Talk:Neptune (mythology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mythology (Rated B-class, Mid-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.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome (Rated B-class, High-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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Identity of Fortunus[edit]

Who is "Fortunus"? I've never heard of this Roman god. A quick google shows that there is a "Temple of Fortunus" at Rome, but aside from references that are identical to the one in this article, there is no other information I can find about this god. T@nn 12:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


This article indicates the Fortunus is another name for Portunes. I'm thus editing the page so that the link goes to that god. T@nn 12:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The king of the waters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This source no longer exists. --Pstanton (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

i just know that all greek & romAN R STUPID espacialy bellona ha ha ha such a funny name

Ancient marble statue[edit]

I have to add this, since this is the only major and ancient statue that is in here, in this very loose article which is so bare. Please expand it further: The Department of Subaquatic Archaeological Research divers (headed by Michel L'Hour) discovered between September and October 2007, a first decade, 300 A.D. 5.9 foot marble statue of Neptune, in the Rhone, Divers find Caesar bust that may date to 46 B.C. --Florentino floro (talk) 06:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by saying "this is the only cat and the rarest" here [2]? It is not the only statue, here are a couple of others: [3] in Florence, [4] in Bristol, [5] in Gdansk, [6] in Bologna. And as for "the rarest," rarity has no meaning when you are talking about one of a kind artworks. The Neptune (mythology) article is about the Roman god, a figure in classical mythology. There are many statues of him, made at various eras in history, some are in museums, some are lost, some are found. None of them are relevant to the figure of Neptune in classical mythology. If you put this edit back in this page again, I will report you for edit warring. If you want to add something to this page (which is indeed short, or "bare," as you put it), I would recommend reading some Roman mythology, and adding stories about the mythical exploits of Neptune. That would be useful. maxsch (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Please never threaten me of reporting me, as well-respected editor who contributed more than 3,700 edits here of edit warring. It is unfair and personal attack, against Wiki rules. I protest your threat: I issued the ruling, and I hereby notify your about this Neptune article, by quoting to you my reply and 7 reasons for denial of your baseless message:"DENIED for lack of merit. Reasons of my RULING: First, the article is about Neptune (mythology). What is the meaning of mythology? Well, in layman's terms, it is about the Greek's culture, specifically on their religious beliefs on Gods, like Athena, and here, Neptune. Like us, Filipinos, we have idols, like the Rice God, Bul-ol, Bathala, Anito, etc., all considered by our history as culture, religion and folklore and mythology. Second, the discovery was treasure, for it was reported part of the treasure trove, and is not only NOTABLE, but one of the rarest find ever, as far as the bare and like-stub article at bar. Third, your citing of links on other statues are not only irrelevant, immaterial and impertinent to the discussion, since the pivotal issue, is only the notability and propriety of adding the treasure discovery of the statue of Neptune to this article. Why? So what if there other statues or millions of them? Here in Philippines you can find millions of statues of anitos, bul-ol etc. in Baguio, but Neptune's treasure discovered statue, as the report stated, is so rare in terms of time, place and events. Fourth, why don't you discuss in the talk page of the article, the links and citations of other Neptune statues, so that other editors can rebut me or you, for a better and more intellectual discussion of the issue. Fifth, you had been here in Wikipedia, just to edit or revert my scholarly and well-researched contributions, amid other editors disgust upon your method and agenda. Sixth, you never created an article nor had you, like us editors who spent long hours of research to create cats and add edits, we, aired frustration, disgust and were most perturbed by your disruptive editing. Seventh, why are you threatening me, a well-respected editor who had more than 3,700 edits, of editing warring? What is your basis? I spent and wasted lots of time to work for Wikipedia, and then, by reverting or amending your edits, to cure the defects of your bad faith editing, of your stubborn refusal to read the rules, to read carefully the links like in University of the Philippines and lots of articles where I contributed and you reverted without any valid ground. Please read carefully Wiki rules on edit warring and assume good faith. Please be guided accordingly, since I have a pending petition to ban or suspend you. I leave all these matters to my adopting parent, since daily I am currently submitting tons and hard evidence that a) you do not contribute by creating any article nor adding any edit, but b) you solely revert, delete or take off my and your fellow-editors' edits, only to be regularly reverted by us. All rights reserved, none waived." --Florentino floro (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Further, the article is a stub, and we editors are asked to expand it: This article relating to a European myth or legend is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it --Florentino floro (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Mr Floro, please be civil. Using phrases like "DENIED, for lack of merit" and "my RULING" is not polite, and presumes an authority that you do not have. I cited links to other statues because your edit summary [7] said "this is the only statue and the rarest." I wanted to show you that those two statements were actually false. And since those were your stated reasons for making the edit, their factual status is pertinent. A few more quick point of fact: 1) Neptune is a figure in Roman mythology, not Greek, as you stated above. Poseidon is the Greek equivalent. 2) I did discuss the edit in the talkpage of the article. Hello! 3) I have created articles, see this [8], [9] for example. maxsch (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


See above argument about the "Ancient Marble Statue" maxsch (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Multiple issues[edit]

I've tagged multiple issues within the article. It has way too many pictures for its length and their layout makes the article look pretty ugly, unless the article is lengthened accordingly, we should take several out. Also, I don't see any sources for several claims, so I've added original research tags, as well as the big box for the article. In particular I suspect the claim that Neptune is the "least endowed" of the gods. I've tagged as a hoax the whole section on the line-crossing ceremony. The only source that has is the U.S. Naval Institute online store, which hardly establishes encyclopedic notability or widespread practice which the article implies, without citations, in ""Line-crossing ceremony" initiation rite still current in many navies as well as in the merchant marine." --Pstanton (talk) 06:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Re edit summary "Multiple issues within the article". Within is not simply a high-fluting synonym for in; it emphasizes boundaries and tacitly contrasts a statement in which it occurs to a situation outside those boundaries.--Wetman (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see the relevance, I'm sure my meaning was clear regardless of the semantics of my statement. --Pstanton (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I notice the claim that Neptune was the least endowed of all the gods and was heckled etc. has been sourced by a picture of a statue. This hardly verifies that Neptune was traditionally considered small, or that there is a legend associated with the size of his genitalia. A good source would be a scholarly paper or a quote from the Theogeny or Ovid's Metamorphoses. I'll leave it there, but mark it as a failed verification for now, mainly because I don't want everyone thinking I'm a crank who won't accept proof. Its just that a single image of a statue can't confirm whether or not this was a legitimate myth, or original research, and images aren't listed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources --Pstanton (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


Paredra is not a common word in English. It appears in only four WP articles, and in two of these it refers to a moth species. I've found it in some English sources that deal with subject matter relevant to this article, but they italicize it as an import. Wiktionary doesn't have an entry for it. At the very least, the word needs to be explained, and may even be a concept that needs a separate article to which it can be linked.

This points toward another concern. I feel that the article is getting a little dense and technical. It's a topic young students might look up, and it needs to be comprehensible to a general readership. It also depends too much on a Dumézilian approach. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to explain paredra. I also added Takacs who is more in agreement with Petersmann' approach. Maybe you are right, to make the article less technical will require some effort. I have almost finished, I need to deal still with the parallel aspects in Poseidon, the equestrian connexion and that with Consus, who appears in the same region in Martianus btw. Thank you for your remarks.Aldrasto11 (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

And thank you for both your positive attitude and your great efforts to develop and improve the article. The solution in some instances may be to place the emphasis on scholarly views that can be expressed as a consensus, moving who said what and said it first to a footnote. And perhaps some reorganization or subdivision within the longest section. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your revision that improved the readability. In Consus and Martianus lies the mystery of both gods...Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I finished editing this article. Comments and suggestions are welcome.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Chichester inscription[edit]

Hey, I'm glad somebody added the Chichester inscription. I'd seen it the other day and forgot to add it. The article could benefit from a section on Neptune in the provinces, to which the inscription should then be moved. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Neptune's Chariot[edit]

Who was the lead sea-horse of the Neptune chariot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


What's the proper name for the staff that Neptune is holding? (talk) 10:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


Yes I see the point, but clarifying it would need an excursus. In part this can be done referring to the arguments proposed by Petersmann. I.e. the hieros gamos of Heaven and Earth through rain. Other explanations would entail new research to be added, which is not prtinent to classicist scholarship.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I added a note clarifying a bit the issue. Also expanded section on Consus and Neptune.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


I thoroughly revised the article, added bibliography, but surely there may still be mistakes...Aldrasto11 (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)