Talk:Apollo/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Apollyon was the name of the destroyer unleashed at the Tribulation. Some have seen links to this name and Apollon (supposedly, the pit was an allusian to a ritual which involved digging into the Earth to uncover the fallen Sun, which Apollo is supposed to represent). Can somebody give some feedback on this and determined if this and any subsequnt information is worth mention in the article? -- IdeArchos 17:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do all superheroes appear in each other's comicbooks? The two names are simply variants of "destroyer"— so is the Terminator. The question is, did the author of the apocalyptic poem of the 2nd century AD attributed to "John" know of Apollo? Yes he did. There is no deep connection. --Wetman 05:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just cleaned up Acesius which had this information about Apollo. Really Apollo should be discussed here rather than there. I think putting the info at the end of attribution was the best I could do, but an Apollo expert might want to clean it up, cut any duplication, and integrate it better if it is worth keeping. -- cmh 02:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


In standard mythology, Apollo and Dionysius are not brothers; they are half-brothers, but then so are Apollo and Ares, Apollo and Hermes, Apollo and almost half the gods out there. The idea that the two are complementary is not in the mainstream of mythology, and so probably stems from one of the mystery cults, in which case the source should be attributed, since there are often considerable differences in these (e.g. Dionysius and the Titans). Nothing I have ever seen suggests Dionysius has anything to do with Delphi, so that probably should be attributed as well. Besides, I'm interested to know!

The tomb of Dionysius was acually inside the adyton of the Apollo temple at Delphi. Clea, Priestess to Apollo, lead the secret Dionysian rites from Delphi to the Korykian cave, 7 miles up the slope of Mount Parnassos, in the winter months when Apollo was said to be absent from Delphi. Men were not allowed to witness these women's rites, altough some are thought to have been chosen for the role of satyrs.
Nietzsche in "The Birth of Tragedy" traced the genius of Greek culture to the tension between these two divinities.
Regards John D. Croft 19:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Myth section

For this to be a good article, someone needs to work through the myth section, reporting sources and bringing the concise accounts into line with the texts. The "Origins of the cult of Apollo" needs some sourcing too: whose conclusions are being summarized? --Wetman 23:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 22:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


How should we have recognized the following snippet, intruded by User:, 3 February 2007, as bogus?

"It is also said that Apollo played a magical string made of the finest silk. It is said that it was given to him by Hermes on the Mountain of Tomoluese. This magical string created melodic tunes that were so powerful that anyone who heard it would fall into a trance."

By the unsourced "it is said", by "played a string" rather than his cithara, by the false note of "silk" which is Chinese and unknown in Greece, let alone myth, and by the second-hand echo of Orpheus applied to Apollo. Let's pay closer critical attention.--Wetman 10:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Celtic Epithet Reference

I've added the reference to my source at the end of the introductory paragraph, and I've listed the book under modern references at the end of the article. Please let me know if I need to do anything else T@nn 08:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

T@nn, thanks for supplying the reference. If your source has any more information about these epithets/titles, it would be great to put it in the article. For instance, take the statement "Apollo Virotutis was worshipped, among other places, at Fins d'Annecy (Haute-Savoire) and at Jublains (Maine-et-Loire)". How do we know these things? Is there a passage in an ancient author that says this? If so, we should be told who. Or does this information come from an inscription? In that case, the article should be precise about the inscription.
However, if you don't have convenient access to more precise information, I wouldn't worry about it too much--it's not as if the rest of the article is very precise about its sourcing. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The book does, in fact, list a bibliography. I'll add the sources later. T@nn 04:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delian and Pythian Apollo

These were certainly separate cults; but the claim that they had separate shrines in the same place is unsupported by Burkert. p.43 [143] does indeed discuss shrines, but Mycenaean ones.

The chief problem with this is the implication that the two had many shrines. These two may well be exceptions, but many Greek cults had one shrine each; here, in Delphi and on Delos. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added the correct page number. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. And edit conflicted with me as I was going to fix it. Better indices would be nice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apollon musagète (Stravinsky)

I put a reference to Apollon musagète (Stravinsky) in the popular culture section, but I think that it does not really belong there. It could be part of Apollo in Art, but that section refers exclusively to pictorial representation of Apollo.--Atavi 12:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undeteched vadalism

Not sure if I've removed all of it, but I came across some serious vadalism on this page that had been written into the normal text, stuff including "niggers", "whores", how Apollo likes to (I quote) "f**k men with a mice up the arse" etc (appalling English, by the way!). The rest of you keep an eye out for anything else and any further trouble. 01:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OMG, you serious? (comment left by at 02:03, 11 July 2007)

first, please sign your comments. you can do this by typing a series of four tildes (~~~~). second, why is that so shocking to you? that sort of vandalism is so common as to be boring. Whateley23 04:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oracular shrines

About Hierapolis, a contributor wrote : "Prophecy was by movements of an archaic aniconic wooden xoanon of Apollo.". I cannot find any reference to this xoanon in Hierapolis, but I can find one to Hierapolis Bambyce , an ancient town in Syria (see : Hierapolis). There may have been a confusion between the two towns. JoJan 15:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you're right. Most of that paragraph of the article is referring to Hierapolis in modern Turkey (see the Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites on the "Plutonium", etc.) The work De Dea Syria ascribed to Lucian mentions divination by a moving image of Apollo (not an "aniconic ... xoanon") in Hierapolis Bambyce in modern Syria (chapters 35–37). EALacey 14:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tone flag

It's not the place of a Wikipedia article to provide original analysis of how a given story may or may not illustrate the standards of its culture, or what Apollo is a "perfect example" of, without citing a source. I'm going to be going through the article and altering some of the original interpreatation into neutral, factual language.

Of course if there are notable sources for the judgments in the article, that is all to the good.

Dybryd 03:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thus it is an added, but necessary requirement for responsible and dedicated Wikipedia editors to find appropriate published statements and quote them verbatim, giving full bibliographical footnotes, in order to avoid alterations by self-appointed correctors. --Wetman (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chatty intro

I've removed a breezy, chatty unsourced, un-wikified introduction recently added to the head of this article: see diff here. In it the reader was given a synthetic account of Apollo, ignoring the historical changes in perception of the god, who was "not very lucky when it came to love," though " Apollo was always very much loved on Mount Olympus and Zeus gave him the power of knowing the future." The merging of Phoibos and Apollo "has created some confusion."

"When he was a child, he may have killed the monstrous Python, who was torturing his mother on Hera's command;" " one of his sacrificial animals was the wolf, enemy of all shepherds;" "Apollo was very proud of his musical talents;" "Apollo's romances often had bad ends:" Daphne "had herself changed into a laurel" and more of the same, reporting at third-hand childish versions of material that has been carefully assembled into an article that this editor is apparently unaware of. I couldn't find any statement that was an improvement on the corresponding statement already in the article.--Wetman (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Sweeps (on hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. There are large numbers of {{fact}} tags, which if not remedied are a reason to boldly delist the article (they would be in violation of the quick-fail criteria of GA standards). There are also many instances of poor structure, with single sentence paragraphs abound. These stand-alone sentences should be consolidated into larger paragraphs, a paragraph being generally a minimum of three sentences in standard English usage. Also, if Celtic epithets and cult titles is a list, then it needs numbers or bullets. Otherwise it too must be consolidated in to paragraphs. I gave an example of the type of paragraph copyediting desired in the lead work I completed. I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. VanTucky talk 20:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As none of the issues above have been addressed, I will now boldly delist the article from GA. VanTucky talk 16:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent! --Wetman (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strange content

{{editprotected}} can we please remove the "Bold text" from the end of this article (see last diff). Note: I am an RC patroller. If there is good reason for this to be there, I don't realize it. --Thinboy00 @220, i.e. 04:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done I removed it.
Gonzo fan2007 talkcontribs 08:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saw this term in a NatGeo show on competitor religions to Christianity and was surprised to not see it on Wikipedia. Searches find some references to it about Nietzsche's works and by a few Christian writers. It seems not to refer to the heart of the worship to Apollo and having missed the section of the show discussing this and how it relates to early Christianity it would be nice to read about it on Wikipedia. This article doesn't have a clear section on the worshipers, forms of worship, holidays, worshiper dress code, etc. Maybe an article entitled Apollo Mysteries or Apollo Worship? Religion project is not my forte so I'm just tossing up ideas. Any takers? (Not signed in. I'm alatari) (talk) 09:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, I figured out they were referring to Apollonius of Tyana when discussing Apollonism but it would still be interesting to read about how Apollo was worshiped. The different festivals hold the most details of his worship on Wiki but I'm looking more for daily worship. Those festivals articles are so short it seems an Apollo Festivals article could be created and maintained more easily. (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The word Apollonism sets up some expectations that aren't borne out by the cultus of Apollo either; have a look at Walter Burkert, Greek Religion. There's no -ism in "paganism". --Wetman (talk) 07:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apollo with the griffin?

Am I just out of my mind? I would normally figure that the caption "Apollo with the griffin" was vandalism, but it's on the WikiCommons page and it was put there by the person who put the photo there (Ricardofrantz, 01:47, 22 July 2007).

Citharoedus means "singer"/"musician"/"one who plays the kithara". Anyone know what this is about? Ricardo? rmagill (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've emended the caption and included a link to the page Apollo Citharoedus. Deor (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

u people r gay for pooting nearley naked pichers of a gor on this web sight's —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This article really needs some sort of protection - it seems to have attracted an unusually high amount of vandalism of late, as I'm sure plenty of other users here have noticed. I'm actually surprised it isn't protected already - there isn't some sort reason for that which I'm oblivious to, is there? I would see to it myself but I'm not sure how to go about it, unfortunately. Does anyone else agree with me? Knyght27 (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. No idea why this article is so popular among vandals, but it should be protected. --Andrews Palop (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Part of the reason may be that people only want to consider Hellenic Polytheism in a historical context but not in a modern context as well -- this causes people to denigrate what they feel is an opposing view to theirs.KyriaAnne (talk) 07:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No reference to Apollo being the patron god of TKE

Apollo is the Greek patron of the US fraternity Tau Kappa Epsilon I think some reference to this should be provided. Alman148 (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't. The place for a mention is in Tau Kappa Epsilon, where it already exists. Deor (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note on vandalism

!!! The articles is locked due to vandalism but yet you see a phrase of someone "wuzz"-ing here at the beginning. Please remove that line in the article as well as my comment here —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

In a hasty look at the article, I can't see the vandalism you refer to. Can you be more specific about its location on the page? Deor (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roman Names

Today I put the Roman names in brackets beside their greek counterparts because they were not mentioned only their greek counterparts. Then within ten minutes it was deleted why?

I did a project on roman Apollo and back then I didnt know the roman names for the greek gods so this page was very hard to use

Apollo is also the name given to Satan/Lucifer —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That has nothing to do with the Roman names.This page is bias. I will now put the roman names beside the greek counterparts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ireland rules (talkcontribs) 18:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please respond!

(Coffeewhite (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Mis-spelling (sp?) :-)

Someone with the auth' - Under the Marsyas section, please fix: "After they each performed, both were deamed equal until Apollo decreed" ( = DEEMED). then just delete this. thanks, Earrach (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why Is This Article Locked?

Having perused the article and found a few minor problems, such as the unreliable source that is being cited as authoritative in regards to the connection between the name "Apollwn" and the verb "apollumi" (not to mention being quoted nearly word for word without quotation marks), I felt that a few minor edits were worthwhile. Then I noticed that this page was locked. Why was it locked? Is there a reason to continue keeping it locked? (talk) 05:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is protected to give the grown-ups a little rest. Tell us your few minor edits and we'll be glad to put them in for you.--Wetman (talk) 05:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible Edits under the 'Trojan War' section

Since the article is locked: I believe that Apollo's influence on the Trojan War deserves more emphasis, since he was one of the major patron gods of Troy. (My own research on the subject is pitifully insufficient to offer said changes myself) I also request, at the very least, a link to the article Cassandra since the prophecies regarding the fall of Troy were due in part to his gift. Solatika (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I tagged this statement as in need of citation: "later Roman poets often referred to him as Phoebus." Roman poets do use this name for Apollo, but it is obviously not of Latin origin — the ph indicates that it's of Greek origin (Phoibos). The article implies that this was a strictly Latin usage (it seems to suggest that although Apollo himself was "imported" without a Roman counterpart, the name Phoebus was an original Latin usage). Also, the article points out that Ovid uses "Phoebus"; since Ovid is not a "later" Roman poet as, say, Statius might be considered (setting aside the question of whether "Roman poet" or "Latin poet" was meant), I wonder what the statement is supposed to say: that Phoebus does not appear in the fragments of archaic or early Latin poetry such as Ennius? The chaotic little stub on Phoebus points out that in the Phaethon passage of the Metamorphoses, the sun god is Phoebus; without looking it up, I would've sworn (wrongly) it was Helios. The point is, edit wars sometimes occur when Wikipedians are trying to arrive at some ultimate "truth" rather than clearly and accurately presenting the facts. Our goal isn't to determine whether Phoebus is Apollo, as if either of these entities exist in some objectively verifiable way; our goal is to explain clearly how people have conceived of them. What's said, what's depicted; how scholars interpret. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about Thalia?

In the female lovers section what about Thalia?Smartpotatoe (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There continuly seems to be underlying bias in this article to greek apollo. There should be roman names beside the greek ones as coffeewhite stated, but they were deleted. Why? What is wrong about them. This article is an absolute disgrace —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dublin1994 (talkcontribs) 15:00, 6 June 2009

Copied from my talk page: I put the roman names of the gods beside their greek counterparts and u undid it. The page represents greek and roman apollo. Why did u undo it. give me 1 good reason —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dublin1994 (talkcontribs) 13:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll give you four good reasons: (1) Your changes were indiscriminate—changing "Aphrodite" to "Aphrodite/Venus" in a discussion of the Iliad, for example, makes no sense, since "Aphrodite" is the name of the goddess who appears in that work; and there is no such thing as a "Homeric Hymn to Hermes/Mercury". (2) The Roman analogue of Leto was named Latona, not Letona. (3) It's simply not necessary to give both names every time a god or goddess is mentioned; I'd suggest that you look at some of our other articles on classical mythology to see how such things are handled. (4) The equivalences between Greek deities and their Roman counterparts aren't as unproblematic as you make out. The Romans, for example, gave Mercury some of the attributes and history of Hermes; but there were significant differences in their cultus and functions, so that presenting them as identical, without qualification and in every context, is not correct. It all depends on what myths one is talking about and whether those myths are part of Roman as well as Greek mythology. Deor (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is bull. If u are saying that the equivalence between greek and roman deities are different than why is the apollo page shared. When I try make a page on roman apollo, it is deleted saying this page is for both. So ill continue adding the names —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dublin1994 (talkcontribs) 19:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Dublin 1994. Why sould the roman names be taken away. Deors reasons are stupiD

I also agree either allow thr roman names are make a separate page for roman apollo

that is 3 against 1 in favour of roman names. deor u take the liberty of adding the roman names and sticking with the decromatic system of wikipedia. Your gain concensus on discussion page has backfired.

I also agree with roman names and i will carry out the edit since a consencus has being made —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ireland1994 (talkcontribs) 18:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Today I am adding in roman names in the introduction in accordance with this consencus. We will see how that goes and I will add in the roman names to the whole page at a later date Ireland1994 (talk) 12:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Ancient Greek religion" template

The transclusion of the Ancient Greek religion template on this page was causing this template to appear on the left side of the page, pushing the text of the article down past the first screen. I have thus removed the template for stylistic reasons, though I have no objection to it being restored if there is a way to place it on the right side of the text with the other templates. ListenerXTalkerX 21:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cattle of Helios, not Apollo

I don't see how the reference to the Odyssey and the cattle of Helios (under Mythology - Other Stories) is relevant to the article. The identification of Apollo and the sun god Helios was not made until the Hellenistic period, several centuries after Homeric times, so a mention of Helios in the Odyssey is not likely to be referring to Apollo. Is there a reason why the reference is there? –eruditionFISH 15:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've removed that. Feel free to boldly remove unsourced or irrelevant material yourself when you find any. Deor (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no reference to modern worshippers of this Greek God both in Greece and other locations

There are several groups in the United States and Greece devoted to the worship of the Greek Gods including Apollo. The failure to mention this promotes the misconception that there are no modern worshippers in existance. I realize that existance of these groups is something that may have been removed in error and feel that this does need to be included to provide for balance between both ancient and modern worship as well as how they both are similar and differ.

Among the groups in the US are Hellenion, Neokoroi and ThiasosApollo -- all of which have discussion fora on Yahoo!Groups. There is also the umbrella organization called the YSEE in Greece that promotes the worship of the Greek Gods including Apollo.

KyriaAnne (talk) 07:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ZoeMcMac (talk)ZoeMcMac: I concur there should be reference to modern worshippers of this Greek god, just as the wiki for "Krishna" lists a history of his worship into the modern era, and contains many links to organizations that further the god's worship. Why are the Hindu gods being handled in a different manner than the Hellenic ones? is a recognized by the government as being a "real" religion in America. —Preceding comment was added at 05:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you recommend any reliable published sources that could be the basis for a section on modern worshippers? EALacey (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most sources are written in Hellenic, but there is a well-sourced article by Labrys (a Greek organization) that talks about Apollo's modern presence in household worship. There was an NPR feature during the 2004 Olympic hype that refers to a group that worships Apollo. [2] Kaethros (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I remember reading in an Italian museum that Niobe insulted Leto by saying that Artemis was butch and Apollo was effeminate, although the only insult listed here is the lack of offspring. Shouldn't the rest be included? (Huey45 (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC))Reply[reply]


It is generally accepted that the name of the god Helios,is derived from a Proto-Indo-European word (Latin:sol,Germanic:sunna,Sanskrit:surya)).It must be noticed that in the Germanic-Saxonic languages the words for the son (greek:υιός,-ios) and the sun (greek:ήλιος-helios) are similar.In German :der Sohn (the son),die Sonne (the sun).Therefore it wouldn't be quite impossible that the root "ios" in Helios could mean "son" and Hel-ios could mean the son of God.There is no linquistic connection with the Northwest semetic supreme god El(Akkadian:Ilum) who was called Elyon in Syria,but perhaps there is a connection with the son of Elyon, Bell (Compare:Pelasgian).Apollo comes from the Akkadian Aplu Enlil(the son of Enlil) who comes from the Babylonian Aplu(son of),a title given to Nergal.It is possible that Hel-ios and ios (son) are not derived from Proto-Indo-European words but they have Pelasgian roots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent IP edit

If anyone else can check the sources and see if they confirm this edit (and comment generally on it), I'd appreciate it. I'm suspicious of any edit that doesn't have the full book title or page number if it is at all controversial. I'd love to know what Eller is being used for, she's not a supporter of some of the extreme matriarchy stuff. It's been placed in about 6 articles so far. With no pages numbers some can't be verified. Dougweller (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, for one thing, I'm unclear why Marduk and Tiamat are being dragged onto this page. If any connection of the material to Apollo vs. Python were at all relevant, it should have been added not where it now appears, but as part of the discussion of that encounter in the "Youth" subsection; I, however, tend to think that it doesn't belong at all. A Google Books search for "Apollo" in the Eller and Merchant books cited turns up nothing related to this notion: Eller's only mentions of Apollo seem to be in the context of the trial of Orestes, and Merchant's only mention, although having something to do with the "patriarchalization" of worship in Greece, does not mention Apollo vs. Python. I'm going to remove the IP's addition. I've no comment at this time on whether his/her edits to the other articles you refer to are appropriate. Deor (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I don't understand why Python ends up on the Marduk and Tiamat pages, it's the same edit on about 6 pages. Dougweller (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello Clarius used to redirect here, which was confusing since there is no mention in the article. Also Apollo Clarius redirects to Clarus

I've created a disambiguation page for Clarius but I guess that the redirects for the two terms above need to be fixed in some way. I will leave it to you as I don't know this subject.Thanks. (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a misunderstanding, I assume an innocent mistake. "Apaliunas" is not "a Luwian deity". It is Forrer's reading of Hittite (not Luwian) ]x-ap-pa-li-u-na-aš, identified as the way the name /Apeljon/ turns out when written in Hittite cuneiform.

/Apeljo(:)n/ is not, of course, a Luwian theonym, but the immediate predecessor of Greek Apeilōn and Apellōn. I.e., whatever the Greek name means, "Apaliunas" is simply how the Hittites spelled it. This doesn't help in the search for an etymology (we knew the early Greek form must have been /apeljon/ anyway), but it is important for establishing the theonym for 13th century BC.

Turning this into a "Luwian deity" is taking liberties with the scholarly references to put it mildly. I could find one advocate of an actual Luwian etymology, Brown (2004) ("The One of Entrapment"), but unlike the /Apeljon/ reading, which has been well-established for 70 years now, this is a speculative and idiosyncratic suggestion. --dab (𒁳) 16:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


In Apocalypse of St John, Abaddon is the exterminator, the angel of the bottomless pit (abyss).In greek his name is Apollyon and there is some evidence that it is probably not a coincidence.The myth referring to the birth of Apollo is included in Apocalypse.(A dragon is pursuing a pregnant woman and he is killed by the God).Abas (a non greek name) is the establisher of the Danaan-dynasty and also the establisher of the city Aba in Parnassus.There existed a famous temple and oracle dedicated to Apollo.Apollo substituted a terrible god who brought destructions but could take them away.It seems that there is a connection.Even if the name Apollo is probably Doric,the God has pre-Greek origins.Mondigomo (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Not a single image in this article lists the sculptor or artists. I think they would appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revert date format back to BC/AD

I feel that there is a need to revert the BCE/CE date formats back to the BC/AD of the 2005 versions of this article as no discussion of the issue was held on the talk page. Furthermore there was no substantial need for changing meaning that doing so violated the WP:ERA which states "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors." (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But what about the version of September 2002? It used BCE and that's the first instance of any era system in this article, as far as I can tell. Sorry to be pedantic and all, but could you point us to any subsequent discussion that established BC/AD instead ? Are you simply pursuing consistency within articles, as I sorta hope? Or are you expressing a preference? The era system here seems fine as it stands. Haploidavey (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changes, comments and questions

This article is pretty decent. I enjoyed reading it. I decided to make a few changes, particularly on the sequence of sections. The major one is the move of the section on mythology up since, in my opinion, mythology is the most important thing about Apollo. I also repositioned some images for a better and more pleasant layout. I add a few comments and questions.

1. "A non-Greek origin of Apollo has long been assumed in scholarship, but be established conclusively."

Something is wrong with the sentence.

2. "in other stories, Apollo himself had killed Coronis"

A source is needed for this. Which other stories are these?

3. "Other attributes of his included the kithara (an advanced version of the common lyre), the plectrum and the sword"

The connection with the plectrum is curious to me. What's the source for the above claim? I would be interested to know.

ICE77 (talk) 06:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wives and children

who was his wife and who was he married to how many chirldren did he have —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apollo was never married he, Hermes and Ares are the only unmarried Olypian males. It is difficult to put a specific number on the amount of kids he had. (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC) that last comment was mine i forgot to sign in sorry TheGummyBearOverLord (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm somewhat perplexed by both the choice of images here, and the generally cluttered layout. In particular, the current choice of image at the top of the page is neither the most typical representation of Apollo, nor the best-quality image of Apollo. Is there a consensus for this choice? Cynwolfe (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evidently no consensus, as someone has just changed the top image to what is probably the most famous Apollo. I agree with this change as more representative of the whole tradition of Apollo's iconography archaic through 20th century, but if I'm not mistaken we have a better version at Commons. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Modern Reception

I've hacked back this section because I thought some trivia were creeping in. However, I have inserted mention of the Apollonian/Dionysian dialectic which I think is important in indicating a modern perception of the god and provides a background to Jung's Apollo archetype.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with the importance of the Apollonian/Dionysian dichotomy. It's possible that the Apollo space program isn't a trivial use of the name (some mythology articles mention planets, chemical elements, and such that are named after the figure), or at least not trivia in the way that the Batman reference was. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I too agree that the Apollo space program mention wasn't trivial. I said this here, but that was probably the wrong place to raise it. I've re-stated below what I said there:

The bit about Apollo and NASA's space program isn't really trivia. A fair amount has been written about it. The Apollo program article has this (source given in the article):

"The program was named after the Greek god of light, music, and the sun by NASA manager Abe Silverstein, who later said that "I was naming the spacecraft like I'd name my baby." Dr. Silverstein recalls he chose the name after perusing a book of mythology at home one evening, early in 1960. He thought that the image of "Apollo riding his chariot across the Sun was appropriate to the grand scale of the proposed program.""

When considering what should be in the Apollo program, clearly there are lots of sources about the space program that cover the history of how it and other programs were named and why (see here and here for examples). It is a bit more difficult to decide what should be in the Apollo article, but there are also many sources about Apollo and Greek mythology that mention this connection (only in passing, but they do mention it). This begs the question of why they mention the connection, but we now don't. Wikipedia doesn't do 'passing mentions' well. In such cases, the information is sometimes better put in a footnote, rather than removed altogether. The Graf 2009 monograph on Apollo is here and doesn't appear to mention NASA's space program. Whether that is a reason not to mention it in the Wikipedia article is less clear. It is better to survey sources, rather than use editorial discretion here, as individual editors tend to draw the line in different places and end up arguing endlessly over the correct approach to take.

My view is that at least some mention of the Apollo space program could be restored, along with an attempt to improve the modern reception section (is that really the right name for such a section? 'reception' refers more to works of art and literature - the correct term here would be more likely 'cultural influence' or something similar). Carcharoth (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hope the Two-face (Harvey Dent) reference is being removed because of the lack of scholarly citations drawing a significant thematic connection to the Apollo figure, and not because of its origins in a comic book. The character does loom large in the public consciousness, after all.
These kinds of things are a matter of framing, as suggested in this comment. I think what we want to avoid are random trivia lists. Compare the scope of the articles Heracles, Hercules, Hercules in ancient Rome, and Hercules in popular culture. Heracles is the heavy-duty article about the Greek divine hero; Hercules is the general article (still needing a lot of work) about the general mythological tradition of Hercules, including medieval and modern-era historical representations; Hercules in ancient Rome (still in development) focuses very narrowly on Hercules in ancient Roman religion, literature, and art; Hercules in popular culture is a place where people can list notable contemporary uses of the Hercules myth for which sources might be minimal. For instance, someone took the trouble of compiling a filmography of Hercules movies, placing them in chronological order and with some introductory comment. Thrown onto the page individually or randomly, this might be trivia; but with organization and enough detail to verify the existence of each, it's a demonstration of the continuing development of the myth.
The short, underdeveloped article on classical tradition was created as a place to explain the difference between describing the Greeks and Romans as they were, and describing the cultural influence and representations of Greek and Roman culture that have helped define "Western" culture. The article classical mythology more specifically aims to distinguish between the concept of "mythology in the classical tradition" from "Greek mythology" or "Roman mythology" per se, though it's still missing sections on medieval mythography, Renaissance mythology, and so on. Most of what we think of as "mythology" is actually how mythology is disseminated later. So while you can find tons of scholarship on, for example, Shakespeare's use of mythology, it's harder to find secondary sources that allow you to organize pop-culture references. To avoid having these become mere trivia, they have to be lists with criteria for inclusion and principles of organization. In general, mere allusions aren't notable: and yet we have Icarus imagery in contemporary music, which is essentially a list of allusions—but organized in a table. I don't see the page as doing any harm: it keeps the main article from being overshadowed by trivia, and yet organized collectively, the allusions don't seem so trivial. They demonstrate how pervasive the myth is. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit request on 5 August 2013

The Apollo page is completely missing Phaethon and his mother Clymene, which is common knowledge for anyone who knows anything about Apollo. But a source of that story is in Ovid, which was used as reference to the page. It starts in book 1, around line 1038, and goes into book 2 through line 548, depending on how far you want to read.

Also, Apollodorus IS the author of The Library, it's not "mis-attributed." No evidence has been supplied to suggest Apollodorus isn't the author. (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're using an English translation of Ovid, you might well be reading "Apollo". Trouble is, Ovid's Latin has Phoebus, a title given to the Roman and Greek sun god Helios, among others. We can't know what else was in Ovid's mind; but in Ovid's day Apollo was worshiped in Rome under his Greek name, though in a distinctively Roman manner. So was Helios. And let's not forget Rome's native Sol. We must assume that had Ovid meant "Phoebus-Apollo" he's have said so. Late Latin sources and some translators might conflate Greek and Roman gods willy-nilly - even some modern mythographers do so (even, dare I say, some modern Encyclopedias) but we shouldn't, and least of all retrospectively. Equivalence is difficult, and Apollo's already difficult enough.
As far as I can tell, the article correctly attributes "The Library" to the Pseudo-Apollodorus. See Bibliotheca (Pseudo-Apollodorus). Haploidavey (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ovid most definitely calls the owner of the sun chariot Sol and Phoebus; he does not mention the name Apollo in the Phaethon passage. Apollo had a particular theology in Augustan Rome; Ovid seems to be running contrary to it in the Metamorphoses, where Apollo is typically frustrated in love and a bit of a jerk. I don't know about medieval and Renaissance mythography, though. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not done for now: due to uncertainty around who Ovid meant, exactly. If inclusion is suitable, more discussion is required on how, in what eras was this a common view, etc. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aegletes (pronunciation)

Aegletes (/əˈɡliːtiːz/ ə-GLEE-teez; Αἰγλήτης, Aiglētēs

The epithets have been converted to standard Anglicised pronunciation with remarkable accuracy, with (what seems to me) this one exception. I don't think ae is ever reduced to /ə/. It should be /iːˈɡliːtiːz/. Am I wrong? (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need for Protection

This article definitely needs to be semi-protected. To me, the page history just looks like a bunch of vandalism and reversions of the vandalism. Yes? No? Leave comments please. Leoesb1032 (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done - it's had a long history of vandalism and of semi-protection. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]



The name is propably derived in dialectic forms from doric Απέλλων (Apellon),a type that can be found in the name of the months (Απελλαιών-Apelleon),Cypriotic Απείλων (Apeilon) and Thessalic Άπλουν (Aplun).In Epos we find the basic form Απ(π)πέλλων meaning απ(ό)πελλος (ap(o)pellos),averruncus.This can be translated "powerfull" (Homer:ολιγοπελής=weak). The doric word απέλλα (apella) originally meant wall,fence for animals and later assembly into the limits of the square.The Macedonian word πέλλα (pella) meaning stone is connected with the names of cities (Πέλλα,Πελλήνη). With the prefix α,απέλλα (apella),means fence made from stones.This can explain the holy stones which are very important in the cult of Apollo,and the stones found in front of the gates of Troya.(Apollo was propably the protector god of the city). The existence of so many different forms leads to the conclusion that the word was propably borrowed from a foreign language. At the city Vilusa reigned by a king named Alaksandus,was found the name of a god -ap-pa-li-u-na-as.The word is not complete.At Bojatzkoi ,in an insription is mentioned the name of the God "Apulunas"and he is the protector of the gate.His symbol was a sign like a cone on the gate of the temple.The word is propably connected with the Babylonian word "abullu"(gate) therefore he is the God of the Gates.


The calendar in Delphi was under the protection of Apollo.The adoptation of the 7. apollonian day is like a foreign body in the greek decimal calculation of the days of the months.Allthough almost all of the greek festivals were celebrated at full-moon time,the festivals of Apollo were celebrated on the 7. and of his sister on the 6.The use of the seventh day of the month,of "sibutu",is Babylonian and is connected with special offers.Later appears the series 7.,14.,21.,28 and the 19.of the following month (7. 7). Apollo is propably a Hettitic god with Babylonian origin ,the protector of the gate ,who the Greeks named αγυιεύς (agieus).The stones in front of the gates of Troya are the symbols of Apollo and he is the protector of the city. (Translated from German."Geschichte der Griechischen Relegion".Martin.P.Nilsson.) (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've reverted the addition of the etymological material. If it can be more clearly sourced and explained more coherently, it might be added to the paragraph following the one to which it was added (since it deals with modern theories); but it made little sense as it stood—I tend to doubt that any reliable source says that Απ(ο)πέλλων occurs in Homer as the name of the god. Deor (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Apollon: Ap/Ab/Aba/Apa ="water" , Ula ="small wood" , wana = "place", "temple of"(in Luwian)

more: Böri (talk) 10:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The name "Apollo" is propably connected with the greek verb "απέλλω" meaning "take away".In Delphi Apollo propably substituted an existing terrible god who was able to bring and take away destructions.His worship is connected with the number seven (seven days of the week),similar to the Babylonian god "Apulanus". (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is generally accepted that Apella was the name of the Spartan assembly.[1], however the Great Rhetra refers only the verb apellazein (assemble: people come together in a group for a particular purpose). When a pubescent was recepted into the body of grown men, as a grown Kouros (male youth) he became ἀπελλάξ (apellax: sharer in secret rites) and he could enter the initiation family-festival apellai. Apellaios is the month of these rites, and Apellon is the "megistos kouros" (the great Kouros) [2] In the Great Rhetra is written that the meetings of the Spartan gerousia and the people should take place from time to time, and the citizents should have the power to debate and take the decisions. [3] [4] It is obvious that the Spartan assembly, and the festival apellai are diferrent. I wonder if the Clarification needed:date=March 2014 is necessary, or the section etymology has to be slightly modified.
Other sources
Apellai: Dorian festival of Apollo celebrated at Sparta and elsewhere. Corresponded to the Ionian festival of Apaturia. At Sparta, the festival was celebrated monthly, on the seventh, when the Spartan assembly met. [5]
  1. ^ C.Mossè (1968) La Grèce archaique, d’ Homère a Eschyle p.168
  2. ^ Jane Ellen Harrison (2010): Themis: A study to the Social origins of Greek Religion Cambridge University Press. P.441 ISBN 1108009492
  3. ^ Plut. Lycurg. VI, 1-2
  4. ^ C.Mosse, p. 168-171
  5. ^ Glossary of Greek and Roman Religion: [1]
Jestmoon(talk) 13:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There is a whole section missing on Apollo's origins

For example it appears that both Greek and Etruscan Apollo's came during the archaic period (from 1,100 BCE till 800 BCE) from Anatolian. Homer has him on the side of the Trojans and he has close affiliations with Luwian Apaliuna, who in turn seems to have travelled west from further east. Late Bronze Age (from 1,700 - 1,200 BCE) Hittite and Hurrian "Aplu", like Homeric Apollo, was a God of the Plague, and resembles the mouse God Apollo Smitheus. Here we have a case where a God originally of the Plague was invoked to end illness, merging over time through fusion with the Mycenaean "doctor" God Paieon, PA-JA-WO in Linear B. Paean, in Homer, was the Greek physician of the gods. In other writers the word is a mere epithet of Apollo in his capacity as a god of healing, but it is now known from Linear B that Paean was originally a separate Deity who over time became merely an aspect of Apollo.

Homer left the question unanswered, whilst Hesiod separated the two, and in later poetry Paean was invoked independently as a health god. It is equally difficult to discover the relation between Paean or Paeon in the sense of "healer" and Paean in the sense of "song." It was believed to refer to the ancient association between the healing craft and the singing of spells, but here we see a shift from the concerns to the original sense of "healer" gradually giving way to that of "hymn," from the phrase Ιή Παιάν.

Such songs were originally addressed to Apollo, and afterwards to other gods, Dionysus, Helios, Asclepius. About the 4th century the paean became merely a formula of adulation; its object was either to implore protection against disease and misfortune, or to offer thanks after such protection had been rendered. Its connection with Apollo as the slayer of the Python led to its association with battle and victory; hence it became the custom for a paean to be sung by an army on the march and before entering into battle, when a fleet left the harbour, and also after a victory had been won.

Hurrian Aplu itself seems derived from the Babylonian "Aplu" meaning a "son of" - a title that was given to the Babylonian plague God, Nergal (son of Enlil)! Apollo's links with Oracles again seem to be associated with wishing to know the outcome of a personal illness. Looking at the ancient oracular shrines to Apollo from the oldest to the youngest we find

  • In Didyma, an oracle on the Asiatic Coast of Anatolia, South West of Lydian (Luwian) Sardis the Branchidae priests drank from a healing spring located in the temple
  • In Hieropolis, Asia Minor, priests breathed in vapours that for small animals were highly poisonous. They used to throw small animals and birds into the Plutonium, named after Pluto - the god of death and the underworld.
  • In Delos, there was an oracle to the Delian Apollo.
  • In Corinth, from the town of Tenea, from prisonners supposedly taken in the Trojan War
  • In Bassae in the Peloponnese
  • In Abae, near Delphi, all had Apollonian oracles
  • In Delphi, the Pythia became filled with the pneuma of Apollo, said to come from a spring inside the Adyton.
  • At Claros, on the west coast of Greece, like Delphi had a holy spring which gave of a pneuma, from which the priests drank.
  • In Segesta in Sicily, the latest of the series, was another oracle of Apollo, seized originally from Gaia.

Oracles were also given supposedly by sons of Apollo

  • In Oropus, north of Athens, the oracle Amphiaraus, was said to be the son of Apollo
  • in Labadea, 20 miles east of Delphi, Trophonius, another son of Apollo, killed his brother and fled to the cave where he was also consulted as an oracle.

Temples of Apollo

I wonder if it would be useful to add a section "Temples of Apollo", including the most important temples of Apollo, with some architectural details. Jestmoon jest 15:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jestmoon (talkcontribs)

I don't think temples of Apollo are significantly different from temples of Zeus, Athena or Poseidon, from an architectural point of view, and discussing architecture in this article seems off-topic unless there are specifically Apollonic design elements. The Oracular cult section already gives a list of significant places of worship; expanding that may be worthwhile. Huon (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the point would be to compile a list of such temples, and then compare their date as well as their size and putative cost with the aim of document the relative importance and influence of the cult of Apollo.

Of course "list" here means many hours of research, not just a bulleted list with a few random google results as is common practice, I suppose in the spirit of "if everyone dumps a few random factoids in passing, it will eventually lead to a great article". This is a misconception, it does not, or only ever via the step of annoying somebody to the point where they sit down and just do the necessary work to get rid of the ugly list.

A well-referenced and comprehensive list, otoh, would be a very welcome addition. --dab (𒁳) 11:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Traditional year numbering

In an article about European history, and in particular religious history, I think it is natural to use the traditional system BC/AD instead of the new atheist system BCE/CE. Change to the traditional system please. Urbanus Secundus (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although I myself prefer BC/AD because it's less susceptible to casual misreading and scribal error, I must demur when you characterize BCE/CE as the "new atheist" system. Both systems take the same religious event as the turning point of the era, so it's unclear to me why this convention is so often construed as a battle between religionists and atheists. Please review WP:ERA: to change the era system requires an argument based on the specific content of this article, not a general preference for an era convention categorically. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User: Urbanus Secundus did refer to the specific content of the article; he said it's an article about European history. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC))Reply[reply]
But as WP Editor 2011 knows, being a part of European history isn't agreed as a reason for such a change, and the article is not relevant to Christianity. As it started as BCE and is about a non-Christian religion, I don't think making this change is justified. Dougweller (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion ended a month ago and the change was made. If you don't like it, perhaps you should start a new topic to convince everyone of why BCE is more appropriate. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC))Reply[reply]
I don't see any decision. You changed it today, shortly after removing CE from another article with no discussion and calling your edit 'grammar and links'. Can I point out that with only 379 edits to your name that you probably aren't the best person to close such a discussion, let alone the problem about removing CE with no discussion at all and no mention in the edit summary. I consider this discussion still open and am reverting you. Dougweller (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I consider the B/CE vs. BC/AD distinction to be purely cosmetic, and as such see no reason to switch from one to the other. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Akhilleus. For articles dealing with the historical West, there should be no preference as to which era convention is used. If BCE/BC BCE/CE was the style established in the compiling of the article, it should not be changed. Especially not for the sake of era crusading (as here under the guise of adding information). If you don't like it is an unhelpful and childish taunt that I would wish not to see on WP so frequently. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP Editor's action here is remarkably unhelpful and high-handed. BCE/CE seems as appropriate now as it did then - yes, I've been here before (the section's somewhere above), and "I think it is natural to use the traditional system BC/AD instead of the new atheist system BCE/CE" is hardly going to sway my opinion. "New atheist system" isn't an accurate or logical premise for discussion. And it's certainly not grounds for change. Haploidavey (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User: Urbanus Secundus made a legitimate suggestion here 6 months ago, the discussion ended 5 months later and it was carried out 1 month after that. You had plenty of opportunity to participate if you didn't like his idea. To now suggest that the discussion was illegitimate simply because you weren't involved is beyond ridiculous. By that logic, any disagreeing editor could block anything just by refusing to speak. Dougweller and Akhilleus, you must stop trying to hijack the article. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 03:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC))Reply[reply]

We're discussing now. Nice of you to join us. Have you noticed that there are a number of editors opposed to changing to your preferred dating system? If you're really concerned about this article, try working on the many problems with its substance, rather than focusing on superficial issues like dating systems. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Referring to it as "your preferred dating system" is extremely misleading. It was Urbanus Secundus' idea and I was nice enough to put it in place after consensus had been established here and the discussion had been quiet for a month. Don't tell me to edit other parts of the article; I'll do what I want. Why don't you fix the substance yourself? You need to read WP:NPA. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Look, consensus was not achieved 5 months ago. Someone posted their idea on the talk page and it wasn't commented on. That is enough for a change, but not enough to defend your change. Now we are in the BRD cycle. Consensus is being created at this moment, and this is what we need to base the decision on. Personally, I think the article should remain as BCE/CE because there are no valid arguments for changing the article. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
lFrom the edit warring noticeboard after WP:Editor reported Akhilleus "The reporter, WP Editor 2011, is blocked for thirty-six hours for edit-warring and repeated violations of WP:ERA despite warnings to stop." Dougweller (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had completely forgotten about this topic, thanks to whoever alerted me about the discussion. Someone pointed out that Apollo was before the Christian era, and that is of course correct. But we in Europe have since had almost 2000 years to establish a tradition and we do now have a strong tradition of using BC/AD in Europe. Regardless of religion, this is an article about European culture. We could have used whatever year numbering system they used at that time, but no one would understand it so we can't. But everyone in Europe are familiar with BC/AD. Many people, especially not native English speakers, find BCE/CE confusing. Wikipedia is practicing bad policy. Urbanus Secundus (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree that BC/AD is a distinctly European system while BCE/CE is a non-European system. BC/AD is commonly used in America as well; however, BCE/CE is growing in popularity and is being used widely in textbooks. Its introduction to the school curriculum in Europe began in 2002. For this specific article, that means we must go by what existed first which was BCERyan Vesey Review me! 21:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Raise your hand if you've ever actually contributed prose content to this or any other article on Greek mythology. Anybody? Ah, yes, I see a couple. As well as some POV warriors who have evidently decided to mass here for the bloody fun of it. There are only two questions: what is the established era style for this article? is there a compelling reason to change it? Cynwolfe (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you really calling me a POV warrior? This discussion was linked from a page I was watching and I am taking part to help create consensus. There is no requirement that you actively take part in writing on Greek mythology in order to take part in a style related discussion on the topic (or any discussion on it for that matter). Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Forgive my exasperation. I just can't believe people care so much about this. If an editor (I have no idea whether this applies to you) has come here only to argue for imposing a particular era style, and does so in any number of articles in which he has no further interest, then yes, to my mind that is era crusading unmotivated by a desire to improve a given article. I want to see (A) evidence of what the established style is, and (B) reasons to change it that are specific to this article. Again, my exasperation was directed at the Swiftian absurdity of arguing over which end of the egg to crack first, and the amount of time wasted that could be spent actually improving articles. If the established style is BCE/CE, how will it improve the quality of an article about Apollo to change the style to BC/AD? Cynwolfe (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My apologies. I just came here due to the edit war. I initially thought your comment was directed towards me, which caused my response. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No apologies needed. I was in the wrong for being a smart-aleck. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ryan Vesey said: "I disagree that BC/AD is a distinctly European system while BCE/CE is a non-European system. BC/AD is commonly used in America as well" ---I only mentioned Europe because I am European and Apollo was European. I didn't mean to say BC/AD is not widely used elsewhere too, I just didn't think it was relevant. Urbanus Secundus (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I continued on by stating that BCE/CE is used in Europe, which was the point of that post. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the criterion is which dating system was used by the originating culture, we should use Olympiads or the terms of the priestess of Hera at Argos. Of course, there's a decent case to be made that Apollo is non-Indo-European in origin—did the Lydians use BC/AD or BCE/CE? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Satire is healthy, if dangerous to one's health. There is no preference given to BC/AD or BCE/CE. My understanding is that BCE/CE is the established convention for this article. Is anyone disputing that, and if so, on what grounds? If it's the established convention in this article, persisting in attempts to change it is by definition disruptive behavior, per WP:ERA. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the point is that they aren't even two systems, it's one and the same system (viz., the Dionysian era), the "BCE/CE" convention just arose as an option for social signalling, i.e. what you signal is your submission to the spirit of "political correctness". As soon as this is brought up, it will be "offensive" to some people if anyone fails to send the signal, while others find if offensive to be expected to sent the signal, and already the "debate" is purely about a political dichotomy. The problem is that even if you refuse to be interested in such games, there is no way around it for you, because if you simply go on using the established conventions, you become "conservative" for "refusing" to send whichever signals you are expected to send this year in support of everything that is "correct".

Wikipedia's solution to this is to ask people to refuse to even discuss the question, so articles will remain stuck in the convention favored by whoever wrote the first draft. That's sensible enough, as the alternative is to force the community to take a stance if they want to be actively "correct" (which is a road that once taken leads to a point that makes it impossible to be encyclopedic) or actively "anti-correct" (which would be encyclopedically more adequate, but will lead to endless social friction for no good reason).

In the case of long-standing articles like this one, however, the system becomes close to pointless, as the first introduction of "BCE" at the dawn of Wikipedia, in September 2002, and its immediate change to "BC" [3], which then prevailed for the next five years, concerns an article that bears not the least resemblance to the article's current revision. --dab (𒁳) 11:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NASA Apollo missions

Yes, in agreement with the sections above, the "Modern reception" section should be edited asap to link the NASA lunar landings... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2015

can i edit this

Rexford1234 (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apollo in Art, Bulk Doesn't Belong

Why is this section here? It isn't a thorough following of Apollo repersented in art, but an entirely different spin off piece discussing the evolution of Greek art. It doesn't belong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]