Talk:Anemoi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Moved from Talk:Zephyrus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page moved by 23 December 2005 by Silence (talk) : Archived by Moonraker12 (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Roman/Greek Wind Gods merge?

Since this is the only Wikipedia article on the Greek and Roman wind gods that is at all substantial (though it's still not much longer than a stub), I figured I'd ask here: what do you all think about the possibility of merging all the wind god articles into a single article on the lot of them, with individual sections on the different wind directions and their Greek and Roman embodiments and such. I believe this would be more efficient and would provide all the same information in a more compact and readily-accessible form, avoiding redundancies (i.e. all the current wind-god articles repeat the same list of all the other wind-god articles, often filling the bulk of the article's information with repetition) and encouraging expansion of all the different wind-gods by making their articles more immediately accessible to people interested in any of them. Currently, the state of the winds on Wikipedia is:

  • East Wind
  • South Wind
  • Greek: Notus, a four-line stub
  • Roman: Auster, a totally unrelated article (it's an airplane!)
  • West Wind
  • Greek: Zephyrus, a one-page article with a fair amount of information, a nice image, and an audio file; if merged with the other wind gods, would probably help encourage people to increase the size of the other wind god sections to match
  • Roman: Favonius, a one-line stub with a disambiguation to four things named "Favonius" that aren't; could either be made a disambig page (with a link to the general wind-gods page for the deity) or the links could be incorporated into Favonius' section on the wind-gods page since there's only one real page for anything with the name anyway (and presumably all the names derive from the gods' name, indirectly?)
  • South Wind
  • Greek: Boreas, a nice-sized article of a similar size to Zephyrus; not as well-organized or pretty, but has a references section
  • Roman: Aquilo, a redirect to Boreas
  • Southeast Wind
  • Greek:
    Apeliotes
    , a four-line stub
  • Roman:
    Apeliotus
    , a broken link
  • Southwest Wind
  • Greek:
    Lips
    , a disambiguation page (that doesn't currently mention the god anywhere)
  • Roman: Africus, a one-line stub (that is actually completely factually inaccurate, claiming to be the etymological source of Africa even though this is heavily disputed; also, for some reason someone removed the Lips mentioning from this page)
  • Northeast Wind
  • Greek: Kaekias, a broken link
  • Roman:
    Caecius
    , a broken link
  • Northwest Wind
  • Greek: Skiron, a broken link
  • Roman: Corus, a disambiguation page (that doesn't currently mention the god anywhere)

We could also mention other Greek and Roman wind gods in the article who may merit their own article a bit more, like Typhon and Aeolus.

I don't care much where the merged article is; probably the best name would be Anemoi (the Roman equivalent, Venti, is arguably not as common and in any case more likely to be confused with other things; it's currently an article on a network storage system), just because it's more compact, stable, and historically-based than an interprative name like "Greco-Roman wind deities". But anyway, I'd love to hear feedback on this. -Silence 15:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. If a section becomes big enough, it could easily be farmed off back to an individual page, leaving a summary on the Anemoi page. ;) ntennis 15:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly! We can easily eventually have pages for all the winds again, a year or so down the line, once the merger's helped facilitate growth by a few more pages. Or maybe we won't. Either way, this should be a help. So, with that in mind, I've finished creating the Anemoi page; tell me what you think, and do feel free to make any changes you want. If no one objects, I'll change all the above links to redirects to Anemoi. -Silence 18:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Caecius" is incorrect. No such form can be found in any text in www.thelatinlribary.com (which has most Latin texts). Kanjuzi (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-move

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 30 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Knowledge Cleric.-- Previous undated comment added 19.50, 26 April 2020 (UTC).

Above undated message substituted from

talk) 14:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Romanisation of Greek names

Firstly: Great work Silence! Secondly, I'd like to consider the somewhat daunting task of applying one consistent approach to Romanisation of Greek names. I'm not expert but there appears to be two basic systems in use; one that I guess

carpus
bones).

So i'm sorry to present a tricky problem and not offer a great solution! It just sticks out to me when (for example) the caption on the image reads "Zephyros and Hyacinth", using a different spelling system for each name. Obviously this is a broader issue than just this page. See for instance

Similarities between Roman, Greek, and Etruscan mythologies, which contains a list of wikipedia articles on Greek mythological figures. Unforunately, if we had to pick only one spelling, I'm afraid it would have to be the "-us" system as it's just more common. ntennis 01:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Consistency is most important. I'll switch to the Latinized versions of the names. I'd gone with the variants that were closed to Greek simply because we were also discussing the completely Roman versions of each deity, so going with the more Latinized names even for the Greek gods seemed unbalanced, but it's true that this leads to a lot of weird situations, so I've changed to using the "-us" endings almost exclusively. It's also true, and unfortunate, that there's very little consistency on this matter on Wikipedia. At least the current page name we have,
Moirae instead of the more common Fates, etc. Strange stuff. -Silence 02:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

All good now! As an odd aside, the sentence I took from the article to illustrate naming problems had been bugging me; I think the addition of Mopsus and Ampycus is a mistake. Now removed. ntennis 10:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki?

How best to handle the numerous links to foreign Wikipedia pages on the specific wind-gods? The majority of non-English Wikipedias don't have a centralized "wind gods" or "Anemoi" or whatnot page, and all of them have pages on the individual wind deities, so I don't know how best to link to all those pages. Up until now I'm simply listed every page for the individual wind-gods on the main page along with the few general ones that exist (Česky, Español, and Latina), but that's led to a massive number of links. I don't want to simply not link to them from anywhere, because there are lots of good pages for the topic, but I also don't want the interwiki section of the page to be bogged-down and cluttered with countless repetitive and disorganized-seeming links. So, for now I'm moving these Interwiki links to the Talk page until we can work out how to deal with them: -Silence 22:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apeliotes
  • Boreas
  • Eurus
  • Kaikias
  • Lips
  • Notus
  • Skeiron
  • Zephyrus


How about a single line at the end of each section? eg, Eurus:

Interwiki: de, es, fr, he, hu, it, nl, pl, sv, tr

ntennis 00:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with that, but would such an unusual method be acceptable under Wikipedia article-writing style? I've never seen anything like that done on any article; interwiki links outside of the interwiki section are very, very rare. Anyone have any objections, or any support for such a resort? -Silence 04:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline is at

Wikipedia talk:Interlanguage links page. ntennis 07:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The way it is now looks ugly to me, especially the redundant and somewhat
self-referential links to InterWiki (itself a questionable article). I say if the language in question has an article that directly corresponds to this one, like es:Dioses del viento griegos, then no other links to that language are necessary. On the other hand, it appears some of the languages only have articles about certain wind gods and no general article that corresponds to this one, which is a problem. —Keenan Pepper 22:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Thracian Boreas

Thracian Boreas is in Aratus Solis Phaenomena associated with Andromeda, in lines 239-240 possibly with Aries and Pisces, and in 352-358 for secure with Aries, Pisces, Cetus and Andromeda. This should mean that the Thracian Boreas was a certain wind at a certain time of the year, where the said constellations were in a certain position... That Thrace simply was the home of Boreas seems like too simple for me, there must have been a certain seasonal wind causing this belief. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 22:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the Etesian winds, which are northern and awakens at the heliacal rising of Sirius. Then in South West, the opposite direction of the direction of Thrace, where from Boreas blew, as seen from Macedonia where Aratus was active, does Aries, Pisces, Cetus and Andromeda preside high in the heaven, but only just before dawn. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 22:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

inconstant seasons

This article says "Eurus, the east wind, was not associated with any of the three Greek seasons," which is a direct state meant that there are three greek seasons, but the article on greek seasons says that there are four (or arguably 2). But not three. 76.126.215.43 (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Classical compass winds

Hi. I just wrote a rather large article on Classical compass winds, focusing primarily on its geographic construction and assignment by Greek and Roman writers. I skipped over the god stuff, leaving it to be discussed in this one. I don't know much about gods, but I know about winds.And there are a few statements in this article which might need a little revision.

With one or two exceptions, the names of the wind gods given by Hesiod are not used in the same places by later Greek meteorologists/geographers. Boreas was shunted to the NE, Eurus to the SE, with the North wind thereafter named "Aparctius" and the East wind "Apeliotes". Notos & Zephyrus remained in place throughout though. These two shifts cause great difficulties in trying to reconcile Greek & Roman winds. The Romans have equivalent names to the Greek winds (from a geographical-meteorological perspective), but their position is not in the same place given in Hesiod, and that has led to some mistatements in this article:

  1. Aquilo was the Roman Northeast wind, has never been North. Aquilo became equivalent to Boreas only after Boreas was shunted to the NE by the Greek geographers (e.g. Virgil speaks of Boreas and Aquilo as seperate, distinct winds). Septentrio was not an "alternate rarer" name; it was the Roman North wind, the equivalent of Aparctius, used by all Latin authors, and never cited as an alternate for Aquilo. But that's meteorology-geography. I am not sure how Roman theology dealt with Aquilo. Someone should double-check that Aquilo was indeed a Roman god, and are not merely assuming so, because a compass book happens to have both Boreas & Aquilo together (in the northeast).
  2. Eurus/Vulturnus. Another problem Eurus was also displaced and shunted to the SE after Hesiod. Greeks called the East wind Apeliotes, and it is Apeliotes who occupies the E face in the Tower of Winds, Eurus is in the SE position. Now Eurus is indeed equivalent to the Roman SE wind Vulturnus, but I am not sure Vulturnus is a Roman god and seems to be named for geographical reasons (Volturno hills southeast of Rome, not the Tiber, but in the Campania/Abruzzi region)
  3. Auster is indeed South. But I haven't seen a reference equating it to the scirocco (SE). Auster has never been assigned to the southeast. SE winds come under different names - Eurus, Phoenicias, Eurocircias, Euronotus, Euroauster. But Auster is firmly S. The article is correct about Auster bringing heavy clouds and hot miserable weather.
  4. Zephyrus/Favonius is fine.
  5. Spelling of Caecius. I've only seen it spelt "Caecias" in Latin sources. Seneca says there is no Roman equivalent (and cites it in Greek). Pliny writes "Caecias", but has a hard time placing it - given that Aquilo (= Boreas) is NE, he's not quite sure where Caecias goes. Other Roman writers omit him entirely, citing only Aquilo in the NE. A Vatican aemnoscope wrongly says the equivalent of the Greek Caecias is Vulturnus. In short: I'm not sure Caecias is at all found in Roman theology.
  6. Apeliotes is the EAST wind. It has never been anything but the East wind in any Greek or Roman geography. It occupies the East face of the Tower of Winds (Eurus is SE). Eurus was shunted from east to southeast, but Apeliotes has never moved, it is the equinoctal East. (Apeliotes = "from Helos", "from the sun"; the Roman equivalent is "Subsolanus", the East wind). You may cite Eurus and Apeliotes as older & newer variants of East wind, but don't place Apeliotes in SE.
  7. Sciron is a narrowly local Athenian name for geographical reasons - the Sciron rocks in Megaris, northwest of Athens, where the festival was held. I'm not sure of the theological connection - its only cited two places, the Tower of Winds and Aristotle as a local Athenian variant, along with Olympias (for Mt. Olympus). But the most common, dominant name for this wind was "Argestres" ('clear-blowing' NW wind), already alluded to by Homer and mentioned by all Greek geographers. Caurus/Corus happens to be the usual Roman equivalent to Argestres, yes. But I don't know about god stuff though.
  8. Circius is actually a rather significant wind in Roman lore - it is the west Mediterranean Mistral, spoken of in terrifying violent terms by Latin writers. Greeks didn't have him. The closest they in that style (but not direction) was the local SE Phoenicias/Eurocircias/Euroclydon (found in the Bible).
  9. Iapyx seems largely local wind from Apulia, that carries ships to Egypt. Unfortunately, Virgil refers to both Iapyx and Caurus separately, so while both are NW, they don't seem to be the same.

Anyway, sorry for rambling. The only point I want to make is that there is some serious complications about wind gods because Greek geographers shunted Boreas & Eurus out of the positions they had in Hesiod's theogony, and so end up in places where the equivalent Roman winds don't have the same meaning. So you can't rely on a table of compass wind equivalences to deduce god equivalences. You need to check Roman theologies to make sure these wind gods are what the article says they are. I'd make the corrections myself, but I know nothing about gods and wouldn't know where to look to make sure. But I am pretty sure I got the meteorology-geography part correct in the Classical compass winds, which has plenty of direct references to the sources in original Greek & Latin. But those sources, alas, doesn't discuss divinities. Walrasiad (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone make the necessary amendment to include the reference to Apeliotes as the East wind. Please note Walrasiad's comment above: "6.Apeliotes is the EAST wind. It has never been anything but the East wind in any Greek or Roman geography. It occupies the East face of the Tower of Winds (Eurus is SE). Eurus was shunted from east to southeast, but Apeliotes has never moved, it is the equinoctal East. (Apeliotes = "from Helos", "from the sun"; the Roman equivalent is "Subsolanus", the East wind). You may cite Eurus and Apeliotes as older & newer variants of East wind, but don't place Apeliotes in SE."
I would like to make a wiki-link to this article from Tetrabiblos, but currently I can't because it is not acknowledging Apeliotes as the East wind and stating "the east wind, was not associated with any of the three Greek seasons". I'm not sure why it is said that there were only three seasons when there are clear astronomical references to the calendar being quartered by the equinoxes and solstices. Please refer to Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos I.10 (p.59), where the four seasons are listed and associated with the winds:
"the four regions and angles of the horizon, from which originate the winds from the cardinal points, the eastern one likewise excels in dryness because, when the sun is in that region, whatever has been moistened by the night then first begins to be dried; and the winds which blow from it, which we call in general Apeliotes, are without moisture and drying in effect... (and so on for the other winds)."
I feel it would be too much of a liberty for me to make such a substantial change to this article without the previous editors being involved, but would appreciate it if someone could look into this and include a reference to Apeliotes as the East wind, so that I can wiki-link to this page for further refrence. Thanks -- Zac Δ talk! 12:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unequal Treatment

I'm sorry to see that not all the other sensible adjustments have been made, but a minor one seems simple for somebody to do--not me, because I don't have the skill and/or power.

It makes no sense for Zephyrus and Eurus in the first section to link down to their sections of the same article while Boreas and Notus do not.

Please, can this strange imbalance be corrected? GeorgeTSLC (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link: facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.345556012124536.96274.341958475817623&type=3 190.140.192.16 (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.369381016408702.101212.341958475817623&type=3 -190.140.192.16 (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture section

Just added a "Popular culture" section to the article, containing mostly info about the works of Rick Riordan that deal with the Anemoi. If anyone knows of other works with important references to these gods, I'd appreciate an expansion of the section. Thanks, and happy editing! - 2ReinreB2 (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Aquilon'

It shouldn't be necessary to have 'Aquilon redirects here', since 'Aquilon' (which formerly appeared in the article) is an error, now removed. Kanjuzi (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC) I tried to remove the redirect, but failed. A qualified editor should delete the page 'Aquilon', since it prevents readers from looking up other articles which genuinely have Aquilon. Kanjuzi (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Culture section 2

I've included a cultural reference to the lesser Anemoi as featured in The Venture Bros. My inclusion of this information had been removed by user Nikkimaria on the grounds of "rm non-RS" (non-reliable source). Now, although this information is difficult to cite outside of any "fan site" (such is the case with many forms of entertainment), my description contained nothing speculative, opinionated, nor editorialized, and had been detailed in an accurate way.

If this reference can't be included, I'd like to dispute, since there exists no concrete description of these characters in the depth of information as provided within my cite link.

As such, I thought it'd be more appropriate to include a "Citation needed" tag instead of removing the entirety of the info. If this is deemed to still be lacking, I'll understand, but I'd greatly appreciate it if this info would be included. --Rhombuth (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's curious that none of this information about the Investors is mentioned in the article The Venture Bros.. Kanjuzi (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious of this, as well. Any info of these characters tends to be anemic and far from adequate.
Also, after rereading the information I've included, I'm going to be clarifying and re-writing a large portion of it, as it actually is full of speculation and opinion.
If I find any concrete source for the info, I'll be sure to cite it, but, again, it's difficult to find any non-viewer-written description about these characters.--Rhombuth (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boreas

Look at Turkic Bora/Boran < Mongolian Borugan The similarity is startling. There is a Persian word bārān باران and again a similar word to Turkish and Greek ones. Turkic bor/boz a kind of gray.UzunbacakAdem (talk) 10:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC). Uzunbacak Adem[reply]

lol

anemoi 2600:1700:A9B0:ECB0:D401:5556:3BB4:B12B (talk) 03:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Section headings

The headings here have gone through various arrangements over time: in 2016 each Greek name had a section and a Roman subsection; by 2017 the Roman subsection headings had gone, with no mention of the Roman names; in 2019 Boreas had a subsection but none of the others did, and by 2021 Notus (alone) had a Roman name in parenthesis. In seems sensible to have the Roman name in the heading, so I have added it to the others for completeness. I trust everyone is OK with that. Moonraker12 (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal

I propose that the section about Boreas be split into a separate page called Boreas. I believe the content of the section is large and well-sourced enough to make its own page. There are characters in Greek mythology with much less information than Boreas who have their own article. The section about his Roman equivalent would also be moved to that article. @Sapiente and Michael Aurel: Deiadameian (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anemoi&oldid=1204861057"