From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Mythology (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ancient Egypt / Egyptian religion  (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Egyptian religion work group (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject Women's History (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the WikiProject for Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors who write Wikipedia's Classics articles. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Religion (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Occult (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Africa / Egypt (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Egypt (marked as Top-importance).
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.

Isis in Freemasonary[edit]

There is no mention of Ashmole's incorporation of the goddess into his syncretic construction of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonary. (talk) 08:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


Can the person who added the "Isis making fellatio to Osiris" picture substantiate it? A search on Google does not return any immediate results. Abdousi 18:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the image. No reference is given and I cannot find any after searching Google. Abdousi 16:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The image is still there! Can whoever put it back justify this idea?Apepch7 08:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

While it is true that anul sex acts etc appear in most Egyptian art because of their religion, I've never seen that picture in all my text books. Usually art w/ Isis is not THAT graphic if it is sexual.

Xuchilbara 09:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

When you think about it she was a very cool person and I am insired by her greatness.I feel bad for her husband, but i see that it makes everything much more...uhh...interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted image as its doubtful - plus on reflection its not even Isis but a mourner (probably wife) of the dead person at his funeral.Apepch7 15:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at the image page? The source is given there: Wörterbuch Sexualität, p. 140, ISBN 3-11-016965-7. IPSOS (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The image is also in the Commons, again attributed with page number and everything. I will restore it to the article, as Wikipedia is not censored. IPSOS (talk) 15:52, 26 July

2007 (UTC)

I think what people wanted was someone to elabrate in the article... Is there a possible way someone could do this?Xuchilbara 17:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't take it out because its graphic! But because it is not accurate and there is no textual justification especially as this is not as far as I can tell a picture of Isis - but a mourner at a funeral - so I IPSOS if you are restoring it then you have to justify it in Egyptological terms.Apepch7 21:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I assume the caption on the image page is derived from the book cited with page number. It's now up to you to show that the source is not reliable. IPSOS (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure the picture seems to come from Wörterbuch Sexualität (which I think means Dictionary of Sexuality - although I don't read German). It is an extract from a larger illustration in the Papyrus of Ani Chapter 1 which shows the funeral procession of Ani. Further to the left is a large group of about ten similarly dressed mourning women making similar gestures. The upright figure is the mummy itself supported by Anubis the god of embalming. Although the dead person became an Osiris N this does not mean that the figure is the god Osiris. The kneeling woman's arm and knee are clearly behind the upright figure and therefore she is on the far side rather than in front of the mummy (although I accept the conventions of Egyptian art make this difficult to be sure about). So to caption this illustration in this way in an article which is supposed to be about Isis is I think misleading, since Isis does nto appear in the picture. It is not the sexual nature of the picture I have a problem with, since the Egyptians used sexual imagery quite a lot (e.g. Nut and Geb, the god Min, Atum's creation myth and so on) and there are illustrations of the mystical conception of Horus by Isis with the dead Osiris - its just that this is not one of them and as far as I know none of them depict fellatio. I have no wish to censer anything or anybody but I think that the article (generally) needs accurate references that go beyond just that fact that it appears in a book somewhere.Apepch7 00:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So should it be removed cuz it is not Isis? I'm removing it until further notice. Xuchilbara 02:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Any more references on this?--Sum (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Making this the disambiguation page[edit]

I thought turning this into a disambiguation page made sense. Comments?Formeruser-83 04:34, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Awesome. I think it makes perfect sense because most people will primarily think of "Isis" as the Egyptian goddess. That would be the primary usage of the name. All other meanings, I think, are more secondary. --Glengordon01 06:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • By making the Isis page a disambiguation page, do you mean that you would put the disambiguation stuff at the top of the article and leave the content of the current Isis article where it is, or am I missing something?--The Great Honker 17:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Isis and Apulejus' Metamorphoses[edit]

Shouldn't a reference be made to the Metamorphoses of Apulejus? After all, for a 2nd century literary work, the last chapter contains a description of the initiation rites. And subscribers to her worship probably increased in the Roman world, just from reading the work.


the stuff on Mary supplanting a goddess who exposed her genitals sounds a bit fabricated. Whoever placed that please reference the claims in tthe article? Eduardo Cuellar

  • Read the section more carefully - the exposing genitals thing is in the section that says Egyptologists disagree with the Mary - Isis link; it's one of the arguments showing the differences between the two. As far as references, they are at the bottom of the article; the precise thing comes from Richard H. Wilkinson (2003), The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt, pp 148-149. Take a look at this figurine from the Leipzig University museum: [1]. Flyboy Will 20:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • k, thanks. my bad. just on the edge because of people who do make up stuff/exaggerate on wiki religion articles. Eduardo Cuellar
      • This is a mythology article. --Victim of signature fascism 00:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
        • There is no way to separate religion from mythology, they are one and the same: religions eventually "become" mythology.-- 18:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)MAC
        • I actually wouldn't emphasise the similarities that much in that section - the separation in time is too great. That's like saying George W Bush follows the policies of Abe Lincoln, because they're both Republicans.The breatfeeding Isis predates the cult of Mary by several centuries; by the time Christianity hit big-time, the breastfeeding / mother aspect was not all significant. Isis in Graeco-Roman times was mainly a hedonistic Goddess of earthly pleasures, something that can't be easily tied into Mary. If you're looking for a pagan source for Virgin Mary, Isis is just not it. Flyboy Will 17:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
If you check out the 20BC and Ptolomeic images I added, you'll see that breastfeeding Isis was very much still part of iconography. Indeed the images are almost identical to Christian ones.
For example, the major mediaeval icon is almost identical to the 5th century (christian) one, the angels replacing crosses. It is also almost identical to Ptolomeic images, as shown. Indeed, the only difference between the two images is that someone has painted on extra clothes, much like the later censorship of renaissance nudes in art. Everything is otherwise identical, even down to the position of the arm - just as if she is holding her breast to her baby, with someone later painting clothes to censor it (Yes, the clothes were there originally, but it still looks like they were copying earlier iconography where they weren't present). --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 17:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

My recent changes / reverts[edit]

I've reverted a few changes by user:-Ril-, and here are my justifications:

  • "However, the hieroglyph for her name used originally meant (female) of flesh, i.e. mortal, and she may simply have represented deified, real, queens." Original research, or a fringe theory at best. If there are some reputable modern references for this theory it might be added to the article somewhere, but I really don't think it belongs in the header.
It's simply what her name translates as according to other uses of the word in the old kingdom era.
  • "(with ? representing the glottal stop)" - I highly recommend Ancient Egyptian : A Linguistic Introduction by Antonio Loprieno, ISBN: 0521448492. If there even was anything before "s-t" in her name, and if it contained a consonant, it was likely an r in Old Egyptian. But overall, throughout millenia of the language history, we can't just assume that there was always a glottal stop in there.
Most academics, however, do.
  • "(Isis being the wife of Osiris, king of the underworld)" Nobody ever said Isis ever met with Osiris after his resurrection, or ever lived in the underworld.
She was still considered as his wife BEFORE the myth of his resurrection even came into existance.
References? Got a bit paste-happy here. The sentence in question is used to somehow support some sort of conflict between a star above the underworld, and Isis. there is no conflict, per the above. Isis was never in the underworld. Flyboy Will 20:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Iconography vs Depictions. I'm sorry, what? The way a deity is depicted in art is called Iconography. Her associations with other deities and her titles are not iconography. See The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt by Richard H. Wilkinson, for a good example of the usage of the term.
  • menat necklace is not the usekh broad collar, which is crescent-moon shaped. Here's a menat: [2]. It is actually believed to represent an udder or a breast - look up some related words like mnjw, mnmnt, not to mention mnd.
Looking up similarly spelt words and drawing any sort of conclusion from them is original research
I'm not aware of any rules against original research in Talk. I am simply illustrating that you mistook one necklace for another.
  • "As the deification of the wife of the pharaoh" and other related passages - again, either original reserarch of a fringe theory. This is by no means a widely accepted view of early Isis.
It certainly is. In much the same as horus took the role of the deified Pharaoh.
Dead wrong. But just to humor you, let's see some references.
  • A whole paragraph in Mother of Horus went on about supposed reasonings behind her becoming the mother of Horus, the need for the resurrection of Osiris, etc. It is, once again, either original reserarch of a fringe theory, and a poor one at that since many of the supposed outcomes of Isis merging with Hathor had already existed prior to the merger.
  • I've also restored most of the deleted sections, and restored their order.Flyboy Will 23:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I've undone it. They duplicated the content. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 17:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Reverting once again, since I saw absolutely no justifications for any of your theories, while I can provide a reliable source for every sentence in my changes. Flyboy Will 18:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've undid the "stupid" Joey loves Liza replaxement someone (don't know who) placed there and put the last article for Isis. I hope people can leave this page alone, thanks. Luminoustarisma 18 March 2008

Note that I changed the referenced from Horus as "hawk-headed" to flacon (he's not a hawk) and removed association of this deity with "war and protection." Someone has conflated Horus with the god Montu, also a falcon deity, but who was the deity associated with war.

This statement needs references (I think this has been noted before): "During the Old Kingdom period, Isis was represented as the wife or assistant to the deceased pharaoh. Thus she had a funerary association, her name appearing over eighty times in the pharaoh's funereal texts (the Pyramid Texts). This association with the pharaoh's wife is consistent with the role of Isis as the spouse of Horus, the god associated with the pharaoh as his protector, and then later as the deification of the pharaoh himself."

I will check my resources (I'm a professional Egyptologist), but Isis' main association with the pharaoh is as "mother" and not as consort (Hathor is normally associated as a "mother consort" with kingship). This who statement is somewhat garbled, and I will attempt to clarify it presently. Kgriffisgreenberg (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


I recently came across this reference to the worship, in the Roman cult of Isis, Osiris/Serapis or Anubis, and Horus (or Harpokrates): Isis, Osiris (alias Serapis) or Anubis and Horus (alias Harpokrates) form the travelling triad of Egyptianising divinities in the Roman Empire. Dowden, Ken. European Paganism : Realities of Cult from Antiquity to Middle Ages. London, UK: Routledge, 1999. p 220. Is there a link between worship of Isis and Serapis?L Hamm 15:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


THere is nothing in there, shouldn't it be deleted? Matt White 00:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed it, if anyone finds some worship info they can put it back. David 00:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


I believe that Isis in literature should be merged with this page; whoever proposed the merge should go ahead with it. David P. A. Hunter 03:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why anyone shouldn't move Isis in literature to the Isis main page. It just seems like common sense to me. --The Great Honker 02:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree it would be an appropriate merge. L Hamm 16:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between the usage of a mythological/religious personality in literature and the original stories of the personailty. To merge them would be a mistake. Imagine merging literary uses of Jesus Christ with a discussion of Christianity. Makes no sense. 18:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)MAC

I think it would be perfectly appropriate to merge literary uses of Christ into a page on Christianity. Maybe I'll just try the merge myself. --The Great Honker 16:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There, I did it. My first merging, too. (Applause, Encore)--The Great Honker 16:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

isis and hinduism...[edit]

it's interesting that isis is pronounced the way it is: "The Egyptian hieroglyphs for her name are commonly transliterated as js.t"...In hinduism, "divine feminine" is referred to as Shakti. It's interesting that both pronunciations are so similar.

Isis in Greek[edit]

Can someone tell me what exactly Isis’ name in Ancient Greek is? I saw that Isidor means Gift of Isis, but I'd like to know what part exactly means gift and what part means of Isis. (Marko)

And you didn't bother to read the "Origin of the name" section here in the Isis article?

  • Isis is not a Greek name and means nothing in that language.
  • It's an Ancient Egyptian name: *ʔŪsat, 'She of the Throne' (from *ʔūs 'throne').
  • The Greek word for gift is dōron.

--Glengordon01 21:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


I have added a NPOV dispute tag. It seems to give a lot of support to arguments that are disputed by Catholics and Orthodox Christians and the only source given is Jack Chick who is not a credible source and is far from neutral. I have no problem with this section if the other POV is also spoken for, but as it stands it states dsiputed theories as fact. ----Taz75 12:52 CST Janurary 31, 2007.

I think this recent revert is inaccurate, because it lessens the precision of the article. Catholicism is considered a form of Christianity, yes, but the adulation of Mary is unique to Catholicism. The anon's edit improved the article's precision. Johnleemk | Talk 18:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I originally reverted the changes in question, and I did so for a few reasons. One, it appeared to be a blanket change with no explanation; two, the changes are not all gramatically correct (and by reverting, you re-entered the incorrect one: "...the primary influence behind Catholic's adoption of the cult..."); three, although it is true that Catholics are more known for their adulation of Mary than are other Christians, I don't think they exclusively own this label; and four, I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that such adoptions would have taken place before the split between Catholics and Protestants occurred, which would probably make "Christian" a more apt term in this instance. Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think that at least some of my original issues are worth considering. I'm sure we can work something out. Thanks, romarin [talk ] 19:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
It is a bit problematic, I agree, that adulation of Mary appears in limited forms in Anglican and Orthodox theology, but overall, AFAIK, the adulation of Mary is a central tenet only of Catholic theology, or theology derived from Catholicism (such as that of Anglo-Catholics). Adulation of Mary is present in some other denominations, but not nearly to the same extent as in Catholicism, so arguably it would be more precise to mention the historic link between Catholicism and Isis instead of Christianity and Isis.
The problem, actually, is that I appear to be thinking in terms of the present (where Marianism is central only to Catholic theology) instead of the past, where one could argue that Marianism predominated Christian thought. We are faced with a quandary because prior to the Reformation, it was generally accepted that Christianity and Catholicism were synonymous, whereas in the present day, they are/should not. The adoption of the Isis cult is generally alleged to have occurred around the same time as when Constantine made Christianity/Catholicism the official faith of the Roman Empire; however, we run into neutrality issues if we describe "Christian" adoption of the cult because many Christians (e.g., the Protestant fundamentalists such as Jack Chick) would argue that Marianism is not Christian, and also that it would be more accurate to refer to the Catholic Church instead of Christianity in general because they deny that Catholicism and Christianity are synonymous (a perfectly reasonable view, IMO).
I agree that the present state of the article is not ideal, but it seemed more desirable to me than pegging Isis to Christianity in general. Johnleemk | Talk 19:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Johnleemk, for your detailed explanation. I understand your point and where you're coming from much better now, and I agree with your assessment. Thanks, romarin [talk ] 02:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's not forget Chick comics! A Fundamentalist Christian (Independant Baptist), Jack Chick gleefully promotes the idea (the heritage of 19th century anti-Catholic apologetics) that Catholicism is pagan idolatry warmed over. Thus his ilk see not only parallels or similarties, but real links. To him, Mary IS Isis, and the cult of this Goddess survives today in Marian "worship."

Theories of "corruption" of true Christianity (which assume a pristine Christian tradition that went wrong at some point, usually blamed on Constantine, or the Medieval Popes) risk violating NPOV if the are not merely described, but asserted as facts. Catholics and Orthodox over the centuries have written their own defenses of devotion to Mary and the Saints, against allegations of idolatry of course, so one could give equal time to such things if one wished (and I would hardly consider these "Fundamentalist" defenses, since they are a part of the faith of all Orthodox/Catholics, not just ultra-traditionalists). Anglican devotion to Mary I'm less familiar with, but being as how they come closer to the Catholic tradition than many other Protestants, this seems natural enough an assumption. It's a fundamental mistake however to equate worship of a Goddess with veneration of a saint. Both Orthodox and Catholics have strict taboos against worshipping human saints.. only the Triune God is worshipped (consult their catechisms if you think this is just apologetic nonesense of course).

Here's some links:

Orthodox apologetic [3]

sample Orthodox service venerating Mary: [4]

Jack Chick's version: [5]

Catholic apologetic [6]

Anglican-Catholic statement on Mary [7]

Also, I'd highly dispute the claim that devotion to Mary is a uniquely Catholic phenomenon. It is at least as powerful, if not moreso in Orthodoxy. Anyone who has attended a Greek Orthodox service will note the many prayers to Mary Theotokos (God Bearer). She's given more prominance in the Divine Liturgy (in Greek) even than in the Novus Ordo Catholic Mass (in english). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Jack Chick aside, and regardless of whether veneration of Mary is a Catholic thing or a Christian thing, it didn't really become a big part of Christianity/Catholicism until some 500 years after the time we say the last vestiges of open Isis-worship ended. It's silly to claim that veneration of Mary was adopted by the church as a way of winning converts among the worshippers of Isis. 14:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits in the "Isis in Literature" section[edit]

What was the point of all the recent edits by GenerationsIncorporated? There were so many I am now confused. Could someone help me sort this out? Thanks.--The Great Honker 01:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Auset (the Greeks call the African Queen mother Isis)[edit]

This article needs to be updated as it does not Adequately reflect the historicity of Auset (Isis).

In Classical African Civilization, Kemet (Egypt) The great queen mother was know as AST or Auset as pronounced in English by adding the vowels. The Greeks transliterated this name to Isis. See the same reality in ASR to Ausar to the Greek transliteration to Osiris.

Auset (Isis) later became the Greek and Roman goddesses of agriculture, Demeter and Ceres. In Yorùbá Cosmologics Auset became Yemaya. One finds this archetype in all African pantheons and in the Western and Eastern pantheons.

See Dr. Amen's benchmark work Metu Neter. also see Dr. Diop, Dr. Ben,

For this article to improve its creditability it should reflect the fact that the queen mother archetype comes into recorded history in Metu Neter (hieroglyphics) as AST and its history progress' from this point forward.

The first rule of Cultural Health is African names for African things. Kemet (Egypt) is on the continent of Africa. The fact that others invaded the continent and changed some of the original names should be noted. The Original names should be used as a mater of accuracy and later transliterated names should be parenthetical.

--Aunk 03:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

All the secondary sources for this article on Auset [isis] are by anglo-saxon scholars from the british isles or the US.I truly wish they would work on recovering their ancient celtic iberian culture and history from which they are shown to genetically descend for 9,000 years on those isles or more.Instead they have devoted themselves to whitewashing the ancient history of reigions within Africa...meanwhile their own ancestors sit silent.

At my university alone the Egyptian Dept is packed with people descended from celtic iberians [britons] who have never even heard of the ulster cycles or anything within celtic or germanic tribal history. (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Veneration of the Virgin Mary[edit]

Somebody today took objection to the word "cult" when used with respect to devotion to the Virgin Mary. It was not discussed here beforehand but I assume it was because in modern times it has been used by some Christians to separate themselves from Roman Catholics whom they regard as non-Christian. The use of the word is not essential in the context of the section it is used in. The second point relates to the emphasis on "Catholicism" when dealing with veneration of the Virgin Mary since to the casual reader it can suggest that this is uniquely a Roman Catholic phenomena. The reality is veneration took place long before the Church fragmented into its Orthodox and reformed wings. The Orthodox still very much venerate Mary and there are even pockets within reformed Church's where she is greatly honored. Rather than refer to "Catholicism" it is suggested that the less loaded term "Church" is used when referring to the rise of this kind of devotion along with dropping the word "cult" If these changes where made then it would remain a reasonably accurate description but hopefully one less subject to inter-Christian polemics like the present reading - please see todays edits/reverts and previous discussions on this page. GoldenMeadows 16:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I would highly suggest keeping cult as they were referring to the, "Cult of the Blessed Virgin Mary". A Google search turned up this source [[8]]

origin of name?[edit]

To quote the article : "However, the hieroglyph of her name originally meant "(female) of flesh", i.e. mortal, and she may simply have represented deified, historical queens." - where does this come from? Can anyone substantiate this?Apepch7 08:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Good article?[edit]

With a little work, does anyone think this could be promoted to good article status? I don't have the time right now to do it myself. --Isis4563(talk) 00:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps a lot of work...I just looked at the refs, and all the {{fact}}s. --Isis4563(talk) 00:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Madonna and Child[edit]

The most famous pre-reformation Christian icon, after the Crucified Christ, is the Madonna and Child. As there is no scriptural basis for this image, a reasonable supposition is that it was based upon depictions of Isis nurturing the infant Horus. In many versions of the Madonna and Child icon Mary is similarly portrayed as nursing the infant Jesus. And Mary, like Isis, became venerated as the Queen of Heaven. Although early Christian patriarchs banished the Great Goddess from their trinity, she seems to have emerged in Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism as the semi-divine mother of God. Probably more people even today in Mediterranean countries pray to her rather than to God. Jim Lacey 18:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC) I saw program on National Geographic that claimed that the Isis cult can be directly linked to the cult of Madonna. Its name was Mysteries of the Bible (28 min 50s in show) Somebody with greater writing talents then me should elaborate on this intresting subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the somewhat speculative inclusions concerning Christian parallels see Jesus Christ in comparative mythology...Modernist (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

need more[edit]

hi my name is jordyn, and u need more info on this stupid aticle!!!!!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

On this note, should there be reference to Cleopatra somewhere in the article? I was directed to Isis from "Cleopatra...represented herself as the reincarnation of an Egyptian goddess, Isis." That seems like a pretty notable connection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakeb43 (talkcontribs) 09:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I think there's an editor doing research now to improve the article, and that is certainly an element that bears more notice. I suspect that an entire spinoff article on Isis in the Roman Imperial world might be useful eventually, as a thorough presentation would probably end up throwing off the Egyptian balance of this article. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, all or most Ptolemaic queens characterized themselves as Isis to some extent, much like queens in earlier Egyptian ideology. My sources don't cover that in a lot of detail, but they do mention it.
I've been mulling how to structure the rewritten article for a long time. At one point I considered a spinoff article like Cynwolfe suggests, with only a summarizing section in this article, which would concentrate on Egypt. But lately I've realized that there's a lot of continuity between the characteristics of the Greco-Roman Isis and those of the late Egyptian Isis. And I think there is somewhat less information on the Egyptian Isis than on some other major deities who were restricted to Egypt, like Hathor, because Isis wasn't clearly more significant than those deities until pretty late in Egyptian history.
So what I envision now is several sections covering Isis in Egypt, similar to the plan I suggested a long time ago here. Then there would be a few sections on Isis in the Greco-Roman world; I'm still uncertain how to arrange everything there, but I'll figure it out as I get a better grasp of the subject matter. Then a section on the Christian-related controversies, for which I finally have enough sources, and then on Isis' modern characterization (which, unlike the articles on most gods, has enough coverage in the sources to not be a trivia collection). And by my estimates, the Egyptian stuff would still take up slightly more than half of the total. That depends on pushing a lot of the details about Isis in Rome into sub-articles—Navigium Isidis, Lychnapsia, other festivals, probably an article on Isiac initiations, and maybe some others. But if done that way, I feel it would be less imbalanced than a sharp division between Isis in Egypt and Isis in Greece and Rome. And it would demonstrate how Isis runs through history, from the Pyramid Texts to Philae to a Roman mystery cult to esoteric and neopagan traditions in our own time, changing radically as she goes but always retaining some of her original character.
So, um, that's my thinking about how to organize the subject. Any comments or suggestions? A. Parrot (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
That sounds just great to me. Round of applause. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Assuming I can pull it off, of course. And if I do, I'm afraid I won't have energy left to work on the sub-articles in any great depth. A. Parrot (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

False Information[edit]

Hi, just to let you know incase you didn't already, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT ALWAYS CORRECT!! You should not rely on it as a major information source as anyone can post information on it, whether the info is true of false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that wonderful, and frankly, quite stunning insight. Now, if you would care to elaborate what parts you disagree with, the good editors here can start working on correcting the false information. In the meantime, there is a heap of books and articles in the "notes" and "references" sections that you can get more accurate information from. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Needs additional citations[edit]

There are many statements in this article that are not attributed, such as

"However, it should be remembered that this story was only a later creation of the Osirian cult who wanted to depict Set in an evil position, as the enemy of Osiris."

"Magic is central to the entire mythology of Isis, arguably more so than any other Egyptian deity."

And this one in particular

"In many African tribes, the king's throne is known as the mother of the king, and that fits well with either theory, giving us more insight into the thinking of ancient Egyptians."

Doesn't seem to fit in with the usual way a Wikipedia article is written, and sounds more like a personal interpretation than fact.-- (talk) 04:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with these comments and I think this page needs a thorough revision and reorganization, particularly given the importance level of the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Mut virginal?[edit]

I am moving 'and implicitly "virginal"' from Isis#Assimilation_of_Mut to the talk pages. It has no citation, yet part is even in quotes. There is nothing in the citation on the Mut page to indicate this is true. If there is anything in the sources of this article, please cite it. Madridrealy (talk) 06:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I also removed most infertility parts except for one where I added a citations needed. The section was not consistent since infertility and virginity are two different things. Both had a use that was in quotes with no citation. And virginal was not even supported by the sources on the Mut page. In fact the first reference [Jennifer Pinkowski - Egypt's Ageless Goddess (Archaeology magazine September/October 2006)] said, "[Mut was] mother of the moon god Khonsu." with "virginal" mentioned nowhere. I added "adoptive" for since it was in the second source on the Mut page. Madridrealy (talk) 07:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Editing of W. Gasque's quote[edit] edited the quote in mid-sentence to take out the end. Unfortunately in the way the sentence was written, the ending, which he/she took out, qualified the beginning and everything after, consequently we are left a different overall meaning in the sentence. As a result the qualifying "while" was taken out as well to make the sentence still work. The original sentence was "While all recognize that the image of the baby Horus and Isis has influenced the Christian iconography of Madonna and Child, this is where the similarity stops" and now we are left with "all recognize that the image of the baby Horus and Isis has influenced the Christian iconography of Madonna and Child". The justification gave was, "correcting an mendacious edit, th section is only dealing with iconography wheereas the Gasques comments have been transposed to alter the meaning" The problem I have with this is the section does not only deal with the iconography, and is in fact titled "Parallels in Catholicism and Orthodoxy" and also deals with issues such as their worship practices: "Early Christians sometimes worshipped before the statues of Isis suckling the infant Horus..." (Will Durant). wrote to me, "I have ammended your edits re iconography in that you use a quote of a Christian evangelist out of context, i.e part of what you quote refers to virgin birth which is not claimed in the article.", However, I see absolutely no reason, other than the paragraph break, to think Gasque is only referring to the virgin birth in this case and am left to question whether even read the whole article. As you can see on the article, goes on for paragraphs to list many other differences between the two, even retaining the sentence structure used in the virgin birth part ("There is no evidence..."). In fact the sentence following the virgin birth one is exactly the same as the virgin birth one up to the words "virgin born"! In light of this, I think the quote should be restored to the original sentence. Madridrealy (talk) 09:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Jesus is Not Horus[edit]

The proper title of the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God and nothing more. The article should give a counterpoint to the statements made by protestant fundamentalists.

All those who claim to be christian and yet adopt the Isis myth are kind of insulting Jesus, because the marian titles are only meant to honor the Son. Horus is worshipped by freemasons and no one else.

Also, the cult of Horus was discouraged by bishop Cyril of Alexandria, who introduced the early prayers to the Theotokos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The point is not that Jesus is Horus, but that the image of the Madonna and Child may be based on earlier non-Christian art, such as statues of Isis and Horus, the way Christmas was a Christian celebration held at the same time as earlier non-Christian winter festivals.Jim Lacey (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to the unsigned comments above: 'Mother of God' is not the only title of Mary. She has many additional devotional titles (Queen of Heaven, Stella Maris, Blessed Mother etc.) More than 50 are contained in the Loreto Litanies. She shares many of those titles with Isis. Freemasons certainly do not worship Horus.--Markyw (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Star of the Sea?[edit]

What is the primary evidence that Isis was called "star of the sea"? I'm not hopeful that I will find the answer in the source given in the article, namely "Sandra Billington; Miranda Green. The Concept of the Goddess. Routledge, 1999, p. 70." Rwflammang (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

During the Greco-Roman period in the first few centuries AD Isis became a universal cult with shrines/temples across the Roman Empire. During this period she gained a lot of non-Egyptian attributes including a link with the Sea (even though the Egyptians did not really focus on the sea except possibly the reference to the Great Green - even this may be the Delta and not the sea). Hornung deals with this in the Secret Lore of Egypt but only briefly as his book covers the whole of the history of Egypt's influence on the west.Apepch7 (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm still awaiting a primary source for the actual title, "star of the sea". Rwflammang (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Found it. Apuleius' Metamorphoses, XI, 1-7. Rwflammang (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I take it back. My source said it was there, but upon looking at the original, I see no mention of stella maris. Typical. Rwflammang (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Parallels in Catho.+Orthodox. section Bias in Attribution[edit]

Some of User:'s edits seemed give the section, what appeared to me to be, a bias in attribution making it sound much more authoritative and certain than the original sources themselves. For example for Will Durant's work, the word "claimed" was changed to "found". Will Durant was not a field archaeologist and did not find anything, he decided, based on his study of early 20th century books as well as an ancient Latin work, that this was the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madridrealy (talkcontribs) 06:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted some of the edits to try to restore a NPOV. Madridrealy (talk) 06:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)(as shown)

Queen of the gods[edit]

I reverted the description of Isis as "queen of the gods" in the lead sentence, not because it was completely wrong, but because it was misleading. Stating that Isis was "queen of the gods" in the lead sentence, without qualification, implies that that was the case throughout Egyptian history, which it was not. She was always associated with queenship, but "queen of the gods" implies that she was either the ruler of the pantheon herself or the consort of the ruling god. For many periods it's difficult to say whether any goddess unequivocally held either role, because the pantheon wasn't rigidly structured like that of the Greeks. In any case, Isis was never the consort of the ruling god, because while Osiris was tremendously important he was never an all-encompassing ruler. Isis was the most important goddess in the Late period, and apparently implicitly the ruler of the pantheon, but that was not the case earlier. In earlier periods other goddesses rivalled Isis in importance, and Mut, as the consort of Amun, seems to have been the one most clearly characterized as queen of the gods.

I think that the lead sentence should state that Isis was a very important goddess and state her main characteristics, because those were true in nearly all periods. The lead section as a whole should also state that she became the most important goddess in Ptolemaic and Roman times, but make it clear that that wasn't the case earlier. I'd prefer to shy away from the specific label "queen of the gods", at least in the lead, until we have more detail on how the Egyptians described her in those late days. The label connotes an explicit queenship like that of Hera, but the Egyptians may never have used such a label because of the fluid nature of their pantheon. A. Parrot (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I reverted Summer with Morons last 2 edits - primarily because of this thread and because he blamed me for the previous revert which I did not do. I am opposed to Queen of the Gods for the above and because it sounds like a bad hollywood movie..Modernist (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Isis' prominence in Egypt is high.

This is an old discussion nevertheless I will reply, that Isis is Queen of Heaven and as that Queen of Gods. Isis is according to Manetho one of the first eight ruling gods of Egypt, which were Ptah, Amun, Schu, Geb, Osiris, Isis, Seth, Horus. All of them are constellations of the Zodiac, Ptah is Aries, Amun is Taurus, Schu is Gemini, Geb is Leo, Osiris is Orion (formerly part of the zodiac, as proven by babylonian discriptions) Isis is Virgo, Horus is Libra (installed by Julius Cesar; but according to the Zodiac of Dendera it is the older Horus, Haroeris) and Seth is Ophiuchus. There are images of Isis in Egypt, showing her standing on a lion, which means, Virgo following Leo. This is only the case in the anticlockwise movement of the precessiion.-- (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Jesus Christ in comparative mythology[edit]

Concerning the somewhat speculative inclusions concerning Christian parallels see Jesus Christ in comparative mythology. Those speculations do not belong here in an article concerning Isis...Modernist (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
By the way - this was not an unjustified removal but the consensus arrived at several months ago at several articles see the long discussion at (Talk:Horus) to locate the information at Jesus Christ in comparative mythology, if a new consensus demands the material here, fine, but I do not think it should be here...Modernist (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This is tough to understand —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

Digging through the pile of stub articles in Category:Egyptian mythology, I discovered the article Auset, which was created nearly four years ago. Its title is one of the more popular guesses as to how Isis' name was pronounced by the Egyptians, and it characterizes Auset as the daughter of Geb and Nut, the wife of "Ausar", and the mother of "Heru". Clearly this duplicates the Isis article. The only things in the article that aren't duplicated here are the claim that Auset is "an ancient Egyptian term referring to the female principle energy" (very dubious, probably a neopagan notion), the claim that the birth of Heru/Horus was a virgin birth (garbage), and some weird statement about the "ausar auset society" being dedicated to "spiritual greatness". I don't think any of that is salvageable, so it seems safe to clear the Auset article and turn it into a redirect here. Any objections? A. Parrot (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. In fact I would see this more in terms of just deleting the Auset page and insert Auset as an alternative spelling in the Isis page which currently says "Isis or in original more likely Aset" at present. The Auset article has little value. Apepch7 (talk) 10:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

We can turn the Auset article into a redirect that leads here while eliminating all of its content. The only reason to delete outright is if you don't think we should have the redirect. If you don't, we can propose it for deletion instead. A. Parrot (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I would eliminate the Auset article and insert information about Auset as an alternative spelling of the goddess' name in the Isis article. Don't think the redirect is needed; everything useful from Auset is already in Isis. Over the course of the Egyptian history, we do find alternate hieroglyphic spellings; Auset (or Iuset) is one. (Kleaisidora (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC))

I've proposed Auset for deletion. A. Parrot (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed comment comparing Isis and the Virgin Mary[edit]

Removed unrelated comment stating: "..similar to that of the Virgin Mary with the Child Jesus."

For the following reasons:

1.) Completely backward. Clearly the Isis story predates the Jesus story. Therefore, the Isis story CANNOT be related to the Jesus story. Perhaps such a comment belongs on the Jesus article if an artist was depicting Isis as Mary. But comparing Mary to Isis is completely irrelevant to anyone studying Isis. It would be like saying Isaac Newton looks similar to George Washington, on the Isaac Newton article. A strange, off-the-wall, and meaningless comment even if true. My wife holding my baby son looks a lot like Isis and Horus, and Mary and Jesus too. But my wife isn't a goddess and most certainly not a virgin. So what is the point of the comment?

2.) This comment appears to have been inspired by the "Zeitgeist Movie," which is lacking sources, full of unconfirmed conspiracy theories, and outright fabrications. This very article refutes that Isis was a virgin as claimed in the film. Isis had a husband Osiris per this article, clearly not a virgin. Horus wasn't born on Dec, 25, didn't die and rise on the third day etc. So again, the comment "Similar to the Virgin Mary" is completely meaningless to anyone studying Isis.

Conclusion: There is no possible way Isis was inspired by the Virgin Mary, even if you believe the Zeitgeist Movie conspiracy theories. I personally think the film maker was onto a few things, but whatever. In short, the Zeitgeist Movie was mostly a fabrication. Perhaps some of the conspiracy theories in the movie are true, the jury is still out on that.

When I read a wikipedia article I always ask myself, "would a reputable publisher include such a comment." If the answer is no, then the content is in serious question.

SEE Zeitgeist Movie article [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The statement you removed doesn't say the Isis depictions were inspired by, or copies of, the Mary depictions; it merely notes similarities, as have books by reputable publishers. That you choose to associate the statement with recent conspiracy theory propaganda is a personal issue. Similarities between Christianity and earlier religions have long been noted, and this particular one is relevant to the Isis article as a demonstration of her lasting influence. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Isis and virgin Mary comparisons inspired by urban myth[edit]

For whatever reason someone keeps trying to parrot Peter's Joseph's Zeitgeist movie regarding Isis and the Virgin Mary. This movie has long been discredited. Using this very article as a source we know that Isis is NEVER depicted as a virgin in the Egyptian legend.

FROM THE ARTICLE: "She married her brother, Osiris, and she conceived Horus by him."

Isis is clearly not a virgin as claimed in Peter's Joseph's Zeitgeist movie myth, nor is Horus a virgin birth as claimed. Thus to make this comparison in the article is poor research and is not encyclopedic. All nursing mothers with a baby look similar, so what's the point?

Also, see article regarding Zeitgeist movie before include ideas inspired by it.

"....this material is liberally – and sloppily – mixed with material that is only partially true and much that is plainly and simply bogus." - Skeptic magazine's Tim Callahan

So before that is included again check your motives and do your research. We don't need myths about myths here on wikipedia, it destroys and discredits the entire project. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

"The statement you removed doesn't say the Isis depictions were inspired by, or copies of, the Mary depictions; it merely notes similarities, as have books by reputable publishers. That you choose to associate the statement with recent conspiracy theory propaganda is a personal issue. Similarities between Christianity and earlier religions have long been noted, and this particular one is relevant to the Isis article as a demonstration of her lasting influence. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)" Fat&Happy (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
A woman suckling a baby looks like a woman suckling a baby. That statement is trivial and is not notable. Unless a more substantial comparison can be made, I don't see how including it here benefits the article. Rwflammang (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Wilkinson's Complete G@Gds does not say what was stated. p140 is about Hathor, pg 146 does show Isis suckling Horus but makes no reference to Christ ... p 243 does say "The sacred mother and child of christianity are certainly foreshadowed in the countless images of Isis ... and her infant son ..." the author is actually avoiding a causal connection. In any case reference to this should be in the iconography section not the introduction as it is not a feature of the nature of Isis but merely a reference to a possible borrowing of artistic convention from one cutlure to another.Apepch7 (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The popular Mary with infant Jesus motif as a Christianized form of the Isis and Horus motif is frequently noted in scholarship. Here is, for example, a first rate source discussing it: [10]. It's absolutely appropriate for this article and attempts to block its inclusion strongly smell of censorship. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering that a third of the sections on this talk page are about the Isis–Mary connection, I really wish I had more detailed scholarly sources about it, in place of the polemics (like Zeitgeist) on either side. I have R. E. Witt's book on the Roman cult of Isis, which demonstrates that the similarities between the two are not restricted to iconography. (For example, even the claim that they're both virgins, which I once mocked because Isis' non-virginity is very clear in Egyptian sources, has truth to it. Greek and Roman worshippers of Isis equated her with other goddesses, including Artemis, who had a bizarre dual nature as a virgin and a mother goddess. So to the Romans Isis was a virgin and a mother, and it was Roman views of Isis that would have influenced Christianity.)

Witt does discuss the Isis–Mary connection in his last chapter, and he concludes that a lot of the titles and rituals connected with Mary were taken from Isis. But his treatment is still rather cursory, and to write about the issue here, I would want a scholarly book or study that addresses it in detail. Probably nobody here knows of one, but I still thought I should ask. The endless arguments need to be dealt with. A. Parrot (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

We've argued this for years and concerning the somewhat speculative inclusions concerning Christian parallels see Jesus Christ in comparative mythology for extensive speculation. I don't think it belongs here however...Modernist (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
What argument? One can find a plethora of scholarly sources handling the subject on Google Books. Simply report what the scholarship says and call it a day. Anything to do with Isis (with, of course, the appropriate sources) is appropriate here. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I do believe it belongs here, Modernist, if it's a case of direct influence of one upon the other. The similarities pointed out in Witt's book are both strong and numerous, so if somebody would examine them in detail, they would be no more speculative than any conclusions about causes and effects in ancient history. But forgive me, Bloodofox, if I don't see the plethora of scholarly sources you're referring to. I type "isis and mary" into Google books, and I get a bunch of mystical stuff, like a reprinted book by Rudolf Steiner and a book titled The mysteries of Isis: her worship and magick. Some good sources are there—I already found a volume of conference proceedings, Images of the Mother of God, that includes an essay on the iconographic connection. But other influences are more difficult, as I've found several times before when searching Amazon. I'm still looking, but if you see something useful, I'd appreciate it being pointed out. A. Parrot (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Of course, editors are expected to ignore the nonsense and go straight for the academia. For example, a simple search for "Mary Isis iconography" netted me an initial hit of the following useful article:
  • Mathews, F. Thomas & Muller, Norman (2005). "Isis and Mary in Early Icons" as collected in Images of the Mother of God: Perceptions of the Theotokos in Byzantium. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
From page 4:
To investigate the origins of Marian icons one must turn to Egypt. [ … ] But whether one describes Mary as another manifestation of Isis, or a competitor of Isis who had to assume her attributes in order to win over her followers, it is clear that Christian churchmen found reasons to appropriate popular Isiac language and practice for their own purposes.
They also appropriated her imagery. Early icons present important evidence of the Isis-Mary continuity, which has not yet been properly evaluated. In the earliest icons of Mary of the sixth century, the virgin of Nazareth was given the look of Isis, as witnessed by surviving icons of the great goddess, dated to the second and third centuries. A number of archaeological facts can be strung together to connect the two.
As I mentioned before, this is hardly an academic secret and not exactly some sort of conspiracy. Christianity owes quite a lot of itself to the Greco-Roman world that birthed it and allowed it to exist. Having written many an entirely new article, rewritten many a miserable article, and thus had to deal with all the dirty work that comes along with doing so, I'm getting a picture here that the only reason there's an "argument" is because the proper sources are not being brought to light.
This article is currently poor, as is the Jesus Christ in comparative mythology article. Fortunately, I have no doubt that it will eventually be up to WP:GA status. All it takes is some effort and time. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. It's on my to-do list. I might get around to it—next year. A. Parrot (talk) 06:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
bloodofox, the link you gave above to google books says there is a 'strong visual link' between Mary and Isis. Which is similar to what Wilkinson is saying. So I don't see any problem with making the point in the article under iconography that the artistic conventions used to depict Isis and Horus influenced Christian artists who depicted Mary and Jesus. Further it is fairly well established that early Christianity absorbed many pagan deities and turned them into Saints ... a lot of this in the Celtic world for instance. So the idea that early Christians may have drawn on the Late Period ideas about Isis to develop the cult of the Virgin Mary probably has some merit (although its not something I have researched properly). This could be mentioned in appropriate sections of article if there is academic material to support such an idea. The reason I removed the Fat&Happy edit is because the referenced material did not support what had been said as I quoted above. Given the amount of confusion, especially on the internet between these two ideas and the whole Jesus=Horus and Mary=Isis, I think its very important to stick to properly evidenced facts. This is not censorship. In fact I would say that those who perpetuate this fallacy based on not actually researching either Horus or Isis properly are censoring the truth.Apepch7 (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Apapch, as I quote, the article makes it plain that there's little to debate about it; the iconographic absorption is obvious, and the Isis-Mary link doesn't end there, either. You are right about Christianization in the Celtic sphere, and it's even more evident in the Germanic sphere, where we have better primary sources on native religion. If the reference didn't support it, you were right to remove it. However, some of the comments seemed to doubt the conclusion as a whole and spoke of an "argument", which is what my comments were in response to. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I take it you don't see the point of my comment concerning arguments about this issue. On the contrary to your comment - the issue of weight became quite an issue in these articles about Egyptian gods and goddesses - (and I am speaking of arguments past in many articles) - when Christianity and all things related to Christianity - began to swamp these articles on Egyptian religion. I argued that those connections need to be voiced in a separate article...Modernist (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Why a separate article? Why not simply handle it like any other issue and write well-sourced a section about it and include a summary in the lead? I don't see anything special about the matter. Christianization being as monolithic as it was, it's an important issue to address, especially in a case where clear continuity can be established, such as is this. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Because weight matters - and while if you look hard enough you can source anything - WP:RS about Egyptian gods and goddesses don't consistently draw parallels (beyond minor footnotes) with Christianity, these are articles about Egyptian religion - not Christianity; of course you can argue that the parallels need be drawn in these articles; but I don't agree...Modernist (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Christianization is an important topic that must be handled. It is, of course, the reason why these deities are no longer venerated. To be honest, I find it very strange that you don't think that the Christianization of the cult of Isis should not be handled on this article. "Parallels" are not welcome, but a section on Christianization is simply required. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Oy. Could you wait a few minutes before posting again? I've been trying to give my detailed reply, but I keep getting edit-conflicted. A. Parrot (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about that, but I kept trying to adapt my response to the latest comment and couldn't keep up.
I sympathize with your position, Modernist. It greatly irritates me that there's so much focus on Christianity, rather than on trying to understand Egyptian religion in its own right. But Isis is important enough that an ideal article about her (well-referenced, neutral, etc.) would be much longer than what we have now. In such an article, brief coverage of the Isis–Mary connection seems reasonable to me. But it depends on what scholars say—in this case, primarily scholars of Roman and early Christian history. Whatever influences there were came from the Empire-wide cult of Isis and not directly from dynastic Egypt; only the fringe argues that.
If it's simply a matter of ideological parallels and an iconographic influence, then the former could be relegated to Jesus Christ in comparative mythology and the latter could be just a short statement in this article. If scholars say it's direct influence, I believe it deserves more coverage. But until we have impeccable scholarly references, then the issue will not be settled. (Of course, for the ideologues who periodically pop up here, it will never be settled, but with a thorough and well-sourced section in place, it would be easier to tell those people to find their own scholarly sources or go away.)
The source that Bloodofox and I found deals with the iconography, but not with the broader question. We've all stated our respective positions, so until we find a proper source that does handle that question, we won't get any farther. If no one has more sources to suggest, can we let the matter rest for the moment? A. Parrot (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok I have found something useful to this debate. A book "Religion in Roman Egypt - assimilation and resistance" by David Frankfurter pub Princeton Mythos ISBN 0-691-07054-7. Frankfurter is Associate Professor of History and Religious Studies at the University of New Hampshire.

In Chapter 7 of his book he describes how Christianity assimilated the pagan temples in Egypt around 300 - 500 AD. He says that despite the tendency of the Bishops to regard the pagan deities of the temples they took over as 'unclean spirits' and so on - it was not unusual for the reconsecrated temple/church to also take over the role of the temple in terms of the intervention of the supernatural in the local community. The production of charms and amulets and so on. He gives the example of the temple of Isis in Menouthis which was converted to Saints John and Cyrus in 484 AD but continued to 'advertise itself' as a centre for healing and conception. As he puts it 'One healing shrine superseded another'. He says that there were pilgrimage sites all over Egypt where people could go where on sleeping they would receive dreams relating to health and other matters including speaking to the dead. A Christianised version of a pagan practice.

He then goes on to say the following in terms of this transfer of power from pagan to Christian …

"…It is in this context of Christian idiom that all the "crossovers", the syncretisms, between Christian and native idioms occurred: Horus-Christs, Christ-Re's, the Ankh-crosses, the saints and angels and Mary images, modelled explicitly upon local images of power that still dominated the sensibilities of craftspeople, consumers, and supplicants, participants in that endless search for effective cures and protections."

So I think what the Horus=Christ people are picking up on is this assimilation by the Christian church of both the iconography and also the power function of the pagan deities in the lives of the local communities served by the temples. This is why you end up with Horus on horseback slaying a crocodile (like George and the dragon). And is also a case for the way in which Mary was conceptualised being a re-packaged Isis.

Obviously this is a general point about the assimilation of a range of deities into Christianity … but specifically also about Isis > Mary. It relates to this specific period of history and to the version of Isis found in Late period because the cult of Isis was one of the most persistent into this era.

So where in this or any article should this go?Apepch7 (talk) 09:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the so-called 'throne'[edit]

The 'throne' of Iset (Isis) is not a throne at all. Yes, she was The Queen of Heaven and a Goddess, but she was also the patron Goddess of Midwives, and this is reflected and embodied in glyphs of her chair -- it represents the ancient Egyptian birthing-chair, not a throne. Glorious Goddess (talk) 05:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that statement? At least one expert has argued that Isis was not a deification of the throne as Henri Frankfort and others have suggested (see this article on thrones) but I've never seen it claimed that the chair-sign on Isis' head was used for birth. The goddess Meskhenet, who presided over birth, was represented by a brick that women squatted on while giving birth, not a chair. A. Parrot (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


reading through other articles seems to conflict with whose spouse Isis was and who she gave birth to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation of ISIS[edit]

Shouldn't this article be disambiguated from (ISIS)The Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham ?


tks CJ_WeißSchäfer 00:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ3370 (talkcontribs)

The hatnote already mentions and links to Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Are you suggesting that the terrorist group is now the primary term, and this article be moved to a title like Isis (goddess)? ISIS is only one of several terms for the group, and its article is actually titled Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant right now. Besides, as significant as the group is at the moment, we don't know how long it will continue to be a significant force. A move request would be premature, I think. A. Parrot (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed Yt95 (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Gee...I had no idea you would think I was suggesting priority to one article or another. That was not my point. I see no reason to move anything. Only to offer the usual disamb info where the same term can be used for more than one article. Also What is a hatnote? It's been a while since I made a contribution, so I guess I'm behind the tymes. CJ_WeißSchäfer 22:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ3370 (talkcontribs)

It's the little message at the top of an article. Here it says:
This article discusses the ancient Egyptian goddess Isis. For the militant group, see Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. For other uses, see Isis (disambiguation).
Page views for this article have spiked since the fall of Mosul, indicating that a lot of people search for the terrorist group and end up here instead. In response, somebody added the middle sentence to the hatnote a few days ago. If that's what you're suggesting, it's already done. A. Parrot (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Why isn't the page Isis redirected to the Isis (disambiguation) page? There seems to be quite a number of pages with the phrase titled Isis. What exactly merits the page to be directed to this particular article? As a very good example, the page Mercury is automatically directed to a disambiguation page. When one thinks of the subject Mercury, the first topics that come to mind are either the chemical element or the planet. It might be justified to redirect it to the planet page, because that's a celestial object that has been viewed and seen since ancient times; well before the discovery of the chemical element. However, since its such a common term referring to numerous things, its the correct call to have the page redirected to the disambiguation page. Why isn't this method applied to this article? Qristopher (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I doubt there was ever a formal discussion about the reasoning for that. This article was created nearly three years before the disambiguation page, and, presumably, nearly as long before any of the Isis articles were created, so this article has simply stayed in place by default. That said, this article received between 70,000 and 110,000 views each month last year—before the Islamist group started making big headlines and driving the numbers up. Some of those views must come from people looking for other Isises, but I doubt most of them do. Isis has probably been the best-known Egyptian deity in the West for the past 2,000 years, giving rise to a Greco-Roman mystery cult/religion, appearing fairly prominently in Western esotericism and prompting reams upon reams of scholarly studies. Plus, Christianity-related controversy (always a big draw) swirls around her. I think those are fairly strong arguments that the goddess is the primary topic.
Mercury is a good comparison (an ancient deity from whom all of the other topics on the disambiguation page take their names), but the element and the planet are significantly better-known. Those subjects get similar page views (over 72,000 a month for the planet and over 66,000 for the element) and much more than the god (over 17,000), so there's no overwhelming primary term. In contrast, Zeus and Osiris are treated as the primary topics, because the deities are judged to be much more significant than the things named after them.
Except the militant group, none of the articles on the Isis disambiguation page receive the kind of attention the goddess does; the closest is probably the metal band, which received over 13,000 views in the past month. So it's really down to the Islamist group, whose names are numerous. Wikipedia currently calls it ISIL, and it now calls itself the Islamic State, though I think ISIS is more prevalent in the media. In addition, the group may not remain so significant for very long. It could develop into a solid state, or it could collapse in a few months, like Ansar Dine did in Mali, and turn into a minor force. A. Parrot (talk) 08:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I have always followed what reliable scholarly ref sources use. Though wiki reports news it isn't a news service and this would be a form of recentism whereby what in the West has been by miles the most common use of the name being discarded by a phenomena of unknown longevity. Sure Islamists (not suggesting you are) may not want this being the default page as it highlights what appears to have been, from an Muslim perspective, a dumb choice of acronym but that shouldn’t govern what we do. Yt95 (talk) 11:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the phrase Isis should redirect to any one page in particular. This has nothing to do with fads that come and go. It is true, that the militant organization might disappear in the next 5-10 years. Later in the future, it may not become a popular topic of conversation anymore. The point of what I was trying to say was, there are numerous articles with the title Isis, and its difficult to choose which one gets priority. But two points that were brought up; the first one being that the militant group Isis is something relatively new in the media which is fairly popular, but only recently popular, and the second point that all the other Isis pages were created way after the Egyptian page seems to be irrelevant. Whether new pages are created on the topic, or due to recent popularity phenomena a particular page gains more interest, the issue is, you can't have the page directed to one subject matter in particular. As a quick example, lets say the car company GM creates a new automotive line next to Chevy. Lets say they call it Isis. Then, lets say gradually over a few years, some of the models in the Isis line become some of the best selling vehicles in the country. Now first off, a new Wikipedia page would be created. Second, it would receive a fair amount of traffic. Perhaps anywhere from 1,000 to 10,000 views a day. And finally, lets say the militant group Isis takes over the entire Middle East. So whenever somebody then types in the phrase Isis, who says it should go to the deity page? The car company is a very popular page even though its new. The militant organization is also important too, even though its also something relatively new. This is a perfect example of not choosing which topic gets picked. Its a relatively popular title that has numerous underpinnings. Therefore, that's why I believe the page should be redirected to the Isis (disambiguation) article. Qristopher (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I know what you meant. But the question is whether the goddess is the overwhelming primary topic. At WP:Disambiguation#Deciding to disambiguate it gives three examples of article–title arrangements. Two are relevant here. "Rice" has a lot of significant meanings, but the grain is the most important by far, so typing "rice" leads to the article about the grain, and the disambiguation page is separate. That's the situation we have at Isis right now. "Joker" has so many major uses that that title hosts a disambiguation page; that's the setup you're arguing that we should move to. I'm saying that until recently, none of the other uses of "Isis" approached the significance of the goddess, and the current setup made sense. The rise of the Islamist group has made that situation less clear-cut. A. Parrot (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose any change in the status quo. ISIS is already adequately disambiguated by virtue of its capitalization. The name of the Islamic sect is not Isis and therefore will not be confused with the goddess. Furthermore, the sect's name is constantly shifting and changing and they do not even prefer to be called ISIS anymore, so this is a fleeting and moot issue. Elizium23 (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - Elizium23 has it right. Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution Doug. Anything else to add to that statement? I'm however in Support with A. Parrot that this change should be considered and discussed. I agree that from all the other titles utilizing the phrase Isis, only the militant group has the same importance and weight as the deity page. But nevertheless, it doesn't make a difference at what point in time the militant group rose to importance. Whether that occurred a couple of months ago, or whether as an example it occurred a millennia ago. As of right now, its just as important. Although the group has officially changed its name to Islamic State, everyone in the news media still refers to it as Isis. And if someone put the Isis tag on the deity page due to current events, then there's an obvious correlation. For an equal comparison, although the subject matter of Mercury - the chemical element was perhaps sometime discovered and identified well after the planet Mercury, the chemical element is just as important as the planet. By the way, the defunct car make Mercury would have also been considered just as important within the last decade as well. Thoughts? Qristopher (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The news media does not refer to it as Isis, they refer to it as ISIS. There is a difference. And precedent on Wikipedia. Please see the difference in targets between source code and Source Code. The distinction is already sufficient. The relevant policy is WP:DIFFCAPS. Elizium23 (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose First, the goddess Isis is I think justifiably a vital article as per Wikipedia:Vital articles, and I don't think that any of the others are. If it is the article people most frequenty find in encyclopedias it is probably also the one people most expect to find here, and it should be the one they find. The Islamic State's name is not ISIS, that's just an abbreviation, and it's name isn't stable yet anyway, which means the abbreviation probably shouldn't be taken as stable either. John Carter (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Well the issue is not whether Isis is a "vital" article. I agree that it is. But I think that it probably belongs under a title such as Isis (deity) or Isis (Egyptian deity). Not Isis alone. As far as the grammar and capitalization is concerned, that is a very interesting point that is being brought up. (Isis or isis instead of ISIS) But honestly, there are a lot of people who view Wikipedia for the first time, and just type in "isis" or "Isis". They don't necessarily type "Isis" for the deity, and "ISIS" for militant group. That includes me too. And besides, when you type in "ISIS" in that format, the disambiguation page comes up! So its only proper if you type "Isis" that the disambiguation should also pop up first. I don't believe the style of the lettering should be one of the reasons against the change. Qristopher (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Let's look at it this way. The proposal to move a dab page here throws another obstacle in the way of people looking for the goddess Isis. It doesn't improve anything for those seeking ISIS because there is already a hatnote directing them there from this article. So anyone who knows anything about Wikipedia will either get there via the dab page at ISIS or the hat at Isis. However, if we make Isis a dab as well then we just made life difficult for everyone who comes in seeking the goddess. This is contrary to policy and won't fly for me. Elizium23 (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I apologize if it inconveniences you. But there's somewhere from 15,000 to 35,000 readers who disagree. Alot of those people are typing either isis or Isis, and have to click on the top link to be directed to the militant group. (People like me). I didn't make a notation or distinction to spell it in some different way to get to where I wanted to go. Qristopher (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Elizium's point is that it would inconvenience people looking up the goddess without making it easier for those looking for the Islamist group. For them, it would still be two steps. A. Parrot (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I understand completely what you mean. But what that essentially means, is that someone is going to get shutout right? Either the deity or the militants. One group of readers is going to have to click twice. So why does the deity win? Wouldn't it be fair to redirect it to the Disambiguation page and have both people click twice? Not to mention the laundry list of pages that have the phrase isis in them too? It was done with the Mercury page. Why can't it be done here? Qristopher (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Because the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Isis" is the goddess and there is no primary topic for ISIS. ISIS is not even in the scope of Isis because it is naturally disambiguated by capital letters. It is a courtesy that we include a hatnote here so that people can get where they're going. If we follow policy then the status quo is the best possible situation. Plus we've already explained that ISIS isn't ISIS anymore and with any luck, WP:RS will follow suit and call them something else. Frankly I think that the media is getting a kick from the word association with the goddess, so in all honesty it might be a good idea to educate people seeking ISIS about the goddess that is their namesake. Elizium23 (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────First at all, I totally disagree with Elizium23. I personally think that it would be indeed useful to built an disambiguation page for the term "isis", no matter if you write it with capital letters or not. There are actually several things named "isis", such as computer programs, satellites, even horror games... In my opinion it does absolutely NOT count if the term's letters are written capital or not, because there are peoples who would put in the word "isis" in capital letters as well as in minute letters (mostly in minute letters) - no matter which "isis" they wanna find. An disambiguation page would help the readers find their "right" isis. Thus, I totally vote FOR an disambiguation link in this article, reading: This article describes an Ancient Egyptian goddess. For other uses of the term "Isis" see: Isis (disambiguation).--Nephiliskos (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. We do not vote on Wikipedia, we achieve consensus.
  2. Local consensus cannot override policy. Everyone arguing against me has not cited any policy, guideline, or even an essay about why they are right, while I have cited numerous policies that govern how disambiguation is handled and they all support the status quo. I suggest if you want any traction on this, that you start arguing based on policy and disprove my contentions about its application. Elizium23 (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

We also do not exercise private and political missions in Wikipedia. And I just can't figure out, why you are demanding policies, tractions and stuff. I simply put my opinion in here, of course you must not share it. But instead of picking single words out of our postings and making ambarassing pseudo-analysis about them, you could explain me (and to the others), why exactly peoples would seek for an islamic group scarcely known to public over an Egyptian goddess known to anyone. That would help alot. I see absolutely NO reason to put an politically active minority about culture. And Wikipedia surely must not stupidly follow the media.--Nephiliskos (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Nephiliskos, the disambiguation page already exists, and the note at the top of this article already says what you're asking for. What we're discussing here is whether the disambiguation page should be moved from its current title (Isis (disambiguation)) to Isis. If we do that, the goddess would have to move to a title like Isis (goddess). Judging by your posts here, I doubt that's what you want.
The Islamist group is important because it's trying to form a Sunni theocratic state in the Middle East and now has control of large swathes of Iraq and Syria. Thanks to media attention to the group, many, many more people have been arriving at this article in the past couple of months, looking for the article on the Islamists. But I still don't believe the disambiguation page should be located at Isis and this article moved to Isis (goddess), for all the reasons Elizium23 and I have stated here. A. Parrot (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe the Isis goddess page is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC anymore. Under those guidelines, it states: A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. Currently, the militant group has a much higher reader usage rate than the goddess article. This is likely to continue, as the story with this group appears in the news almost everyday of the week. I don't really see a firm consensus against a change to the disambiguation page. There's only a handful of people here discussing it. That really doesn't constitute a broad consensus. Meanwhile, there are tens of thousands of people double-clicking on this page all the time. Qristopher (talk) 05:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I see a case of WP:IDHT is beginning to develop here, so I will suggest that you look at WP:DR for further avenues of dispute resolution. I suggest opening a WP:RFC as the simplest method to get more eyes and more opinions over to this page. Elizium23 (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It should be noted that on July 27, Qristopher followed Elizium23's suggestion and opened a WP:RFC on this matter. Interested editors may want to weigh in there. JohnValeron (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Read more: