Talk:Sol Invictus

message: Parts see also through external links are on the page twice  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.199.56 (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "However, given evidence for a substantial Christian population in the empire by Aurelian's reign, an earlier Christian tradition associating March 25 and December 25 with the conception and birth of Jesus respectively, and the already existing use of solar language for Jesus among Christians (based on Malachi 4:2), it is also possible that Aurelian tried to appropriate an existing Christian observance for his festival of the Unconquered Sun."
Quite an assertion! --Wetman 05:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New essay needs citations

message: It would be nice to have a reference for "Aurelian dedicated the Sol Invictus Temple on Dec 25, 274", I'm pretty sure it is correct but don't happen to have a reference at the moment. It might be in the references cited by Gibbon (see link on page). References might be provided in Eliade's Encyclopedia of Religions.
From Catholic Encyclopedia Christmas : "Natalis Invicti. The well-known solar feast, however, of Natalis Invicti, celebrated on 25 December, has a strong claim on the responsibility for our December date. For the history of the solar cult, its position in the Roman Empire, and syncretism with Mithraism, see Cumont's epoch-making "Textes et Monuments" etc., I, ii, 4, 6, p. 355. Mommsen (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, 12, p. 338) has collected the evidence for the feast, which reached its climax of popularity under Aurelian in 274. Filippo del Torre in 1700 first saw its importance; it is marked, as has been said, without addition in Philocalus' Calendar."
* These references in Cumont are wrong.  The reference in the CIL does not mention Aurelian. 84.69.54.28 21:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference

message: "While not officially identified with Mithras, Aurelian's Sol borrowed many features from Mithraism, including the iconographical representation of the god as a beardless youth."
In fact, Sol depicted as a beardless youth hails from Graeco-Roman traditional imagery of Sol/Helios. See any artistic piece of the sun god from the 5th c. b.c.e onwards to see this. It has nothing to do with Mithras; in fact one of the main pieces of evidence that finally demolished the identification of Sol Invictus with Mithras was the complete differences in depiction. Mithras is almost always instantly identifiable by his Persian dress and his act of the tauroctony, Sol is never depicted in this manner.
Also, the identification of Jesus with Sol based on the painting in the Tomb of the Julii is now thought to be highly suspect. In fact, the Christian identification of the tomb is not certain. The 1950's works by Toynbee etc must be viewed with some scepticism now. See 2000, “Language, Metaphor, and the Semiotics of Roman Art: Some Thoughts on Reading the Mosaics of Mausoleum M in the Vatican Necropolis”, BABesch 75, 147-164
The references from the Catholic Encyclopedia for the Tomb of the Julii are outdated, and articles such as the above should be viewed rather than using old sources. No expert now views these as being Christian in origin.
:To the unsigned above:  There are a couple of problems with your post.  First and foremost, your statement of "no expert now views ..." is completely unsupportable.  That means you have either personally talked to the thousands of experts in the field out there (which you have not) or you have a source that has (no such source exists or ever will exist) - all you can accurately say is that those sources you have read support your POV.  Secondly, there are widely disparaging views in academia on this issue still - just because a plethora of recent papers were published to support your POV does not mean the mass of the professionals have bought into this idea in the scholarly world (research and university campus professors.) HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mithras? 

message: At some point someone wrote an essay in the introduction, ignoring the remainder of the article.  I've moved this out -- let's keep the introduction (a) brief and (b) uncontroversial -- to a separate section.
The essay itself contains much very dubious material.  References offered do not consist of scholarship or primary sources, but to general encyclopedias.  It also duplicates other sections on the page. I've therefore pruned it very aggressively down to what seems to be (a) not already discussed (b) not proper to other pages such as Mithras or Christmas and (c) actually factually correct and backed up by works such as Halsberghe.  
The real problem with Sol Invictus is the sheer lack of ancient data, and the quantity of modern myth-making.  If we insist on either primary sources or scholarship, and reference both, that would seem more useful?
If someone reckons more can be rescued, by all means restore it. Roger Pearse 11:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not a specialist of this question, but it seems you are deleting a lot of referenced material here. The fact that the data provided "do not consist of scholarship or primary sources, but to general encyclopedias" is not sufficient in itself, as "general encyclopedias" clearly can be used for referencing purposes, and are often preferable to even primary sources.PHG 06:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well leave the crap in there then.  Silly idiot.  Roger Pearse 14:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One needs an overriding justification, like factual errors, to delete sourced material. The best way to improve the opening is to give it better balance with more rather than less information, sourcing your additions. --Wetman 23:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For what it's worth, I liked RP's ed. It did seem to tidy things up and make it clearer. I think the very short intro followed bya section on dating is a good approach. I also agree with Wetman that we have to be careful about sources but that general sources can be useful and more readable. I am however concerned about using such an old edition of the Catholic Encyclopaedia, especially as the reference link seems to have been 'butchered'. Mercury543210 21:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening essay 

message: The reason I've held fairly fast to the phrase 'more recent' is simply that the Catholic Ency. ref is over 70 years (1917 vs 1991) older than the two refs cited. I'm using 1991 as I believe both the sources cited ref. back to Talley’s book. The original 'scholarly consensus' is being revised (reviewed?) in the light of 'more recent' (yep, that phrase again) work. Hence it seems to be a statement of fact and not POV. If you would prefer another phrase which covers the same territory then please suggest it. Thanks. Mercury543210 22:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More recent not POV? 

message: What is the basis for the RC claim that this epithet, familiar from Iam, Christe, sol iustitiae— demonstrably tenth century but claimed to be Ambrosian of the sixth century in spite of its rhymes!—  was used in the beginning of the third century? Even Catholic Encyclopedia needs to provide a citation. --Wetman 14:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's in Cyprian somewhere. Roger Pearse 13:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sol Iustitiae?

message: This section says that the Catholic Encyclopedia's claim (in 1908) that Christmas was based off of Sol Invictus is "no longer credible."  The question of whether a claim is credible or not is a obviously a point of view.  It does appear that many Christians (including the Pope) now dispute that Christmas was based off of Sol Invictus.  My problem is that the section appears to be implying that the point of view that Sol Invictus was an attempt by the Pagans to co-opt Christmas is right.  This section needs to be balanced with opposing points of view. Life, Liberty, Property (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully this is not a matter of POV but of history. The evidence for the Sol Invictus festival is increasingly that was instituted to distract from the increasingly popular cult of Christianity. The other edits do not belong here, they are about a different festival which shares the same date! I have accordingly removed them. Mercury543210 (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute regarding "use of the phrase" section 

message: The following dubious-looking paragraph plainly doesn't belong in the phrase section, and duplicates stuff lower down.:
:December 21st is and was the date of the winter solstice, which the Romans called bruma.  For three days before the 21st and three days afterward the movement of the sun is imperceptible. The 25th December is the first day that the dawn of the sun can be perceived to have moved North from its most Southerly solstice position. Dies Natalis Solis Invicti was the celebration of the rebirth of the sun, for from then on daylight hours would grow longer and the nights shorter."Sol." Encyclopædia Britannica, Chicago (2006).
The reference to the EB is fake; the EB article contains nothing of the kind.  Someone dumped a series of statements in this section, all with fake references.  I've deleted or moved them all. Roger Pearse 13:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogus stuff in phrase section 

message: I fixed a text repeat which caused all of the text on the page from use of term to Constantine to repeat once. Try to be more careful if your going to edit this page people.
--Stelionis Ignigenae (talk) 10:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixed Text Repeat

message: "In the meantime, the Christians, who had for a long time separated themselves from their Jewish forebears, had made the Day of the Sun their holy day rather than continuing their religious celebrations on the Day of Saturn, the Jewish Sabbath."
Removed above unsourced statement from the article. The evidence from many sources show Christians were worshiping on Sunday long before the time of Constantine. See DA Carson's book From Sabbath to Lord's Day (1999). Lamorak (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "On the first day of the week we came together to break bread" - Acts 20:7 Clearly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.12.43 (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sabbath to Sunday Comment 

message: Was SunDay always the Day of the Sun? Was Helios and or Appollo worshiped on that day? Thanks!(snpmapl120921stcent.)Andreisme (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes confused about SunDay Sol Invictus 

message: The article on Sol Invictus is fatally flawed.
Citing the "Catholic Encyclopedia" in the basic information about Sol Invictus is like taking a Capulet's word regarding the character of a Montague.  The lack of pagan and/or historical references reduces this article to mere propaganda.  It is no more approptiate to cite an overtly Christian source regarding Sol Invictus than it is to cite an overtly Christian source about Ramadan or the Druids or the biography of Buddha.
This needs to be remedied or this article needs to be deleted.
Rimeice (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to Wikipedia. Your neutral report on a more balanced modern published source, cited in a footnote, would improve this article, no doubt.--Wetman (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate Source Material 

message: I removed the following text: 
December 25 is 4 days after the winter solstice (from Latin solstitium, "the sun stays still"), and in this period, with the days starting to become visibly longer and the nights shorter, December 25 would have been a logical date to choose as the day of the rebirth of the sun, imagery then utilized by the Christian community.
because it was patently incorrect. Using the United States Naval Observatory calculations, the sun is above the horizon in Rome, on 12/21/2009, from 0735 through 1642 local time, for a solar day length of 9:07. Civil twilight calculations yield a day of 10:11 of non-night conditions. On 12/25, the sun is above the horizon from 0736 through 1644 local time, for a solar day length of 9:08. Civil twilight calculations yield a day length of 10:11. The days are not noticeably longer on 12/25 than on 12/21. 
Just to extend the concept, I did similar calculations for Fairbanks, AK. Both civil twilight and solar time above the horizon advance only by 2 minutes, not significantly longer. 
We need to keep nonsense speculation out of Wikipedia. Don't quote a supposition (your own or somebody else's), especially when the facts can be readily ascertained! This is Wikipedia, not Wikispeculatoria! John Elder (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Day Length 

message: Um, I've given the article some attention; well OK, quite drastic de-shrubbing. It was quite tricky to read, partly becaiuse the sol/sol invictus debate went rather overboard. Anyway, I'll come back to it. Haploidavey (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: copy-editing proposals

message: People, the header seems to have been vandalised by some person pasting in large chunks of the Mithras article and its references (I recognise my own work!) and linking it with various undocuemnted claims linking Mithras and Sol Invictus.  As far as I know this is almost entirely something suggested by people who don't know Latin and think Mithras Sol Invictus 'must' be Sol Invictus.  The header should anyway be short, not the abomination that was present.  I hope this is OK. Roger Pearse (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added more to the summary, and tried to keep it to 3-4 sentences, all referenced, and highlighting the points of interest. 95.150.209.20 (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism of header 

message: The article states that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) has challenged the theory that December 25 was adopted as the date for Christmas from the existing date of Sol Invictus, arguing that the date was determined simply by calculating nine months after March 25, taken as the day of Jesus's conception (Feast of the Annunciation). This begs the question, then, of how the March 25 date was determined. Is it possible that it was calculated from the December 25 date? — Loadmaster (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If my (poor) memory serves me correctly, wasn't there a mention of the December 25th date somewhere in Sextus Julius Africanus' works? Does anyone have the resources to look it up, and inform me if I was mistaken? -- Ever Confused, StudentInsomniac 06:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to scroll through this Google books link  which discusses the origin of the date, making an interesting point about lingering veneration of the sun by 5th century Christians. Dougweller (talk) 08:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And mentions Sextus Julius Africanus here:  --Dougweller (talk) 08:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  December 25 as Christmas 

message: If there isn't an external source for this clear garbage (as if the Catholic Church would defame it's own festival), I'm removing it. It's uncited, and if uncited, almost certainly a false claim. 98.176.12.43 (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be so zealous. It is cited. The New Catholic Encyclopedia is a standard reference work, found in almost all libraries. 75.15.201.235 (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Catholic Encyclopedia 1967 

message: This is clearly the view of the editor - it may also be the view of the source, but it isn't attributed to the source. The way it is written it is being stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice, which is a breach ofn WP:NPOV. It's also inappropriate in the lead to take sides in this way. It's fine to say "according to X this view has been seriously challenged" in the body of the text, and for the lead to say the view has been challenged (and we don't need a source for that in the lead, all we need is sourced challenges to the view in the body of the article). I hope the editor will remove this. Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Esoglou (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

text: I also agree.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.223.25.180 (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seriously challenged? 

message: "The confusion surrounding Aurelian's reforms has been significant, much of it rooted in the mistaken opinion that he was introducing a new cult, which, as is now clear, he was not. The following constitute the most common errors of fact attributed to Aurelian and his reforms.
..........................
This is not only pure conjecture, but goes against the best evidence available."
I wonder if the article would be easier to follow if it presented the agreed upon conclusions of scholars directly, with less pure conjecture interwoven.
That might then be followed by a section on the previous beliefs now regarded as in error.
Just a thought.  It's an intriguing story.  Thank you.  Wanderer57 (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted. That was all added by a single editor trying to argue a point in violation of WP:NPOV. I've removed it and replaced it with a short summary of the debate from a 2012 source. No details but they can be added later - but should follow our policy of NPOV. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pure Conjecture" 

message: I have reasons to think that the mentioned date 'Constantine decreed (March 7, 321) dies Solis—day of the sun, "Sunday"—as the Roman day of rest [CJ3.12.2]:' is perhaps wrong!
What I found till now:
The theory that Constantine also changed the Sabbath is pure nonsense. According to the great Christian historian Eusebius, Constantine did issue an edict forbidding work on that day throughout the Empire. Here is a copy of that edict: ..
That edict never made it into the Roman law code. According to the Theodosian Code, all Constantine did was close the courts on the day that he called Dies Solis. Here is a copy of that edict:
Emperor Constantine Augustus to Helpidius.
Just as it appears to Us most unseemly that the Day of the Sun (Dies Solis), which is celebrated on account of its own veneration, should be occupied with legal altercations and with noxious controversies of the litigation of contending parties, so it is pleasant and fitting that those acts which are especially desired shall be accomplished on that day. Therefore all men shall have the right to emancipate and to manumit on this festive day, and the legal formalities thereof are not forbidden.
Posted on the fifth day before the nones of July at Cagliari in the year of the second consulship of Crispus and Constantine Caesars. -July 3, 321. ..
Emperor Leo I legislated the first Christian Sabbath law!!
Constantine has been called the first "Christian" Emperor....Nothing could be further from the truth....Emperor Leo I was the first truly Christian Roman Emperor.
In 469, the Emperor passed a law commanding all to cease work on the Christian Sabbath. Catholic Christians needed no law to tell them to observe the Sabbath. Whereever they preached the Gospel, they introduced the 7 day week with the Sabbath Day for Christian worship.
http://www.reformation.org/lords-day-sabbath.html
03.7. =ante diem V (quintum) Nonas Iulias/Quinctilis #-0753 AUC
For several centuries, Christians observed Sunday simply as a day of worship, without being able to give it the specific meaning of Sabbath rest. Only in the fourth century did the civil law of the Roman Empire recognize the weekly recurrence, determining that on "the day of the sun" the judges, the people of the cities and the various trade corporations would not work. (The Edict of Constantine, 3 July 321)
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_05071998_dies-domini_en.html
Edict of Constantine on 3 July 321 CE
http://www.considerthis.net/Files/Textfile/trinity.htm
The Apostolic Letter below Dies Domini was released Tuesday, July 8, 1998 by the Holy Father and deals with reasserting Sundays as God's day when we return to family interests and reserve this sacred day for rest and charity as God intended. .. 
Sunday: Day of Joy, Rest and Solidarity - For several centuries, Christians observed Sunday simply as a day of worship, without being able to give it the specific meaning of Sabbath rest. Only in the fourth century did the civil law of the Roman Empire recognize the weekly recurrence, determining that on "the day of the sun" the judges, the people of the cities and the various trade corporations would not work. (Cf. The Edict of Constantine, 3 July 321: Codex Theodosianus II, tit. 8, 1, ed. T. Mommsen, 12, p. 87; Codex Iustiniani, 3, 12, 2, ed. P. Krueger, p. 248.)
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/July/jul30vic.htm
Wdew (talk) 10:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Constantine

message: Almost half of this article is dedicated to the theme of "Christians didn't steal Christmas", and it cites... the Catholic encyclopaedia for most of its sources, to make an argument that doesn't at all reflect consensus on the subject.
Sol Invictus was a major Roman holiday (amongst others), and much more can be said on the subject. I suggest moving the abovementioned section to an article of its own. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: See for yourself how the Talmud says that the world was actually created on 14 Nisan, that 14 Nisan was the date of the Exodus, and that 14 Nisan was the date both of birth and of death of great figures.  For the apparent contradiction with the celebration of creation on 1 Tishrei, not 14 Nisan, read the explanation Aryeh Kaplan gives in his chapter "Sounding the Shofar of Mercy".  Esoglou (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sol invictus" != "Christians didn't steal Christmas" 

message: Hello all,
This wikipedia page offers quite a bit of argument and evidence on the premise that Christianity did NOT steal from Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, but very little on the arguments/evidence that contribute to the theory that it DID.  I'm not saying that I know one or the other to be true, only that the article comes off looking very biased, looking like a defense of Christianity rather than a presentation of all the facts.  Also, if this article is going to spend so much time to trying to assert that Christianity did not steal from Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, and is therefore a totally original holiday, then Saturnalia should definitely be brought up as an obvious challenge to that assertion.  While it was held on the 17-23 of December (instead of exactly on the 25th), the similarities are too much to dismiss (winter religious holiday, gift giving, partying, caroling in the streets, feasts, etc).  The wiki page for Saturnalia even mentions that it likely influenced Christmas celebrations.
Again, I am not saying I know the truth of the matter one way or the other.  Only that I am accustomed to wiki pages appearing to present all facts, not look like a total defense of one argument, as this article definitely gives that off.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezmode (talk • contribs) 14:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting idea – if a reliable source could be found for it (read WP:OR).  The fun of the Saturnalia celebration may have influenced some customs that have become linked with Christmas, but it is hard to see it as explaining the origin of the Christian feast.  Perhaps you can find some reliable source that does put forward that idea.  Esoglou (talk) 08:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does seem to be primarily promulagating the contrarian theory that Christmas does not come from Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, somewhat shortchanging the explanation accepted by Catholics for centuries that it was. It would be nice to see somewhat less uneven weighting. Michael-Zero (talk) 21:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Fayenatic london What do you think? Corinne (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appears biased 

message: This picture originally had the caption "Mosaic of Sol or Apollo-Helios ..." (with "Sol" sillily being a piped link to "Sun", rather than to Sol (mythology)). Presumably this was because of the chariot, which often accompanies Apollo-Helios. If that is the case, it would be good to establish the connection in the text, with a source. — Sebastian 08:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apollo-Helios 

message: Section  explains that "Invictus" was a common epithet for several deities, including Jupiter, Mars, Hercules, Apollo, and Silvanus, and goes on to say, citing the same reference, that Sol Invictus and Sol are the same. It also mentions the opposite view, but without a reference. We have no separate articles for the invincible versions of those other deities, so why should we have one for Sol? By contrast, the article Sol (mythology) contains basically just one section that is different from what can be said about Sol Invictus and sometimes even complicates matters by gratuitously distinguishing between the two. (E.g. with the cyclic link to Sol Indiges). I therefore propose merging this article into Sol (mythology).  — Sebastian 10:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear there is no objection to this, so go for it. Either way works for me. —howcheng  {chat} 16:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

text: According to page views, the Invictus page is more popular. I am in favor of leaving both pages as they are.--Frmorrison (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

text: The page views is a quirk of the article having been featured on the Main Page via WP:Selected anniversaries/March 10. It shouldn't have any bearing on the decision to merge. —howcheng  {chat} 22:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

text: From the lead here: "Scholars disagree about whether the new deity was a refoundation of the ancient Latin cult of Sol,[3] a revival of the cult of Elagabalus,[4] or completely new." Johnbod (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge into Sol (mythology) 

message: I recently removed a paragraph consisting of obvious WP:OR.
:"However, better scholarship revealed this to be an error. The date of Christmas was set by the date of the Incarnation (that is, the conception of Jesus), which was supposed in the pseudo-Cyprianic work "De Pascha Computus", c. 240, to be March 25, which had for centuries been believed by the Church to be the date of the crucifixion (in spite of the astronomical improbability). Therefore, it cannot be doubted that the date of Christmas comes from the calculation of nine months before the supposed date of the Incarnation, which was itself based on long tradition about the day of the crucifixion. The Feast of the Annunciation was later celebrated on March 25, in agreement with pseudo-Cyprianus."
Unfortunately, there was a similar paragraph at Sol (mythology), and I wonder whether or not they're by the same author. I'm hesitant to wade into as sensitive a topic as this one, but this particular paragraph is unambiguous WP:OR. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obvious Original Research 

message: 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  at Sol (Roman mythology). Indeed, the content here could be inserted to Sol Invictus and take up no more than a single section. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)? Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge with [[Sol (Roman mythology)]] 

message: 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. --Xarm Endris (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the opening