From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Where is it stated Japeth is the ancestor of the Dravidians? 21:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)


Please remove the section "Yaphet, son of Noah". The "similarity" has nothing to do with the Greek mythology. This is the same claim if we would say that American Indian god Votan represented god Odin. There is no proof of this correlation, only Hebrew occult mysticism. If we would write the claim; indian god Votan = Odin then this section would be removed immediately. But in our case the equalization of the Iapetus vs Jewish Yaphet remains. (I call this dual standards and "superiority" of the Jewish semitic mysticism version European Indo European mythologies). Correct me if I am wrong.

I've restored the section you deleted. It doesn't say that Iapetus and Japheth are the same, it merely says that some have claimed that they were -- giving sources which as far as I can tell (Graves seems to) support that. Paul August 13:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it seems reasonable to include this kind of material about connections between figures in different mythological systems and between mythological figures and historical figures, especially so if reliable sources are cited. If the anonymous user has an issue with the article, a better way to handle it might be to add arguments that have been made against these kinds of connections -- citing reliable sources, of course. --Brodmont (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Again Greek Iapetus has nothing to do with the story of Noah and his "descendants". Greek mythology does not describe any "Noah" father of Iapetus and does not describe the Noah's descendants like are Slavs, Greeks, Teutons and who else knows. Iapetus was a Greek god & titan, written and described by Homer himself. The biblical story (from Torah/Pentateuch: from 1009 AD) about Yaphet describes a totally different story; Yaphet is not a god, nor titan and he is not a son of Uranus and son of Gaia. If you will find the claim in Pentateuch or Vulgate, Septuaginta about Yaphet as the titan and a god then you can drive the correlations with Greek character. Otherwise this section should be removed. It is a pseudo science, an occultism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds as if you might have something to contribute to the article. Maybe you could improve it by adding some arguments against the connection between Japheth and Iapetus -- writing from a neutral point of view and referencing reliable sources. --Brodmont (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Well actually not. I will improve the section about the Yehovah which derived from the Chinese god Yeng-Wang-Yeh (=Yehovah).— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Iapetus and Japheth[edit]

As soon as this confusion was published, classicists, naturalists and anthropologists felt obliged to include an explanation of their using "Japetus". William Charles Linnaeus Martin was not the first or only example. In his A Natural History of Quadrupeds and other Mammiferous Animals (page 217), he points out his traditional use of the word in contrast to recent error. "Japeticus, not in allusion to Japhet, the son of Noah, but to Japetus (audax Japeti genus. Horace) whom the ancient classics regarded as the progenitor of the race inhabiting the western regions of the world."

Hopefully, a skilled Wikipedian will include this relevant information where it is appropriate. (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Jason != Maison && Christian is not inclusive to Chris[edit]

The quotes section is total slight of Greek cultural context. Christians need to walk away. Cruseis really is suggestion context the Prometheus figure. Beyond that, between Tufos & Prometheus, I would suggest Tufon is greater to not disputable for Prometheus.

If this land has a father, it's a "Jason", son of "Lout", half Tzalagi, half Chah'ta.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC) 

Requested move 18 April 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. (closed by page mover) feminist (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

– Typically, the mythological article gets more views than the moon. It is also the namesake of the moon and has greater long term importance. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - being the namesake to something else is a prime indication of its long-term significance. -- Netoholic @ 04:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The Titan gets significantly more page views than any of the other options. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Gods should usually be primary for their names, as opposed to minor celestial bodies named after them. P Aculeius (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. On some days (not very many), the moon or ocean gets more page views than the Titan. When different meanings of a term have similar popularity, it is probably best to keep the disambiguation page as the primary one. If 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) appears on the front page, there will be a great many hits for the moon. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 22:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 09:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.