhered to without fail.
:Respond to the above anonymous comment: I looked through the article's history from its beginning; this diff seems to be the point at which content with a date was first added. The era convention used is BC. The date is 8 February 2006.  I know there are people who for reasons I will never comprehend care deeply about banishing BC/AD (after, BCE/BC takes the same point of transition), but WP:ERA does not condone an arbitrary change of era in an article of longstanding usage. Having tested my tolerance for tedium searching through the edit history, I hope someone else will take care of this. (As a side note, there is an editor who contributes regularly to topics of Roman religion who sometimes slips and uses the Italian era abbreviations; this is no big deal, but when these are detected, they should be corrected to whichever English era convention is in use in the article, not to the individual preference of the editor who notices the slip.) Cynwolfe (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert date format back to BC/AD 

message: shouldn't someone mention that Jove in latin is "ovah", which became Jehovah = YHWH + Jove ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.170.219 (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted this claim, rather than tagged it. If you've a reliable source for this, please consider posting it here - but see also the Jehovah article. (Apologies for my barely literate edit-summary at the article history - I can barely see what I'm writing this a.m.) Haploidavey (talk) 10:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides the fact that "ovah" isn't anybody's idea of Latin. Varro, for instance, seems to represent Jehovah as IAO, and to make the identification with Jove. But this is Varro's attempt to make sense of the god of the Jews in Roman terms: this is standard Roman operating procedure, to attempt to understand and embrace the gods of others by finding common ground with their own. It is a point of Roman theology, not, one cannot emphasize strongly enough, "evidence" of anything about religious history pertaining to beliefs about either god. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Jehovah comes from putting the reverse vowels for Adonai (Hebrew is written right to left, so the vowel points are always 'backward' to a Latin script reader) over 'YHWH' and transliterating it to English/Dutch/German. This nonsense about Jove might come from the fact that the common Hebrew form 'Yahweh reads 'Jahve' when transliterated into English, and the two sound similar in English pronunciation. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jehovah 

message: I have restored this page to the English spelling. Yes, English derives it from Renaissance Latin, not Augustan inscriptions; but this is a point that should be made in the article, not by the title. (It might be WP:BEANS to point out that the normal inscriptional spelling would be Ivppiter.) It is our business to communicate with anglophones, most of whom don't know Latin. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Jupiter

message: I am very disappointed at reading this article. I was editing Diana and glanced at the articles on Artemis and the temple of A. which are much more substantial. Here Jupiter is barely mentioned without any real attempts at looking  into his theology, cult, worship... It looks Greek issues enjoy much more study and attention. No explanation of Optimus, that of Feretrius is questionable even if referenced: F. from feretrum, in turn from fero.cf. Festus,  = Grabovius, who is taken around on a litter. Feralis, Feralia days of mourning  from carrying coffins or offers to the dead etc.
I may try to edit something  if I have time: the list of epithets is interesting. Did Thulin add an explanation? Not certain it is right though. Elicius he who frees the waters (cf. Indra).Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do so. The article is labeled as needing immediate attention and is included in both the Wikiproject Mythology and WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome lists of articles that need attention. Jupiter is also an important god. LittleJerry (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Good luck. LittleJerry (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why this difference? 

message: Has anybody got access to the RE? This list is almost exhaustive, but as Wetman wrote, without the context it is of little use. Of course other works discuss some of them, however many interesting ones are found only here.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of epithets 

message: Its great that this article is being expanded but some of the text is difficult to read and understand. For example in the political history section it says "some character of Roman history incurred in this fault and were punished for it according to the seriousness of their guilt: Manlius Capitolinus and Furius Camillus". Perhaps a better way of putting it would be "For eample Manlius Capitolinus and Furius Camillus, both had made such claims to kingship and were punished based seriousness of their guilt." Wiki articles need to be written so the layman can understood. 96.35.124.13 (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  some problems 

message: As the list given in the RE is instructive as such I would like to include it in the article even without comment. I am waiting for feedback. If nobody objects I shall include it soon. Hoping to find a secondary source that analyses them one by one.Aldrasto11 (talk) 08:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epithets 

message: I finshed editing, some refinement, addition and citations apart. Feedback welcome!Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the archaic triad section and the Capitoline triad subsection? 96.35.124.13 (talk) 04:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Article

message: Dear 96...: the Ingres is artically opprobrious and conceptually a nihil, thus I decided to remove it and substitute it with Giorgione's "The Tempest" that is a wonderful depiction of the workings of Jupiter according to quite a few scholars. Pls. abstain from changing my eidts without previous discussion from now on. Thanks.Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr A., just popping in here a moment. As you know, I support the removal of the Ingres and its replacement with the Giorgione, for the reasons given at your talk-page. I'll just copypaste Cyn's suggested text as support. If you've not done so already, you'll need to cite the scholarly sources that support this interpretation. Haploidavey (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I do not know many things: 1. How to write the caption, i. e. precisely where to write it. I wrote my idea of it on Cynwolf's talk page. I posted Giorgione yesterday and was it removed... 2. Where to give the scholarly citations that are needed. 3. What text do you wish to copypaste? 4. What is difference between it and the citations you say are required? Thank you for the attention. And pls. do omit that Mr. ...!Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, have attended to those things as best as I can - d'you approve? - and from henceforth, I shall address you strictly as Aldrasto11. Haploidavey (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much. It is fine... and A. shall suffice.Aldrasto11 (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: Joseph Conrad often says in his stories about seamen etc. 'by Jove!'. Is that something only sailors and such said? 81.68.255.36 (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't the place for such inquiries; but I've answered at your talk-page. Haploidavey (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  By Jove! 

message: ===Epithet list===
List of epithets in the Pauly Real Encyclopädie (1890) p. 1142-1144 compiled by Carl Olof Thulin:
 
* Adventus O. M.  (arrival, birth)
* Aetetus O. M.
* Almus
* Amaranus
* Anxurus ("of Anxur, now Terracina")
* Appenninus ("of the Appennines")
* Arcanus (protector of the arca, arcane: at Praeneste)
* Balmarcodes O. M.
* Beellefarus
* Bronton  (thundering)
* Cacunus
* Caelestis O. M. (Heavenly)
* Caelus O. M.
* Capitolinus O. M. ("of the  Capitol")
* Casius ("of  Mount Casius"; worshipped at Antiochia)
* Ciminius (of Mount Ciminus, now Mount Cimino)
* Clitumnus (of river Clitumnus)
* Cohortalis O. M.
* Conservator ("preserver")
* Culminalis O. M.
* Cultor ("cultivator")
* Custos ("protector, warden")
* Damascenus O. M. ("of Damascus)
* Dapalis  (from daps: dinner, banquet)
* Defensor O. M.
* Depulsor O. M.
* Depulsorius O. M.
* Dianus
* Dolichenus ("of  Dolichus"; it is the ancient Teshub of the Hittites)
* Domesticus
* Diovis
* Elicius (who sends forth, elicits)
* Epulo (who gives or takes part in banquets)
* Exsuperantissimus O. M.
* Fagutalis (of the Fagutal: the god had a temple near an old oak there)
* Farreus (from the confarreatio, according to Wissowa and Dumézil.)
* Feretrius  (who is carried around or whom spoils are carried to on a frame or  litter)
* Fidius (fusion with  Dius Fidius)
* Flagius (worshipped at Cuma)
* Frugifer (who bears fruits)
* Fulgur
* Fulgurator
* Fulmen
* Fulminator
* Grabovius (in the Iguvine Tables: who is carried around on a cerimonial litter, from Etruscan crapis cerimonial litter)
* Hammon O. M. (worshipped in the oasis of Siwa)
* Heliopolitanus (of Heliopolis,  present day Baalbek)
* Hercius
* Imbricitor (who soaks in rainwater)
* Impulsor
* Indiges (later the divine identification of Aeneas)
* Inventor
* Invictus
* Iurarius (of oaths)
* Iutor (benefictor, beneficient)
* Iuventas
* Lapis (flintstone: the f. sends sparkles similar to lightning)
* Latiaris
* Liber (who is free, or who frees, also the semen)
* Liberator
* Libertas
* Lucetius (shining, for his lightningbolts)
* Maius (majestic, great) at Tusculum
* Maleciabrudes
* Monitor O. M.  (leader, warner)
* Nundinarius (patron of the nundinae)
* Obsequens (agreeable, complacent)
* Opitulator or Opitulus (reliever)
* Optimus Maximus (O. M.)
* Paganicus
* Pantheus
* Patronus
* Pecunia
* Pistor  (baker)
* Pluvialis (of the rains)
* Poeninus
* Praedator
* Praestes (present, protector) at Tibur
* Praestabilis
* Praestitus
* Propagator O. M.
* Propugnator
* Puer (child)
* Purgator (purifier)
* Purpurio O. M.
* Quirinus (fusion with Quirinus)
* Rector (who rules)
* Redux
* Restitutor
* Ruminus (who breastfeeds)
* Salutaris O. M.
* Savazios (fusion with Sabatius)
* Sempiternus
* Serapis (fusion with Serapis)
* Serenator (who clears the sky)
* Serenus ("clear, serene, calm; happy")
* Servator O. M. ("saviour, preserver, observer")
* Sospes ("saviour")
* Stator
* Striganus
* Succellus (fusion with Celtic god Succellus)
* Summanus
* Tempestas
* Terminus
* Territor  (who scares)
* Tifatinus (of Mount Tifata near Capua)
* Tigillus (beam of the universe)
* Tonans (thundering)
* Tonitrator (who generates thunder)
* Tutator (warden)
* Valens (strong, sound, effective)
* Versor (who overthrows or who pours rain)
* Vesuvius (worshipped at Capua)
* Viminus (of the Viminal Hill place in which the god had a temple)
* Vindex (protector, defensor)
* Vircilinus
:*I moved this list to Epithets of Jupiter after it was excised and posted here; just wanted to make the sequence of events clear. Incidentally, I wish someone would give us a little bio on Thulin, as I've wanted to link to one before too. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excised list 

message: List of epithets in the Pauly Real Encyclopädie (1890) p. 1142-1144 compiled by Carl Olof Thulin:
 
* Adventus O. M.  (arrival, birth)
* Aetetus O. M.
* Almus
* Amaranus
* Anxurus ("of Anxur, now Terracina")
* Appenninus ("of the Appennines")
* Arcanus (protector of the arca, arcane: at Praeneste)
* Balmarcodes O. M.
* Beellefarus
* Bronton  (thundering)
* Cacunus
* Caelestis O. M. (Heavenly)
* Caelus O. M.
* Capitolinus O. M. ("of the  Capitol")
* Casius ("of  Mount Casius"; worshipped at Antiochia)
* Ciminius (of Mount Ciminus, now Mount Cimino)
* Clitumnus (of river Clitumnus)
* Cohortalis O. M.
* Conservator ("preserver")
* Culminalis O. M.
* Cultor ("cultivator")
* Custos ("protector, warden")
* Damascenus O. M. ("of Damascus)
* Dapalis  (from daps: dinner, banquet)
* Defensor O. M.
* Depulsor O. M.
* Depulsorius O. M.
* Dianus
* Dolichenus ("of  Dolichus"; it is the ancient Teshub of the Hittites)
* Domesticus
* Diovis
* Elicius (who sends forth, elicits)
* Epulo (who gives or takes part in banquets)
* Exsuperantissimus O. M.
* Fagutalis (of the Fagutal: the god had a temple near an old oak there)
* Farreus (from the confarreatio, according to Wissowa and Dumézil.)
* Feretrius  (who is carried around or whom spoils are carried to on a frame or  litter)
* Fidius (fusion with  Dius Fidius)
* Flagius (worshipped at Cuma)
* Frugifer (who bears fruits)
* Fulgur
* Fulgurator
* Fulmen
* Fulminator
* Grabovius (in the Iguvine Tables: who is carried around on a cerimonial litter, from Etruscan crapis cerimonial litter)
* Hammon O. M. (worshipped in the oasis of Siwa)
* Heliopolitanus (of Heliopolis,  present day Baalbek)
* Hercius
* Imbricitor (who soaks in rainwater)
* Impulsor
* Indiges (later the divine identification of Aeneas)
* Inventor
* Invictus
* Iurarius (of oaths)
* Iutor (benefictor, beneficient)
* Iuventas
* Lapis (flintstone: the f. sends sparkles similar to lightning)
* Latiaris
* Liber (who is free, or who frees, also the semen)
* Liberator
* Libertas
* Lucetius (shining, for his lightningbolts)
* Maius (majestic, great) at Tusculum
* Maleciabrudes
* Monitor O. M.  (leader, warner)
* Nundinarius (patron of the nundinae)
* Obsequens (agreeable, complacent)
* Opitulator or Opitulus (reliever)
* Optimus Maximus (O. M.)
* Paganicus
* Pantheus
* Patronus
* Pecunia
* Pistor  (baker)
* Pluvialis (of the rains)
* Poeninus
* Praedator
* Praestes (present, protector) at Tibur
* Praestabilis
* Praestitus
* Propagator O. M.
* Propugnator
* Puer (child)
* Purgator (purifier)
* Purpurio O. M.
* Quirinus (fusion with Quirinus)
* Rector (who rules)
* Redux
* Restitutor
* Ruminus (who breastfeeds)
* Salutaris O. M.
* Savazios (fusion with Sabatius)
* Sempiternus
* Serapis (fusion with Serapis)
* Serenator (who clears the sky)
* Serenus ("clear, serene, calm; happy")
* Servator O. M. ("saviour, preserver, observer")
* Sospes ("saviour")
* Stator
* Striganus
* Succellus (fusion with Celtic god Succellus)
* Summanus
* Tempestas
* Terminus
* Territor  (who scares)
* Tifatinus (of Mount Tifata near Capua)
* Tigillus (beam of the universe)
* Tonans (thundering)
* Tonitrator (who generates thunder)
* Tutator (warden)
* Valens (strong, sound, effective)
* Versor (who overthrows or who pours rain)
* Vesuvius (worshipped at Capua)
* Viminus (of the Viminal Hill place in which the god had a temple)
* Vindex (protector, defensor)
* Vircilinus
:*I moved this list to Epithets of Jupiter after it was excised and posted here; just wanted to make the sequence of events clear. Incidentally, I wish someone would give us a little bio on Thulin, as I've wanted to link to one before too. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Epithet list

message: Should the article be called Epithets of Jupiter (at present a redirect to the section here) or List of epithets of Jupiter? I'm leaning toward the former, so that some of the more detailed discussion could also be moved there. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved a great deal of material to Epithets of Jupiter. There is still an enormous amount of copyediting and wikifying to do here, as well as problems with citations. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

text: There is still a section on epithets. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Creating epithets article

message: Since there is a main article on the temple as such, the section here should focus very specifically on what the temple says about Jupiter as a deity, and his cult practice. The architecture of the temple, for instance, seems more appropriate to the main article. The history of the temple, its building and renovation, should also be related directly to the god: that is, why the men who undertook this directed their efforts at Jupiter at this particular time. The article should probably be looked at section by section to find these kinds of duplications, in the process of letting in sunlight by clearing away some of the excessive detail. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temple of Capitoline Jupiter 

message: As I look through the article for copyediting, I begin to see the reason for the edit summary that claimed "99% of the article is OR." This impression is given by sections such as Flamen and flaminica Dialis and Myths, which either have no footnotes at all, or cite only primary sources. When secondary sources are given, I'm troubled by the weight given the theories of Dumézil and Wissowa, whose names appear in the body copy far too often. An encyclopedia article is not the first chapter of a dissertation; the goal is not to rehearse the history of scholarship in the manner of an annotated bibliography, but to present the material as transparently as possible, using footnotes to attribute the source. Of course, on controversial points, or in the case of notable theories (such as Dumézil's), the scholarship itself is pertinent. But if there's too much "he said, she said," the article tends to become bogged down in proper names in a way that's an obstacle to our general readers, the vast majority of whom are not scholars. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyediting and OR 

message: I've attempted to streamline this section, since in some cases there was more material on the individual deity here than in his own article. As elsewhere in this article, the focus should remain on illuminating Jupiter, not engaging in a complete essay on the relationship between the two. I worked my way up to Liber, at which point I found myself unable to continue. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Relation to other gods" 

message: The link in this case is out of question: Roman I. was not known as Hebe when her cult was instituted.Aldrasto11 (talk) 13:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We've no article on Iuventas (goddess). Until that article's written, "Iuventas" automatically redirects to Hebe. I'd suggest a stopgap redirect to Iuventus (god) or even Iuventus (mythology), god forbid, but the redlinks speak for themselves. Haploidavey (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And here again is my point about the sections on individual deities. One often finds in writing an article that a related topic that should be linked to is underdeveloped or nonexistent. The solution is to provide the needed article, not to go off-topic within the article you were originally working on. The section in this article on Dius Fidius had been longer than the main article on the god, which was a mere stub. Because Jupiter has a vast amount of potential material, it would be far better to discuss the connection between the two figures in the article of the more obscure one, which otherwise lacks for content. It's unlikely that a reader coming to Jupiter (mythology) will have even heard of Dius Fidius; it's enough to point to this obscure figure's existence and connection to Jupiter, and to point readers who are interested to the fuller discussion, because there's so much other ground to cover here. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Iuventas is an entity strictly related to Jupiter, so it is natural to present her here as main treat. About Dius Fidius (main article not edited by myself): you seem to forget that this is just another name for Sancus, article that I did edit. If you read Sancus you will understand that Michael Lipka's view that they are two distinct gods is proven wrong both by primary and secondary sources.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iuventas 

message: Just to explain what I think needs to be done here (and what I was trying to do):
One problem is that despite the density and vastness of the article, it still has major gaps that a reader looking up Jupiter might expect or need to have addressed. There is virtually no explanation of the process by which the myths of Zeus were reinterpreted for Jupiter; it's as if Ovid wrote the Fasti, but the Metamorphoses (the far more famous and influential work in the classical tradition) doesn't even exist as far as this article is concerned. St. Augustine appears more than 20 times, Augustus only three. Although the period from the 2nd century BC to the 2nd century AD is what the average person most likely thinks of when she hears "ancient Rome", the approach seems to be (per Dumézil) to reveal the "true" Jupiter who existed before the Second Punic War. Very little is explained of the religious changes that resulted from the new Roman hegemony, or of religion and iconography and myth in the Augustan world, or of Imperial cult, which is mentioned in one sentence only. See, for instance, J. Rufus Fears, "The Cult of Jupiter and Roman Imperial Ideology,"  Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.17.1 (1981).
The pure theology of Jupiter may be fascinating and substantial, but at the same time, the figure of Jupiter has been a topic of "mythology" since at least the time of Plautus's Amphitryon. The first goal of any article is to answer the questions that readers are likely to bring to it, as well as making them aware of aspects of the topic that are utterly new to them. So I agree with both Haploidavey on the need for a structural overhaul, and with Wareh on the density of detail, which can be counterproductive in an overview. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The theology of Jupiter never changed: it was just adapted and exploited by Augustus for his political aims. BTW through the relationship with Venus which you deleted altogether. Again, one thing is what is Roman religion, another the interpretatio graeca that started after 180 BC. This topic may well be interesting to explore per se:  Dumezil too does cite the famous instance of the Amphitruo in connection to Scipio Africanus. However this task will take other space and is it not already long? The bit you removed and do not know where it belongs does develop the political scope of Jupiter's figure, does it not?Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, sorry, neglected to respond to this. It does indeed. I tried looking at it once but will have to give it another go if no one else does. It seems to be a matter of integrating it sentence by sentence into that section. This was one of the passages that repeated some info elsewhere, as Haploidavey pointed out. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance and missing elements 

message: A specific copyediting task I want to call attention to is the formatting of citations. You can't use citations like "Wissowa above" or "see note 22," because the order of information may change. Footnote numbers will certainly change as information is deleted or added. If there is a section listing bibliography, each footnote need only provide enough information for verification: Wissowa plus a date, if there's more than one work by Wissowa used (and Wissowa is always potentially ambiguous with RE). Page numbers must always be given, though. An exception would be if you're summarizing a whole chapter, or the thesis of a book. The impression of OR that the IP noted is due largely to the presence of many interpretational paragraphs without footnotes, or attributed only as thus spake Dumézil. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise the enigmatic parenthetical "hereafter understood" that follows the name of some ancient sources. I'm not sure what this is intended to mean, but if it's supposed to obviate the need for providing a complete citation in subsequent refs, it doesn't (though citation templates do provide ways to do that). Cynwolfe (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Aldrasto is quite right that I deleted the Venus section precipitously. In my defense, it exhibits a problem that I'm finding throughout, what we used to call "burying the lede" in journalism. That is, in many sections the reader is left to wonder "why am I reading this? what's this to do with Jupiter?" Toward the end of a given section, I did sometimes see a glimmer of a belated topic sentence, as here, which I overlooked in my fatigue yesterday. Since Aldrasto is upset about recent edits, this might be a good test passage for collaborative editing. Like, what kind of first sentence can we write that orients the reader to the section topic? Also, the highly interpretive last paragraph (starting Venus is the cause and origin of life) lacks any citation or even a bare attribution.  Cynwolfe (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venus 

message: Does anyone know how to fix this? The options so far seem to be upright but porky, or having a kip - I think the source image needs to be flipped, or something. Haploidavey (talk) 11:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a clue what happened here. (What means "porky"?) So the image was showing up on its side like this in the article when you visited the page this morning? I don't know how to see what caused it. I just checked, and it's showing up on its side at Commons too now. I don't see any changes in its history there that would account for this. Not sure who to ask. Help Desk? Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images? It's like this at Epithets of Jupiter too. I'd like to know what caused it before I go to Commons to fix it. In fact, it might be better to go to the source and ask at the Commons Help desk. If you don't have or want a Commons account, I could ask there. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Porky? Chubby, generously girthed. A sort of Jupiter Imporcitor. I can't figure out what's happened to the image, or when it happened. The file history shows no changes at all. I've a Commons account but seldom use it. I'll ask at the Help desk. Haploidavey (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't notice it yesterday, but I'm not sure I looked at that section. Was definitely not that way on Friday. The "upright" can be used for vertical images to keep them in proportion to your image size default without dictating a width. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Davey, this seems to be something going on at Commons. Click on the image again and follow the link to its page at Commons, where there is now an explanation. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, new software. And some kind soul at the help-desk has placed a request to fix our particular image. Haploidavey (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess when we see it restored here, we'll know to put it back on the page. Since it doesn't show up in the edit history and hence not on a watchlist, I wonder how many other images are affected? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite a few, I'd guess. I'm curious to see what the "upright" syntax does to the image, once the source is fixed. Haploidavey (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes it doesn't do much of anything. Will continue this on your talk page so as not to go off-topic. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you so much for fixing this, Youreallycan! Cynwolfe (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Image fix is sought

message: Why is Wikipedia denigrating Roman religion as mythology? This kind of bias is unacceptable in an encyclopedia. ♆ CUSH ♆ 07:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would've preferred that such articles be named Jupiter (deity) or Jupiter (god), the latter being a redirect, to disambiguate the article from other uses such as planets. That ship sailed long before I was active on Wikipedia, I fear. It's extremely important, however, to keep in mind that Jupiter is not just an archaic god, but had an active mythological tradition in later Western culture, by means of art and literary allusion. So while I agree with your point, I don't see "mythology" as denigration, just not particularly helpful, and an encyclopedic treatment requires coverage of all aspects of such figures. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythology? 

message: As the father of Aigipan, Jove has the epithet "Aegiochus", per the Hyginus Astronomica. Any objections to adding this to the page, and creating a redirect here?192.249.47.181 (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's used in the Iliad/Oddessey too, so I'm just gonna add it. If I do it incorrectly, someone please give me a pointer on how to fix it, thanks!192.249.47.181 (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a rather minor or obscure epithet, and should be added instead to Epithets of Jupiter. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aegiochus 

message: It is likely that name of roman supreme deity Jove is simply a mangled form of Yahwe(h), the jewish rendering of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH). The spelling of Yahweh sounds totally like "Jova", see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:He-YHWH.ogg
After all, legend holds that Rome's founders were the survivors of Troy's homerian siege. Troy was located in Little Asia, not far from ancient judaism and the trojans were known to be allied to the hyxos, a coalition of afro-semitic warrior tribes, which under the leadership of hebrew chieftain Jakub-bei (the biblical Jacob) ransacked Egypt.
It is even possible that word YHWH (for The God) may have been one of the few words of "Ursprache" a.k.a. the ancient unified human language. Such a recognition may be revolutionary, because thus far, propsed vocabulary only includes words for "mundane" items, like body parts, water, soil, etc. and nothing of the spiritual needs of humans. 91.83.33.176 (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shema! 

message: Does any one know which is correct? 
The lead text states Jupiter is the god of Thunder, the text box on the right states Jupiter is the god of Lightning.
Jcardazzi (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Both surely. He is a storm god. Johnbod (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  God of Thunder or Lightning?  

message: I'd be willing to tidy up the references and get rid of the "above" notation, which suffers from the same inherent flaw as "op. cit."; however, am I reading it correctly that the many references to Dumézil's ARR refer to the page numbers of the Italian translation? Q·L·1968 ☿ 21:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Substituted at 20:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: I would suggest that the best translation of this is "the steadfast", as opposed to "the stayer".  "Stayer" is English, but it's not a word in common use and it fails to capture the spirit of the verb "sto" which, in the military context is to "stand firm" or "not waver".  Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translating Jupiter Stator 

message: This article uses the term 'plebs' very frequently. I understand it to be a perjorative shortening of 'plebeians', and even that term could be misconstrued unless it's meant quite seriously. Particularly this section and especially its heading seem wrong to me. Is there a respected classical use for the term 'plebs' (rather than the full term) that I'm ignorant of, or should this be expanded to 'plebeians', here or throughout? Mortee (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Tricky. This has been discussed inconclusively several times in different contexts. See Talk:Plebs#Page move proposal and Talk:Plebs#Requested Move. It's difficult, because of the basically pejorative association of pleb with "low-class", "uncultured" etc in modern English and elite Roman sources. Personally, I tend to follow the tone and intent of whichever source I'm using - translated source, or secondary source, mark you - assuming that's reasonably clear. Thus, "plebeian" in the loose sense of the voting body of Roman "commoners", or the "Plebeian nobility" arising therefrom. "Plebs" when the source is unmistakably snotty, sneering or patronising. Haploidavey (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  At the moment the section I mentioned switches from 'plebeians' to 'plebs' and back again. I can't see any consistency in the switches so I think it would be helpful to either pick a term and stick with it, or pick a point in the section to make a more permanent switch, perhaps explaing 'plebs' the first time it comes up, if it does in the revised version. I'm happy to make an attempt at a change myself but I'm in no way a classicist. Mortee (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor I, but that has never stopped me editing such articles; they've been the main focus of my time on Wikipedia. I agree, one might as well pick a term and stick with it; and I don't think it matters overmuch which one is chosen. There's little-to-no consistency in either form across the subject area. We've a Plebs article, one on Secessions of the plebs etc. Though just to keep this in perspective, this whole article needs some very basic, quite merciless re-editing. Haploidavey (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, cool. I've edited to stick with 'plebs' consistently with a quick 'also known as plebeians' and a link to Plebs to pre-empt any offense. Hopefully that helps. I'll leave the rest of the article to others for now but stick it on my to-do list to see about any other re-editing I might be able to offer :-) Mortee (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plebs 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jupiter (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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060208221243/http://www.museicapitolini.org/en/museo/sezioni.asp?l1=5&l2=3 to http://www.museicapitolini.org/en/museo/sezioni.asp?l1=5&l2=3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: That was a reference to Jupiter "finding himself" in a tricky position with the abolition of Roman kingship. Apparently this is based on something in Dumézil, G., (1996). Archaic Roman religion. Or is it a 1977 edition? Hard to say. I've edited the passage down a little from its former OTT rhetoric. The following links to a near-as-dammit earliest version, which carries a little more info on the early Republican secessio plebis but offers little further idea of where or how things went for Jupiter immediately after the expulsion of kings. My guess is that maybe they just didn't think like Dumézil. Earthly kingship could not be equated to divine kingship; Jupiter being king of the gods, not of Rome. Major deities didn't choose themselves as state deities. The state did the choosing, and if the gods liked the set-up, they moved in. But would anyone object to my removal of the "forbidden, abhorred, and scorned" Dumézil- based part and it's replacement with something a little more modern, and maybe even a little less dramatic?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jupiter_(mythology)&diff=prev&oldid=461924171#cite_ref-227
Haploidavey (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  ..."forbidden, abhorred, and scorned."  

message: The redirect Jupiter(Mythology) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Steel1943 (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Jupiter(Mythology)]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Dies piter has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Edward-Woodrow • talk 18:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Dies piter]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I do not think Japheth should be included in the see also section. There is no mention of any connection in this article, or in the Japheth article. I would assume the association is based on some concept of Japheth as the Genesis progenitor of Europeans and Jupiter as somehow fulfilling the same role euhemeristically but I am unaware of any serious historical belief in such a concept and it comes off as a crank theory that is not mentioned in the relevant article. Thoughts? Cyndane5 (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If the association is not cited to a reliable source, any editor can remove it, or add a citation needed tag. Various policies and guidelines (e.g. WP:DUEWEIGHT, WP:VERIFY, WP:FRINGE) would thank them for doing so.  UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Thank you, I have deleted it. I have carried out further research and the connection is not mainstream to say the least. The best source I could find was Conservapedia, which may very well have been the origin of the idea. That may represent a mistake as the citation on their article seems to be making the argument for an identification of Japeth with the titan Iapetos rather than Jupiter. Cyndane5 (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Should a link to Japheth be included in the see also?

message: :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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below.  Dekimasuよ! 05:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Jupiter (god) →  – Consistency: Revert back to old name in keeping with other Roman deity articles that are followed by "(mythology)" instead of "(god)". See Mars, Mercury, Juno, Venus, Saturn, etc. el.ziade (talkallam) 14:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 7 February 2024