Talk:Horus/Archive 2

Gerald Massey

The article on Gerald Massey claims that he began the Horus-Jesus comparison in 1907. Any basis to this and, if so, should it be mentioned in the article since it deals with Horus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.124.80 (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is about Horus and not about Massey's speculative theories.Apepch7 (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Massey's theories deal directly with Horus and are most likely the reason some claim that Jesus was based on Horus. So yes, this is about Horus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.124.80 (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

There was a book written in the 16th(?) Century by a French philosopher which is believed to be the inception of the Jesus-Horus comparison; he rewrote the story of Horus to mirror that of Jesus in order to promote secularism. His name escapes me at the moment but I will try to remember to find it and come back here when I do.24.96.49.159 (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Jesus and Horus

Macrobius (395–423 AD/CE)

Ambrosius Theodosius Macrobius (fl. 400 AD/CE)Confirming the contentions in the Chronicon, ancient Latin writer Macrobius (Saturnalia, I, XVIII:10) also reported on the annual Egyptian "Christmas" celebration, specifying the time as the winter solstice or "December 25th": …at the winter solstice the sun would seem to be a little child, like that which the Egyptians bring forth from a shrine on an appointed day, since the day is then at its shortest and the god is accordingly shown as a tiny infant. Here we can see the precise meaning of the theme of the newborn sun at the winter solstice, a motif representing the lengthening of days after the darkest time of the year. Egyptologist Dr. Bojana Mojsov explains further the significance in Egypt: "The symbol of the savior-child was the eye of the sun newly born every year at the winter solstice."

Epiphanius (c. 310-403 AD/CE)

In Christ in Egypt appears a lengthy analysis of the works of early Church father Epiphanius, including his discussion of the Egyptian winter-solstice celebration, which in Panarion adversus Haereses (51, 22.4-11) he names as "Chronia" and "Cicellia." Intriguingly, Epiphanius's account is censored in the Migne Greek edition to remove the parts about the winter solstice reverence of a babe in a manger born to a virgin. With difficulty, I was able to find the original, uncensored Greek passage and reference it in Christ in Egypt (84ff).

Christ in EgyptEpiphanius discusses the Kikellia or winter-solstice festival as taking place in the large Egyptian city of Alexandria "at the so-called Virgin's shrine." Railing against "those who guilefully preside over the cult of idols" and who "in many places deceitfully celebrate a very great festival on the very night of the Epiphany" (51, 22.8), Epiphanius next describes this festival as follows (51, 22.9-10): — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.132.6.120 (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC) I recently saw that Jesus' life and Horus' life are virtually identical, but having read that wiki article I can't find out much about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.15.180 (talk) 07:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I came here to confirm that info aswell, Basicly what I wanted to know is: Is it true that at any point in the story of Horus he is said to have been born on Dec 25th (or the egyptian equivelant), that Isis was a virgin, that his birth was announced by a star in the east, that he was visited by 3 kings, that he was a teacher at age 12, that he was baptised at 30, that he has 12 followers, that he performed miracles, that he was crucified, and that he was then ressurected after 3 days. This info will be touchy. Christians ill venomously deny it and conspiracy theorist (for lack of a better term) will venomously adhere to it. I really just want the facts.--Matt D 16:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No where in Egyptian mythology does it ever place the birth of Horus on December 25'th (not by our calendar, and not by any prior calendar). Isis was not depicted as a virgin, the story of Horus' conception involves Isis having sex with the dismembered penis of Osiris, but there is no indication that Isis was a virgin even if you think that doesn't count. No where in Egyptian Mythology does it ever even suggest that Horus was Crucified, and what's more Crucifixion was a Roman form of execution which significantly post-dates the story of Horus. The Ankh is not based on the crucifix, nor is the crucifix based on the ankh, that they are structurally similar is irrelevant the inspiration for their structure is different and their meaning is only remotely similar in the resurrection myth. There were many dying and rising gods in ancient mythology, some far more similar to Jesus and far more intimate to the region Christianity grew out of than the Horus myths could ever be.

This is incorrect, Confirming the contentions in the Chronicon, ancient Latin writer Macrobius (Saturnalia, I, XVIII:10) also reported on the annual Egyptian "Christmas" celebration, specifying the time as the winter solstice or "December 25th":

…at the winter solstice the sun would seem to be a little child, like that which the Egyptians bring forth from a shrine on an appointed day, since the day is then at its shortest and the god is accordingly shown as a tiny infant.

Here we can see the precise meaning of the theme of the newborn sun at the winter solstice, a motif representing the lengthening of days after the darkest time of the year. Egyptologist Dr. Bojana Mojsov explains further the significance in Egypt: "The symbol of the savior-child was the eye of the sun newly born every year at the winter solstice." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.132.6.120 (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

In other words, take everything in Zeitgeist with a table spoon of salt, the worst thing about it isn't that it lies about things like this, it's that some of the things in it are true and by association it makes lies look like truth and truth look like lies. --216.228.91.174 (talk) 13:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Haha, why didn't you guys just cite Zeitgeist? 76.16.191.46 (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• I personally have never heard that before. The only source (of which I know) claiming that there are similarities between both myths, is the "Zeitgeist" movie. But that is just a movie, we can't base an article or a part of an article on one single movie. We need credible proper evidence that this was indeed the case. BTW.: The "crucified" part can't add up with the facts, since the ancient Egyptian people had a complete different believe system. It had nothing to do with Christianity. Their believe system was based on multiple deities. UserDoe 17:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The Coptic Church takes the stance that they are similar, but not nearly that similar. The role of Horus is where it is similar, not the birthday (which doesn't match Jesus' birthday anyways, December 25 has nothign to do with Jesus). KV(Talk) 15:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have seen the article change to adapt to the claims of Zeitgeist, as I wrote at the end of the discussion in "need for protection". I seriously consider the article needs to be protected. Many people who try to check up the data in the Zeitgeist movie do so by a wikipedia search. And the very first thing they check is about Horus. This article has great chances of being vandalized: the one in the Spanish wikipedia already has been. Would you consider protecting it?

Sparrowhawke 11:11, 25 April 2008 (GTM + 1)

Oh trust me, I'm absolutly not implying that anytime someone sees something on youtube they should add the information here. I was simply saying that I came here to check if any of this was based on fact. Some of it seemed a little off too me (mostly because of the crcifiction) and typically before I would put something in my brain and accept it I would want to double check. All I really was saying is that maybe people could keep their eyes open for any confirming or debunking facts that may be out there. I beleive the article should maintain its primary focus and this info should only be added where it will fit. Oh and you don't have to tell me about jesus and dec 25, I have JW relatives, I've been told. Thanx--Matt D 13:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Harpur's 'The Pagan Christ' can provide insight to this, by the way. -EarthRise33 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just started reading that book. so far it seems to support the idea that The story of jesus was lifted from egyptian myths. Though I still have a lot of reading to go is it possible that this book could be seen as a valid referance? What about this concept getting it's own article if it doesn't fit anywhere else?--Matt D (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it actually seems that this book is the source for the Zeitgeist movie, plus I've read a lot of negative reviews of the book. So it probably wouldn't serve as a good source. -sigh- I guess I'm not the first person to want to know the truth about christianity.--Matt D (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that the Zeitgeist movie seems like it originated from The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold since that is also the title of part 1 in the movie, it talks about other gods, and etc. Axecution (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That is not the common conception of where Christianity comes from, so no matter what, it is an invalid source. One thing I have learned about Wikipedia in my time here, especially when it involves Christianity, is that it does not matter how accredited your source is, how poor conflicting sources are, if it disagrees with the common conceptions, it will be removed. I have seen this in a Christianity based debate where I brought forth first a similar source, then PhDs in History and Religion in a College textbook, and a specifically Christian source, all revolving around the Council of Nicaea and the origin of "heresy." With admins involved and mediation processes, it still came down to his claim of "I know the truth" (involving in part the number of bishops attending) overruled my sources. KV(Talk) 18:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Believe me when you have atheists and skeptics coming out of the wood work attacking this thing it's no longer just Christians getting their knickers in a twist over something they didn't like. The Atheist Community of Austin aired a special episode of The Atheist Experience ripping this thing to shreds, The Skeptics Guide to the Galaxy podcast also picked over some of the claims, and a lot of big names in the skeptical movement have torn this thing apart. You're right in that Christians often censor demonstrably accurate and accredited information in a fit of cognitive dissonance, but that's not what's happening here. The makers of Zeitgeist just completely failed to check their sources. --216.228.91.174 (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I get that. It seems to be the catch 22 of NPOV. Anything that goes against a commonly held misconception, specifically in a contoversial area like religion, no matter how factual it may be, by default, becomes a non NPOV. I wonder how the solve problems like this on conservipedia?--Matt D (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Immaculate conceptions happen all the time (relativistically) in the Solar diety structure of the mediteranian. Hercules, very close to immaculate, by Zeus, Romulus and Remus by Mars, Horeaz by Set/Rea, but Christ is remebered for the reasons Christ is remembered. Would christ be another immaculate conseption remembered by the nation of priests as opposed to lifted by them from the egyptians. In my opinion both Greek and Roman mythos deal with the "pagan" children of the solar diety in god forms themselves.--207.14.129.51 (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

well most of the sources of info on the internet about Horus are so short and only talk about his story from one time period in Egypt the story of Horus if you read any long texts on his life it changes a lot based on who ruled Egypt at the time and who Egypt ruled also the story has been changed to him being the son of ra, osiris and himself actually being his own father which was a very strange concept and hard to except for many people of the time in Egypt ive read some texts on horus and ive found that the storys mainly suport the claim that the story of jesus is quite similar to horus i bet if i read more on the subject that i would find even more similarity's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.249.120 (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Horus is one of the most ancient gods of Egypt. He name means 'he who is distant' i.e. high in the sky. As a falcon he is associate with both the sky and sharp eyesight. One form of Horus (of which there were many) was conceived magically after the death of his father Osiris. His mother Isis hovered over the corpse of Osiris and by magic became pregnant. He grows up and fights his uncle Set to get the crown of Egypt from him, as Horus is the rightful claimant being Osiris's son. So Horus is linked to kingship. Some forms of Horus become linked with the sun god Ra, for instance Ra-Harakhty - lit. 'Ra-Horus in the double horizon'. The idea that Osiris is his own father comes from 'Ds-f' meaning self created and a number of other expression which are used to indicate the 'creator' function which obviously has no parentage. Osiris is thought of as the son of Nut and Geb, the sky and earth in the Heliopolitan Ennead. Someone tell me how any of this is like Jesus? Where is the connection apart from the the statues of Isis suckling Horus which was borrowed by Christians for the virgin Mary. Apepch7 (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I doubt the Christians borrowed the image of Isis suckling Horus while he sat on his mothers lap. The idea may sound right, given how we are always told everything Christianity does is borrowed, but the image is too universal.

Even in cultures in which we have no evidence that any contact between the culture and Egypt existed, such as in remote Asian cultures, or some in middle and lowr africa, we see depictions of women with their children on their knees, suckling their young.

Women do breastfeed their babies, and do sit them on their lap. There is no reasn to asusme that an image of Mary doing this with Jesus must have been borrowed by an image of Isis doing this with Horus as it seems certain that such images would be Universal to begin with.

Unnamed.

31 December 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.24.236.53 (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any argument in this article. Please get strong arguments or remove the point related to Jesus. Isis was unreal goddess, Horus was fusion of man and animal. Where is similarity ? Jesus was real. A lot of witnesses saw him. Historians wrote about him. There are many evidences of his life. This article suggests the history of Jesus is not true (made up by people). Bikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.227.67.138 (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

ZEITGEIST- REFUTED (just the facts)

Why does Jesus origin similar to Horus, well because some stories of Horus was added 150 years after Christ. It is a simple fact that is well reachered, it might be embarrassing for some misguided people who don't do their homework!!! Enjoy it was quit entertaining:) http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/zeitgeist-refuted/

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080603142409AAbb4Nk Read the first answer.

"Even secular scholars have rejected the idea of Christianity borrowing from the ancient mysteries. The well-respected Sir Edward Evans-Pritchard writes in Theories of Primitive Religion that “The evidence for this theory… is negligible.”

“The first real parallel of a dying and rising god does not appear until A.D. 150, more than a hundred years after the origin of Christianity. So if there was any influence of one on the other, it was the influence of the historical event of the New Testament [resurrection] on mythology, not the reverse. The only known account of a god surviving death that predates Christianity is the Egyptian cult god Osiris. In this myth, Osiris is cut into fourteen pieces, scattered around Egypt, then reassembled and brought back to life by the goddess Isis. However, Osiris does not actually come back to physical life but becomes a member of a shadowy underworld…This is far different than Jesus’ resurrection account where he was the gloriously risen Prince of life who was seen by others on earth before his ascension into heaven.” –Dr. Norman Geisler

“Not one clear case of any alleged resurrection teaching appears in any pagan text before the late second century A.D., almost one hundred years after the New Testament was written.” –Dr. Gary Habermas

This film refutes the following claims made in the film Zeitgeist: -Christianity was borrowed from pagan myths? -The Bible was plagiarized? -Jesus wasn’t a historical figure? -Christianity was created for social control? -The Bible is based on astrology? --Hcknight777 (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This nonsense you posted doesn't refute anything! It simply resorts to name calling and ad-hominem attacks on Zeitgeist's sources. Then it proceeds to "quote scripture" as "proof".

66.18.209.46 (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's obvious only by looking at this talk that there are discussions on the matter, and the article should at least mention that this discussion is excistent. Conclusions don't have to be made, but the general discussion should be mentioned, as there are references to this in movies, articles and so on. The reason I and many others looked up this article is because of such a reference, at least it has to be mentioned here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.188.191 (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The most important section of this article should not be a playground for true believers vs skeptics

Perhaps it would be better to leave this section out of the article altogether; it will be continually "edited" by people personally invested in their religion's story of Jesus. Maybe just the heading to acknowledge the thread, and an "under construction" graphic? Clearly, there is a scholarly argument that the story of Jesus is just that. In The Jesus Mysteries (Freke & Gandy, 2001), for example, the authors argue that Jewish mystics retold a then centuries-old story of a resurrected god-man in terms acceptable and comprehensible to mainstream Jews. These Jewish Christians created the template for the modern story of Jesus as we know it.

Quoting an interview with Freke and Gandy in Harper's magazine: "During the centuries leading up to the birth of Christianity various cults known as `Mystery Religions' had spread throughout the Pagan world. At the centre of these Mystery cults was a story about a dying and resurrecting godman who was known by many different names in many different cultures. In Egypt, where the Mysteries originated, he was known as Osiris, in Greece as Dionysus, in Asia Minor as Attis, in Syria as Adonis, in Italy as Bacchus, in Persia as Mithras." Per Freke/Gandy, common elements of these stories include: the god-man's father is God and his mother is a mortal virgin; he is born in a cave or humble cow shed on the 25th of December before three shepherds; he offers his followers the chance to be born again through the rites of baptism; he miraculously turns water into wine at a marriage ceremony; he rides triumphantly into town on a donkey while people wave palm leaves to honour him; he dies at Easter time as a sacrifice for the sins of the world; after his death he descends to Hell, then on the third day he rises from the dead and ascends to heaven in glory; his followers await his return as the judge during the Last Days; his death and resurrection are celebrated by a ritual meal of bread and wine, which symbolize his body and blood.

Note that the original of this myth was Osiris, not Horus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captqrunch (talk • contribs) 17:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Freke and Gandy are not "scholars", and "The Jesus Mysteries" is almost as sensationalised and inaccurate as Zeitgeist. The above quote listing attributes of the "dying and rising God", which they called "Osiris-Dionysus" is mainly fantasy. Some elements of it correspond to some deities; that's about all you can say. But I don't think any serious scholar lumps practically every popular male pagan deity together claiming they are all the same one. Take Miihras, for example, he was born from a rock, not in a stable and there are no stories of him dying and rising, he is famous for killing a bull Orlando098 (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Horus is my friend in the spirit realm, and my spirit ancestry. It has been said that he has an eye in the palm of his hand. So true as you can see for yourself. He is my spirit guide and protector. Here is an image of him with me. This photo was taken July 2013 so its still fresh. There is another with me, he is 8ft tall. By Joel Treymain.

File:Horus

Horus the Demi-god

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel.treymain666 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Horus told me you're lying and that he's going to get a restraining order if you keep taking pictures of him.. This is why we stick with citing verifiable reliable academic sources instead of fringe stuff only you happen to "know" about. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Christian Comparison?

For the sake of respect and modesty, please avoid adding informations regarding the comparison the the Christian savior Jesus Christ with the ancient Egyptian god Horus. These topics are merely controversial claims and have already persisted for too long. For religious safety, do not add such content within this article; it for our own good. We wouldn't want to aroused the temper of any extremists into a violent or disturbing manner. Create a separate article for this. Remember: Christianity and Kemetism (religion based on ancient Egyptian gods) are not the same and both should be treated with utmost respect. My contribution for Horus (based on mythological stories, not religion) are on its ways. Let me edit it first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.55.187.227 (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

While you are right that adding information regarding the comparison of Jesus to Horus shouldn't really be in this article, I find your reasoning to be quite off. It shouldn't be there simply because it doesn't exist. Just about any scholar of Egyptian mythology can tell you that the comparison is just plain silly and a fabrication in its entirety. However, I feel the need to inform you that wikipedia is uncensored. We don't keep things out of an article just because it might offend someone. The Mohammad article, last I checked, was rife with pictures of Mohammad, and the talk page contained a lengthy explanation about why they were there and why they would not be censored. Just because it might offend someone is no reason to keep it from the article. Heck, the mere existence of the Evolution artice offends some Creatonists, but we're not about to delete it so we don't offend their sensibilities. Also let me remind you, since you seem to be implying that you intend to add information to the article, that changes you make should be well sourced to a WP:RSFarsight001 (talk) 08:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

With all due courtesy, I have to let you know, 110.55.187.227, that you'll get nowhere telling editors that religions of whatever kind "should be treated with utmost respect." There is no such concept as "religious safety", nor should you try to reinforce your iffy opinion by muttering about potential reactions! By all means add to the article ('Be bold', as someone whose name escapes me once said!) but if your comment here is indicative of your approach, expect it to be reverted. 86.172.92.192 (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the sources for the Horus-Jesus connection you will note that all of them are 19th century texts and the one that is not is obscure. One could argue that the pyramids of Mexico were built by Egyptians, but it would not hold up to scholarly review. The section should be deleted due to poor sourcing. I would remind you that the burden is not on me, but on those who make the claim to provide sources. I will hold off deleting the section to allow time to discuss.97.114.178.44 (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Re ("Ray")=Sun's RAY?

Plutarch (46-120 AD/CE)

Horus as the sun bursting forth from the lotus flower (Maspero's As concerns Horus in particular serving as the "light god," it should be noted that he was syncretized often with the sun god Ra as "Ra-Horakhty" or "Horus of the Two Horizons," representing the rising and setting sun. This "Horus the Child" was also known to the Greeks as Harpocrates. In this form, Horus thus is born daily, including and especially at the winter solstice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.132.6.120 (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey anyone ever think that the word ray came from Re, how it was pronounced?? ---Ranga

Ray comes from the same root as 'radius' i.e. spokes of a wheel in Lat. Egyptian Ra/Re was probably pronounced something like 'Rauh' - but no one really knows because vowel sound were not given. There is no etymological connection with the English 'ray'.Apepch7 (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Jesus does not = Horus

Did Jesus have a head of a falcon? Did his mother represent or personify the Nile, or any other river? Did his father get chopped into pieces, get reassembled, except for his penis which his mother then re-created in gold? No? Then there is no real connection between Jesus and Horus.97.114.178.44 (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a pathetic absolution, was Jesus egyptian, did he wear a white robe? The point here is that he has been revisioned over two millenia, I have no idea how absurd the above suggestion is.73.132.6.120 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

No = quite right - the whole idea that Horus = Jesus is pure b/s Apepch7 (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That may be, but numerous published works make the comparison, and it is proper to WP:CITE these in the article with a brief explanation of why the comparison is made. If other published works disagree, then please WP:CITE these with a brief description of the disagreement. Here is list of the cited references making the comparison between Horus' and Jesus' mythologies:

1. William Ricketts Cooper (1877). The Horus myth in its relation to Christianity. Hardwicke & Bogue.
2. Gerald Massey (1907). Ancient Egypt, the light of the world: a work of reclamation and restitution in twelve books. T. F. Unwin.
3. Thomas William Doane (1884). Bible myths, and their parallels in other religions: being a comparison of the Old and New Testament myths and miracles with those of heathen nations of antiquity, considering also their origin and meaning. J. W. Bouton.
4. D. M. Murdock; S. Acharya (2009). Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection. Stellar House Publishing. ISBN 0979963117.
5. "Alleged comparisons between Jesus and Horus' life events".
6. Tom Harpur (2005). The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light. Walker & Company. ISBN 0802714498.

The article cannot be about editor's personal options about the subject. H012M$ (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Neither can the article present the unsound, religiously motivated opion of a few fringe writers, based on long discredited views of 19th century figures, be presented as fact or even notable opinion. Your refs boild own to Mr Massey and Mrs S and they at best warrant a note that some figures have drown the comparison (with a link to Jesus myth) which is unaccepted by Egpytology and mainstream scholarship.

And even the text included in the article didn't make any sense as it claimed that both Horus and Jesus were born of resurrected fathers: well, Osiris was sort-of resurrected (actually only reassambled and reanimated for the sole purpose of begatting Horus) while Jesus' father, well, was God. (If you disagree with that you will end up with Joseph as the father, a person who was hardly resurrected any time.) And so on ... let's keep nonsense like that out. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Str1977 ^(talk) 11:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you could construct an argument which shows how the Roman Church drew on and assimilated pagan mythology from the Middle East and Europe to produce the Christian cult myth. For instance the development of the Virgin Mary into almost a deity in her own right may well have used Isis as one of the syncretic images - since the cult of Isis was very popular in the immediate pre-Christain era. BUT this is very different to saying that Horus is therefore Jesus. For instance you would have to ignore Horus' war-like aspects and also the fact that there is no account of Horus being persecuted or crucified or similar.Apepch7 (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

What nonsensical arguments one could construct is beside the point. Mary is no goddess, Isis no virgin, Horus not a human being, and no transcendent god like the Jewish-Christian God involved in the latter's birth. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not delete properly cited literature that does not conform to your personal opinions. If you are able to cite literature expressing these view please do so. The article accurately reflects the well-documented fact that several authors have argued that Jesus' origins story is adopted from Horus's. H012M$ (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

We'll be deleting it as long as it's crackpots from a minority fringe trying to promote it. (note - the cited sources come from crackpots. I'm not calling you one) Since they a fringe, they are not worthy of inclusion. And since they are not respected experts in their field, they are again not worthy of inclusion. They are also not notable, making 3 strikes against their inclusion.Farsight001 (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

On what basis do you describe these authors as crackpots? Your personal opinion? Here's this list:

1. William Ricketts Cooper (1877). The Horus myth in its relation to Christianity. Hardwicke & Bogue.
2. Gerald Massey (1907). Ancient Egypt, the light of the world: a work of reclamation and restitution in twelve books. T. F. Unwin.
3. Thomas William Doane (1884). Bible myths, and their parallels in other religions: being a comparison of the Old and New Testament myths and miracles with those of heathen nations of antiquity, considering also their origin and meaning. J. W. Bouton.
4. D. M. Murdock; S. Acharya (2009). Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection. Stellar House Publishing. ISBN 0979963117.
5. "Alleged comparisons between Jesus and Horus' life events".
6. Tom Harpur (2005). The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light. Walker & Company. ISBN 0802714498.

These arguments also appear in the film Religulous (video clip involving Horus and Jesus comparison). This is noteworthy for the article on Horus, regardless of your personal opinion about these published sources. H012M$ (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the solution for this is for those who support the idea that Horus=Jesus to give references for the asserted connections. For instance where in Egyptian myths does it say Horus had 12 disciples or that he healed the sick or that Anubis was beheaded. I've read a lot on Egypt and never seen any of these themes anywhere else except in these videos on Youtube. Apepch7 (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

William Ricketts Cooper - not notable afaik

Gerald Massey - self taught and thus not an expert and thus not notable

Thomas William Doane - not notable afaik

D. M. Murdock - also known as Acharysa S. Considered a nut by the historian community. Not a reputable source

religioustolerance.org is a self published website and does not meet WP:RS

And the film Religulous is on par with (in regards to accuracy) Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed. It was made by a political pundit whose whole job appears to be based on mocking religion any way he can and directed by a guy who is so ignorant of religion that he thinks Mohammad is the name of the Muslim God. It is also in no way a reliable source.

That's why we describe these authors as crackpots - because they are. You follow the evolution-creationism issue somewhat, right? Well the sources you have provided are literally comarable to Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, William Dembski, and the like. They are nutters. On the other end of the spectrum, yes, but nutters still.Farsight001 (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The truth or falsity of the claim that Jesus's stories were adopted from Horus's is not relevant, what is relevant and noteworthy is that many people have published comparisons supporting this claim. In dismissing the authors making these claims, you notably omitted Tom Harpur, a journalist covering religion that the Toronto Star, who makes his case in the book Tom Harpur (2005). The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light. Walker & Company. ISBN 0802714498. The fact that numerous people have observed and published similarities between Jesus and Horus in a noteworthy way is relevant, whether Tom Harpur, Bill Maher, and Larry Charles and the others are nutters or not,. Furthermore, observing close similarities between two mythologies is completely different from denying verifiable facts, as do the ID creationists—your analogy doesn't hold up. H012M$ (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I wrote this above, but apparently no one read it: "Including the supposed Horus/Jesus connection, even while refuting it, would give undue weight to an idea promoted by a very small group of people, none of whom are scholars on the subject. Fringe theories like this may be mentioned as such in Wikipedia, but only if they meet notability requirements. As the fringe guideline states, 'if a fringe theory meets notability requirements, secondary reliable sources would have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it.' As far as I know, the claims of connections between Horus and Jesus have remained beneath the notice of Egyptologists, so they do not merit inclusion in the article, in any form." This problem is so persistent that I really hope that a real Egyptologist somewhere has examined the possibility of a connection so that we could cite his or her conclusions. Unfortunately, I know of no such study. A. Parrot (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability is not relevant, as we are not discussing a separate article:

The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people.

As for fringe, the citations provided above are not self-published, so this categorization doesn't apply either. It would be interesting if a credentialed Egyptologist has published on this comparison, but the comparison is not really about Egyptology, but about simply drawing a conclusion based on comparative similarities in the two mythologies. Based on these similarities, some people draw the conclusion that Jesus's story was adapted in part from Horus's, and have published these observations and conclusions numerous times. It is this that is noteworthy. H012M$ (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

But notability can apply to what sources we can use. Surely you don't think we should be using the institute for creation research as a citation on the evolution article? Or jesus-is-savior.com as a source for...anything? And then the NPOV policy applies to article content also. Since the people putting for these Jesus=Horus ideas are so extremely fringe and their claims so extremely wild that any armchair egyptologist can prove them wrong, they do not merit inclusion. I mean - what similarities would you have us include? Jesus was not born Dec. 25th. Jesus did not have the head of a hawk. Jesus did not fight satan twice a day as the sun rose and set. Horus did not have 12 disciples. (the book of the dead says 4 demigod friends and 20 human friends) Horus was not born of a virgin. That's what I was trying to explain to you. The claims that your sources put forth are patently FALSE and this is an encyclopedia. Now if you want to include this information at all, you would need to make it clear that they are the ideas of a fringe minority and elaborate on the stature of the claims and of the people promoting them in the Egyptologist community.Farsight001 (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You keep saying fringe as if there is some closed case for this, but have not answered any specific questions: How is Tom Harpur, a journalist covering religion at the Toronto Star newspaper "fringe" in any way? How is Bill Maher's and Larry Charles "fringe", whose film was distributed by mainstream Lions Gate and whose Horus and Jesus comparison. And there are several other authors, both recent and from the 19th century such as Gerald Massey that you call "fringe", but offer absolutely no evidence of fringe beliefs. Where is an the actual, specific citation to "any armchair egyptologist [who] can prove them wrong"? Your list attempting to debunk the comparison is in fact not very convincing, even to someone who may be skeptical to begin with. No one ever claimed that "Jesus had the head of a hawk." This is just a red herring. On the other hand, many people have observed that like Jesus,

1. Horus was born to a mother fertilized by a being with no penis (hence a virgin in precisely the same way Mary was a virgin after she was impregnated by God) [reference: Roy G. Willis (1993). World mythology. Macmillan. p. 43. ISBN 0805027017.]
2. Horus's mother fled to the Egyptian marshes to save her son from being murdered, just like Jesus [ibid.]
4. Horus was resurrected after his death. [ref: any source on Horus; here's an online account that reads,

   When Isis came back and found her child's dead body she was distraught and frantic with grief, and was inconsolable until Nephthys came and advised her to appeal to Thoth, the lord of words of power … Thoth … bestowed upon her the means of restoring Horus to life … The poison was made to go forth from the body of Horus, and his strength was renewed, his heart once more occupied its throne, and all was well with him. Heaven and earth rejoiced at the sight of the restoration of the heir of Osiris, and the gods were filled with peace and content.

Some people may conclude that Horus's resurrection isn't very much like Jesus', and some (such as the cited authors) may conclude that it sounds just like it, but personal opinion is irrelevant here. Many people have concluded that Horus's mythology sounds just like Jesus', and acknowledge that the well-known image of the baby Horus and Isis has influenced the Christian iconography of Madonna and Child. Many people have written about this obvious comparison, whether the comparison is itself correct or not. This is a plain fact that is neither fringe nor irrelevant. It is a noteworthy fact that belongs in the article, no matter that some editors are unconvinced by these coincidences in the two mythologies. H012M$ (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• sigh* It really doesn't matter how popular something is to the general public. What we want here are the experts in the subject matter. Political pundits and journalists, no matter how popular their movie or column, do not qualify as experts on the subject of egyptology. There is only one egyptologist on your previous list, and she is a disgraced egyptologist skirting the fringe for her ideas that, as I explained above, even armchair egyptologists can prove wrong.

Also, Isis reformed Osiris' body and fashioned a penis for him out of clay and then had sex with the reanimated Osiris to conceive Horus. Either way, she was already not a virgin, having had sex several times before Osiris was first killed. That makes it most definitely NOT a virgin birth.

So here's the thing. This talk page is for discussing specific improvements to the article. It has been explained to you repeatedly why the additions you want to make won't work. If you have a problem with that, you need to move to have the applicable policies changed, which you can't do here. If you're not going to provide acceptable sources, just don't bother.Farsight001 (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If I could jump in and give a completely unsolicited third opinion; I feel like the comparison warrants inclusion in the article...though it should be given the proper amount of weight. I believe it's a verifiable theory -- but that doesn't mean it's true. For content, we follow verifiability, not notability, and the first sentence of the verifiability policy is: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." I think everyone here knows that the theory is profoundly flawed, but that's irrelevant for inclusion in the article. It's a pervasive theory, proffered by multiple sources that (in spite of their dubious conclusions) pass muster for reliability -- meaning that they're independently published from reliable third-party publications. Now, having said that, the theory needs to be given the correct amount of weight, and (if possible) an answer from..."somewhere" or "someone" about the claims. Because I watched Religulous as well, and when I saw the Horus claims I was immediately skeptical. So I went to Wikipedia to read more about that opinion -- and saw nothing. No confirmation, no refutation. Nothing. And I think that's a terrible thing for Egyptologists as well as Christ myth theory believers. Wikipedia is where we go to debunk this nonsense -- and ignoring it completely because it's a loony fringe does not help either cause. Anyhow, that's just my take on all this. Hope you guys can find some middle ground -- maybe an solicited third opinion can help? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem, though. Even though the notion is outlandish and largely based on wrong information, there are no reliable sources that can be found debunking it. If there were, we could say that the notion is out there and (insert expert's name here) has said that it's wrong. A. Parrot (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've attempted a compromise. It's a start...but I think the theory needs to be included in the article. It's not been specifically addressed or debunked by anyone of note in the field of Egyptology or Theology...but at the same time, there are plenty of primary sources that show that at least some of those comparisons are patently false. Like the 12 disciples thing, or the walking on water thing. The claims have not been refuted specifically, but at the same time, it's a total fabrication on the part of those who believe that Horus and Jesus are similar, and there are primary sources to prove that. Sure, it's possible synthesis...but only in response to outright falsehood. So, I've cited a few primary and secondary sources that give the actual information about Horus, not the warped interpretation by some of the Christ myth theory people. At least, that's how I've attempted to address the issue. Plus, the section is now buried at the end of the article, as opposed to appearing in the "origins" subheading...which gave the theory far too much weight, in my opinion. I don't know...thoughts? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well… it comes uncomfortably close to synthesis, and giving it a heading to itself feels like rather undue weight, and pointing to Religulous as the source of the fringe notion rather than tracing it to its original source (Massey, I suspect, though I really don't know) is less than ideal. But, no solution available at the moment looks good, and I certainly can't come up with anything better. Certainly it's not out of place in this mess of an article. All the Egyptian religion articles are messy, and I hope to improve them eventually, but right now I'm busy plugging away at Ancient Egyptian religion itself. Other editors may be less tolerant, but I think your section is better than slow edit warring. A. Parrot (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, has this debate been going on for 4 years? I had no idea -- talk about a content land mine. So, yeah, I was pretty disappointed with Wikipedia's articles on Egyptian deities -- even Ra seems to be severely lacking. But like I say, the comparison is far too pervasive to leave out of the article altogether...and there's no way to strike a truly NPOV without at least attempting to show that there are problems with the conclusions being drawn. And I think I'll tack on the Massey bit somewhere, because, although Religulous re-popularized the notion, they certainly seemed to draw their facts (primarily) from Massey's writing (although he was not mentioned in that section). Perhaps someone more familiar with the source material can add that in...to reach that sweet "collaborative" goal that we all yearn for. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the way this has been handled int he article because I imagine there will be many people who pick up on this (fantasy) theory and will end up here to check it out. Apepch7 (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You guys are missing a rather important detail here - that no matter in what pov you present this information, you have to use WP:RS, which none of those source, as I ALREADY EXPLAINED, qualify as. Hence, I'm taking that crap out. Use an RS or don't waste our time here, please.Farsight001 (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you undo the last edit without bothering to check what it was? Because instead of removing User:ColorOfSuffering's questionable addition on the Jesus issue, you undid my edit correcting a blatant misquotation of an eminently reliable source. A. Parrot (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I might have. If I did, I'm sorry. I just noticed the huge problem of what I would consider blatant pov pushing and reverted to the last edit before it was re-added. It seemed simpler.Farsight001 (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The solution might simply to put it under "Popular Culture" Taam (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

From WP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Well, we're not basing an article on these sources, so that's not the major problem you think it is. If there were an article named Horus and Jesus Comparisons, then I would totally agree. It's not notable enough to warrant a separate article. But I'd urge you to re-read the verifiability policy. Specifically, sources. I will quote, "All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view." This qualifies, easily, as a significant minority viewpoint. The sources from the Toronto Star and Religulous are reliable. This is because both Torstar and Lions Gate Entertainment pass the "reliable sources threshold" for publishers.

You have not demonstrated that the sources cited are not reliable. You have proven that they reach false conclusions, that some of the authors might not be notable, and that the authors used poor methodology in reaching their conclusions...but that is a totally different discussion, irrelevant to the reliable sources discussion at hand. To quote WP:V again: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." So, once again, we're talking about publishers, not authors. Big difference. Also, verifiability is a policy, reliable sources is a guideline, and policies take precedence over guidelines.

But more important, Farsight001, you absolutely must assume good faith here. To accuse an editor of "blatant POV pushing" is really out of line. I have no stake in this dispute one way or the other, and I agree with you that the comparison is profoundly flawed. But to call the edit "crap," and to accuse me of wasting everyone's time borders on a personal attack. That is inexcusable. Keep a cool head, and focus on content, not the editor. If you don't want to compromise for the inclusion of this comparison in the article, then we can check with the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, or get a third opinion. I don't do edit wars. And I sure as hell don't get into personal disputes. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

And the idea that Jesus is a clone of horus is not a SIGNIFICANT minority, but a tiny minority fringe. Hence, case closed. I have shown that the sources cited are not reliable. The onus of proof is not on me anyway. You must show that they ARE reliable. Good luck with that. One disgraced historian, one political pundit, and a few other people with no related credentials are the sources. There's no way any reasonable person could consider that reliable.

As for assuming good faith, need I remind you of WP:DUCK? Someones being a blatant pov pusher. So I call them a blatant pov pusher. I'm surprised they're not blocked, frankly. When the editor isn't focusing on the content THEY are themselves adding, evidenced by the sources used, how can I be expected to?Farsight001 (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a WP:DUCK? Tell me what, exactly, you're referring to? Take a look at my contribution history. Please, do me that favor. Tell me what POV I'm pushing? Was it the edit I made to the Military of Albania? Or Rugby union positions? You do not need to remind me of WP:DUCK, which is an amusing little essay that is completely irrelevant in this situation. I'm an experienced editor who has no history of POV edits. That accusation is false, and way out of line. So, it seems that you have not addressed any of the points I brought up (continuing to focus on "authors" not "publishers" for the reliable sources question) and you continue to accuse me of POV pushing. Which remind me, here's another quote, from an essay: "While calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil, even characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done carefully. It is generally not necessary to characterize edits as POV-pushing in order to challenge them." That's very important. Stop using the phrase "POV-pushing;" you're only damaging your argument. Since you don't seem to be reading the policies I'm stating, or even the posts I've been writing here, I'll have to go another route. I'll go get a third opinion, and check with the reliable sources notice board. Seriously, my good friend. Knock off all the incivility. If the sources check out as reliable, and the third opinion concurs, then we've reached a consensus, and I will re-add the content. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

First, I never called you a duck. Read what I wrote again. Second, as I said above, if you want to use something as a source, you need to evidence that it qualifies as reliable. We can't use stuff like Religulous as a source here just like we can't use Expelled as a source on evolution.Farsight001 (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

From WP:DUCK: "The duck test...suggests that a person can identify an unknown subject by observing that subject's habitual characteristics." Then you stated that "Someones being a blatant pov pusher." I'm sorry, but did I miss something? I am the one who added the section about Jesus and Horus, so unless you called out someone else specifically (I'm guessing it's User:H012M$ but you never clarified), I can only assume that it was directed at me. And, I reiterate, we are not using these sources as a basis for an article. We're not even debating the veracity of the claims. All I need to prove is that the claims have been made. I have done that. Those claims have been made. They are out there, and they consist of a far larger minority than you are willing to concede. The thing is, I completely agree that this is a fallacious argument -- that's not the point. It's an argument that's out there, being made by several notable individuals (and they are notable, regardless of what you think of their expertise). It's our duty to address, and rebut this stupid comparison that is being made, and had been made since the late 19th century. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well said—but it would be much better to rebut the comparison with a reliable source that actually studies the comparison and points out its failings. ColorOfSuffering's section strikes me as a patch job to stave off slow edit-warring, which is why I don't object to it being included. On the other hand, because of the serious flaws I listed above, I can't really argue with it being removed either. So I can't serve as your third opinion. Sorry if I seem unhelpful, but I just think there is no good solution right now. Everything depends on good sources, which we don't have. A. Parrot (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. I'd love to reach some kind of consensus on this topic, as opposed to just eliminating and dismissing the topic altogether. I think I've realized the problem -- the current version starts out right away with the "Jesus Myth" stuff, as opposed to examining the obvious comparisons (the Mary / Isis / Jesus / Horus stuff), made by mainstream Egyptologists and Theologists. Once those obvious similarities are made, we can introduce the overblown comparisons (such as the wacky Massey / Maher stuff), and wrap up with the rebuttal of the Christ Myth conflation with the HNN reference. But I've spent far too long on this issue today. Here are a couple of more references about the easy, obvious stuff: Erik Hornung - [1], "There was an obvious analogy between the Horus child and the baby Jesus and the care they received from their sacred mothers...". Stephen Benko - [2], "It is well known that the iconography of Isis and [her son] Horus was basically adopted by Christians when they started to portray Mary and Jesus as Mother and Child." Robin Margaret Jensen - [3], "A useful parallel to this borrowing of imagery is the adoption of the image of Isis with baby Horus on her lap for iconography of Mary with the child Jesus on her lap." This comparison has been made in the mainstream, by multiple sources. The mainstream stops short of the sacrilegious Christ Myth Theory stuff, but at the same time, it's pretty obvious that the comparison has been made already in the mainstream, and deserves inclusion in the article. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I completely disagree with the Jesus=Horus idea I think that the Colorofsuffering paragraph addressed the issue and should be reinstated. My reason for this would that many people have probably heard the theory and migth come here to check it out. By simply saying it is a minority view held by a number of authors doesn't support it as being true but simply directs people to examine the sources themselves and they can make up their own minds. Apepch7 (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Jesus vs. Horus sources

I've requested a third opinion on this content dispute, and the sources being quoted in the old version of this article: [4] have been posted to the reliable sources noticeboard as this entry: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Horus_and_Jesus_comparison_sources. Feel free to post your opinions, or follow the discussion on the noticeboard. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've also requested help from the NPOV noticeboard here: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Horus_and_Jesus_comparisons. You can weigh in there, as well. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

And one more: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Jesus_versus_Horus_comparisons. I'm trying to build a consensus here, but so far only one editor has replied to the noticeboard posting. Next stop -- user page pleas. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent Third Opinion request has been removed from the list of active disputes:

Reason: Third Opinions are not available in disputes in which more than two editors are involved (if there are more than two, someone has ipso facto already given a third opinion), nor are they available in disputes in which other forms of Dispute Resolution are under way. This dispute involves probably a dozen or more editors over a period of many months. The referrals to the NPOV and reliable sources noticeboards are far more likely at this point to do some good than an off-hand Third Opinion by a single editor. —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see...I suppose I am already the third opinion here. And there have been fourth, fifth, and sixth opinions as well. Well, thank you for your timely response. Now, where did I put my stick...? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

New Jesus Section

Okay, I'm took a completely new tack with this section, starting out with the reliably sourced iconography similarities, before two little, itty, bitty sentences about the Christ Myth theory...which is fully and thoroughly obliterated by the weight of 20 Egyptologists in the third sentence of the second paragraph. Does this work for everyone? Feel free to peck away at my (undoubtedly) awful grammar, punctuation, and...heck, chop away at the entire thing for all I damn care. But I think this is the best we can do to strike a balance...to answer the silliness that's being brought up about these our beloved Horus and Jesus while staying rooted in academic reliability. Failing this, I think I'll either drive off of a bridge, or ask for some editor assistance, because I'm all Horus'd out...truth be told. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's excellent CoS. Its factual and deals with the issue. Keep away from that bridge!!! Hope no one changes it (the sense of it anyway) Apepch7 (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've moved some pictures that illustrate the artistic parallels into this section from the Osiris page where they didn't belong. As it stands they clutter the section a bit and someone deleted them as a result. Rather then delete them, could someone make the long quotations alt-text, thereby cutting down on the space used? Eugene (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think they'll still be extremely ugly without the text. Its just how the two pictures bracket the section and are taller than the section itself. If they were made smaller, it might help. Also if I might suggest it, if we're highlighting the similarities between depictions, we might want to get 2 pictures that look a bit more similar than what's used.Farsight001 (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, those images muck up the whole bottom section of the article. How about this image? [5]? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that pic illustrates the idea of the iconographic influence that may have occurred between AE and Christianity. Apepch7 (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Just so everyone is aware, there already is an article that discusses the relationship between Jesus and comparative mythology. It's called, lo and behold, Jesus in comparative mythology. If you really think that some ostensible parallel between Jesus and Horus needs to be voiced on Wikipedia, do it there. Eugene (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I added the section Similarities to Jesus to the article Jesus in comparative mythology please place images and text there. I created a link between the articles to facilitate transfer, and I will delete the Similarities to Jesus section tomorrow...Modernist (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Should the same go for the Osiris page? Eugene (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I added a link to Osiris there and vice versa...Modernist (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, certainly the two aren't mutually exclusive, right? Tell me which is more likely -- a user watches Religulous and wonders about the conclusions reached by the film. So he goes to: A) The article titled "Horus," or B) The article titled "Jesus in comparative mythology"? I'd much rather that you garner consensus before merging the section in its entirety. What exactly is compelling you to delete the Jesus-Horus comparison from the Horus article? Isn't that why we have the "Main article" section header? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia and this particular article concerns a notable mythological and religious figure and symbol of Ancient Egypt. Please be mindful of the integrity and respect that Egyptian Cosmology merits and deserves. The people who enjoy Bill Mahr's movie and look up articles can easily click on the link to study the comparison. The comparison isn't necessary here considering WP:GEVAL and which is at best WP:Fringe and lends WP:UNDUE weight to the theory especially considering the Egyptian context of this article; the section more appropriately belongs to a study of Jesus and other mythologies...Modernist (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have done the due diligence here: Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard, Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. It would have been great to have had your input at those locations before removing the content in its entirety. The input I received from those boards actually helped me to create consensus on how to mention the comparison, without endorsing it. Especially the fringe board, which stated "being fringe does not mean that a theory should be ignored entirely." You've read the section, yes? Does it sound like an endorsement in any way? Additionally, if the entire section had been about the Maher film, then I would agree with your claim of undue weight. But it isn't. It leads with an Erik Hornung quote, "one of the most influential modern writers on the Ancient Egyptian religion." The section leads with the iconographical similarities -- highlighted by the picture you removed. This paragraph contains indsiputible comparisons made in undeniably reliable sources. Then the Christ myth claim is mentioned and quickly debunked. Maher is given a passing mention, only included because Maher is notable (I know he's not an Egyptologist, but he's not identified as such, and he's undeniably notable). The film is notable. Gerald Massey is notable. Acharya S is notable. Tom Harpur is notable. None of their claims, and little of their writing would qualify as reliable, but the claims are certainly verifiable -- "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth..." I mean, Venus shares many similarities with Aphrodite, but you wouldn't propose merging all mentions of that to the article Roman mythology, would you? Finally, as I mentioned before, if people hear this fallacious theory, they'll come to Wikipedia...and see nothing. Maybe an link buried at the end of the article. Next stop is the first Google result: Religious Tolerance.org, where the Massey's false claims are repeated verbatim without a challenge. That does a disservice to the reality, and helps no one. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 06:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've scanned all this quickly and quite amazed by this debate. There is a fantastic book entitled Iris in the Graeco-Roman World by R.E. Witt. The book was published when Witt was a professor at the University of London (Queen Mary College). He should be academic enough for people to cite... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.73.230 (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This section looks to be the latest victim of an ongoing attempt to censor reliably-sourced materials that Eugeneacurry considers to be "fringe," and/or redundant. This quote in particular troubles me: "If you really think that some ostensible parallel between Jesus and Horus needs to be voiced on Wikipedia, do it there." No one owns the content on this article. Policy is derived from Wikipedia articles on policy, not from individual users' preferences. Also, content is edited collaboratively, not unilaterally. To tell other editors "I've made this change. If you object to my change, do somewhere else" is not a constructive editing technique. From the guideline on content forking, "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another." The Jesus-Horus comparison is not notable enough for its own article. It doesn't have to be for inclusion in this encyclopedia. That's why it should exist as an article section. But, instead of revising, citing, and editing the information already included, the section has been removed entirely? I don't get that. The Jesus article has a mythical view subsection, and corresponding content fork to Christ myth theory and Jesus Christ and comparative mythology. This is because Jesus has been compared to many mythological predecessors in reliable sources. Horus has only been compared to Jesus in any reliable sources. That is why there is a "Comparisons to Jesus" section in this article. This section is purely about Horus and Jesus, not about the notion that "Jesus has been compared to many ancient deities," which would be found in the comparative mythology and myth theory articles. That is why this section should be included in the Horus article, and why I will be re-adding it tomorrow, barring any rational policy or guideline-based objections. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Lets be clear - the section has not been removed from the encyclopedia it has been moved to here: [6] which allows this article (which is about Horus) its own integrity and Jesus in comparative mythology is the more appropriate place for the study of Jesus. Images can be introduced and included and the text expanded if that is what editors think should be developed. The Horus article is a relatively short one which validates the basis for WP:GEVAL. I am citing WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE as further basis for the move. This is an interesting link that also provides some interesting points of view: [7]. As far as consensus goes in reading this page and in observing this dispute over a number of years - there is no consensus for its inclusion...Modernist (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It might be worth a sentence with a link but that's enough. The significant comparison, as far as it goes, is really a purely visual one between images of Isis & Mary with their respective infants. Johnbod (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I added the images here: [8] although they need to be captioned, although I have captioned them and added text...Modernist (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

All right, so the iconographic comparison should stay, while the myth theory stuff goes. It's reliably sourced, and if it's one or two sentences, it's not too weighty. In the meantime, I'll start an RFC for the second part when I get the chance. This is a conflict that has been ongoing for 4 years. Once we've all moved on to more pressing matters, someone will come along and re-add it. Because it is a theory that has grown in popularity over the last four years, and it's at the point where it warrants some kind of response in the Horus article (much the same way as there is a response in the Jesus article). ColorOfSuffering (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Horus as a "Savior" God

While a source is attributed to the claim that Horus was called a "Savior" God, there is no elaboration on what attribute, myth, etc would define Horus as a "Savior". It would also help to know what the Greek or Egyptian word for "savior" was when used to describe Horus.

Without such knowledge, the claim that Horus was considered a savior deity remains vague and dubious. NJMauthor (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Wilkinson says that Shed means 'he who rescues' or 'enchanter' pg. 135 Complete Gods and Godesses - so I suppose this is close to 'saviour'. I don't feel that there is a reason to delete 'saviour' - though I think this word does have Biblical overtones which is regrettable.Apepch7 (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm asking what would cause him to be ascribed that title. Did he rescue people in a Myth? Was he prophesied to rescue people in the future? Did he perform some sort of "cyclical rescuing" mirroring a natural process like the Nile's flooding?

Does anyone know? NJMauthor (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

reason for redirection

A search on the term harakhti redirected here for no rhyme or reason that the article explains. If Harakhti is the Egyptian spelling or something like that, it ought to say so on this page and give the source. 4.249.63.235 (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ihy redirects here but it is not immediately obvious why, all references to Ihy having been removed from this article. Does Ihy warrant a mention here - perhaps in the Heru-pa-khered (Horus the Younger) section? - or is it preferable that the former Ihy page be reinstated and linked to from this one? Sutimere (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've created a basic Ihy article. A. Parrot (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Lolwut-ish myth?

I have heard mention of a myth where Haru rapes his mother Usat. Is there any information on this? Note: It may have been a badly-written mention of the myth where Usat saves Haru from Sutakh's attempts to rape him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.70.242 (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen that myth anywhere. There is an episode in the Contendings of Horus and Seth where Horus gets mad at Isis and cuts off her head (though the wound isn't fatal, because Egyptian gods are weird like that). Perhaps someone conflated that with the rape by Set. Do you remember where you saw that story? It's not relevant to the article unless it's reliably sourced as an actual myth. A. Parrot (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember where I saw it. I was hopng I could find out about it here. --75.176.70.242 (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe it's wrong. A. Parrot (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Google Search Results

Not sure if this is even controllable by wikipedia, but this is how my google search results came up... maybe it's not so good for wikipedia's image. Not sure where to report this or whether anyone even cares. I don't... but I figure others do.

"Horus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Horus is the biggest pussy licker one of the oldest and most significant deities in the Ancient Egyptian religion, who was worshipped from at least the late ... Etymology - Horus and the Pharaoh - Origin mythology - Mythological roles en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus - Cached - Similar"

Horus the Elder/Horus the Younger

I don't think enough distinction is made between Horus the Elder (the falcon) and Horus the Younger/the Child. Horus the Elder is the brother of Osiris, Isis, Seth etc, Horus the Younger is the son of Osiris & Isis, but in the article, they're treated as the same person. VenomousConcept (talk) 10:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Similarities to Horus

I think it would be a good idea apart from having a separate page, have a small paragraph discussing the Similarities Christian Son of Mary and Islamic Son of Maryam --Ambelland (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom. The supposed similarities to Jesus that were made up by the 19th century self-educated poet Gerald Massey are not accepted by any studied academic these days. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Translations to be checked

The last line of the article says:

The Greek form of Heru-ur (or Har wer) is Haroeris. Other variants include Hor Merti 'Horus of the two eyes' and Horkhenti Irti.

with a reference to Patricia Turner, Charles Russell Coulter, Dictionary of ancient deities, 2001.

My doubt is about the translation to the title Hor Merti, given as 'Horus of the two eyes', while the second title, Horkhenti Irti, remains untranslated. Based on the little I know about the Egyptian language and, mainly, on what is said in another part of the article itself, "Khenty-irty (ḫnty r ỉr.ty 'He who has eyes')", it seems to me that it is actually the second title, Horkhenti Irti, which means 'Horus of the two eyes', while the first one, Hor Merti, would be something like 'the beloved Horus'. Someone with access to the source indicated or with actual knowledge of the Egyuptian language could check this. Panglossa [ Talk ] 05:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Origin Myth Problems

The citation given for the origin of Horus is not a primary source. Plutarch, in De Iside et Osiride, section 18, clearly indicates that Horus had already been born by the time Osiris was cut up. --Paul Anderson (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. Iæfai (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

About a couple of reverted minor changes (and a terrible nuisance!)

I recently tried to make a couple of minor corrections in the article, only to find a little later that they had been reverted by Modernist. I was confident that my (two) corrections were justified and I wondered why they had been reverted. To my surprise, when I compared the latest editions (mine with Modernist's), I saw that there were two more changes that were attributed to me, although I had nothing to do with them!

I then wrote here on the talk page to apologize for the extra (and completely irrelevant) changes - it seemed that a couple of strange links had been added to the text, which were completely unrelated to the context in which they appeared. Fearing that some unintended alterations might again slip into the article, I clicked on "Show changes" and, to my dismay, I discovered that there were over five of them in the text.

I repeated the process for at least ten times, and every time the same piece of unwanted text (some link that included a long number) reappeared in many parts of the article. At long last, I noticed that, just as I reopened the edit page and looked at the text not knowing what to do, after a few seconds the same link was automatically added in various parts of the text!

I googled this link and found that it most probably had something to do with a program called IntelliTXT that had apparently customized my browser to automatically create what looked like links (blue letters and thick double-underlining) on some words of the text. Particularly for Wikipedia, when on the "Read" page, it made the letters of some words bold and thickly underlined them. But when I clicked on them it was again the same article I was already on that reopened. When I was on the edit page, though, it only added the link around various words, which, of course, would make a mess of how the text would appear on the normal "Read" page.

I spent hours trying to find a solution. I was finally taken to a page on the site of "Vibrant Media" where I was supposedly given an option to opt out. After an obscure and long process, all companies associated with my browser and computer but one were "informed" that I did not like them advertising in my face. But when I got back to the editing page, nothing had changed!

My last recourse was to change browsers by switching to Google Chrome, which finally worked. So I'm writing all this to let you know about the problem (if you don't already) and ask you if there's any way around it apart from switching browsers (I guess the new browser will soon be taken over, too).

Anyway, it's time I wrote about the changes I had tried to make. I prefer not to make them again directly and I thought I'd rather let you know first in case anyone has something to say. Here they are:

1) (Line 20) The Greek rendering of Horus should be spelled Ὧρος instead of Ὣρος, as in Greek any accented long vowel (or diphthong) in the penultimate syllable should take a "perispomene" (circumflex) accent when the ultimate syllable's vowel (or diphthong) is short (in our case, "Ω" is long and "ο" is short). If this is not convincing - as this rule may be unknown to most - here's a line from a Greek inscription from North Africa (it's from the Dittenberger, Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae [OGIS] collection [OGIS 90, A, line 11] and you can find it here: http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/main?url=oi%3Fikey%3D219002%26bookid%3D371):

'...θεᾶς καθάπερ Ὧρος ὁ τῆς Ἴσιος καὶ Ὀσίριος υἱός, ὁ ἐπαμύνας τῶι πατρὶ αὐτοῦ Ὀσίρει, τὰ πρὸς θεοὺς...'

2) The It's in the caption to the photo of the Gold-Headed Horus should be Its, as it is a possessive adjective and not a contracted form of "It is" or "It has". There's a Usage Note under "its" in the American Heritage Dictionary that reads as follows:

USAGE NOTE: Its, the possessive form of the pronoun it, is never written with an apostrophe. The contraction it's (for it is or it has) is always written with an apostrophe.

As I believe that Modernist's intervention was only meant to correct the link insertions put in the text without my knowing by the advertising program (and I guess he probably didn't even notice my intended corrections) and since I think that my corrections are justified and well documented, I intend to proceed with incorporating them to the text again soon. But first I think I'll wait a while for any feedback from other members, if there be any. Axanthios (talk) 06:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry your browser got hacked like that! Yes, I'm sure it was the gibberish that made Modernist see your edits as vandalism or test edits—that, and the lack of an edit summary. It's a good idea to write an edit summary to explain all or nearly all of your edits. Of course the apostrophe in "its" should be removed. And I know little about Greek, but I can recognize in Greek writing the names of Horus and his parents. So, with the inscription to support the minor pronunciation difference, I decided to make the change in accent myself, along with the apostrophe fix. Problem solved. A. Parrot (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for making the changes for me. I didn't know about the usefulness of creating an edit summary, as I hadn't noticed the edit summary box (maybe because I'm still new here). Thanks for pointing that out. By the way, do I need to write an edit summary for this edit to the talk page? Personally I think not, so I'll leave it blank.

As for the problem I previously wrote about, it seems to have been fixed after disabling some add-ins in my browser. Axanthios (talk) 11:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Similarity to Greek Words

I thought it would be interesting to note the similarity of the name Horus to a number of Greek words, which no doubt would have made an impression on the minds of hellenized Egyptians: 1) horó (ὁρῶ): to see, look at. The Eye of Horus seems relevant here. 2) hóra (ὥρα): season, climate, year, hour. Horus was a god of the skies, the weather, cosmic order etc., and was called Hōros (Ὧρος), with an omega, by the Greeks. 3) hóros (ὅρος): limit, frontier, rule, standard, term, definition, goal, aim. 4) óros (ὄρος): mountain, probably related to the verb órnymi (ὄρνυμι) which means "I raise". Obviously, there's going to be words based on the syllable 'or' in any language, but these seem to be relevant with the symbolism of Horus and so are likely to have influenced the conception of the deity in heavily hellenized Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt. 79.131.154.84 (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It's possible that those similarities affected some people's views of Horus, but to say anything about them in the article, we need to cite reliable sources that state what that influence was. A. Parrot (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Rename "Misconceptions in Popular Media"?

Perhaps it would be best to rename this section "Appearances in popular media" or "Appearances in popular culture"? "Misconceptions" has a very narrow scope and will likely be limited to just Zeitgeist: The Movie, Religulous and writings by Gerald Massey and Acharya S. By allowing the section to cover all popular media/culture, it can include both misconceptions and other depictions (accurate, not accurate and/or fictional) such as Pyramids of Mars. ComfyKem (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I dislike that section as it is, because while it's correct as far as it goes, it's effectively made up of synthesis (its source describes Horus in Egyptian religion and says nothing about the Zeitgeist meme) and looks like an attempt to prove a point. Not to mention that it ignores the other ways that Horus and his family may have influenced Christianity, which are more subtle and more plausible than the wholesale lifting that the Zeitgeist types argue for.

But I also hate the standard "in popular culture" section with its bulleted list of an article subject's every appearance in fiction. User:Jackyd101/Popular culture advice is pretty close to my views on popular culture sections. An ideal section on a historical topic's latter-day influence would look at the ways the subject has been characterized over time and by different groups of people, giving the most prominent and pertinent examples. Unfortunately, writing it that way without being guilty of synthesis requires sources that describe those patterns, at least in passing, and they often aren't available. I'm working on such a section for Isis right now, but I don't know whether the sources are available for Horus. If one can be put together, the Zeitgeist stuff might well be a part of it. I just don't know whether it's possible. A. Parrot (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

A somewhat stale thread, but I came here for a similar reason. The section Interpretations in popular media is absolutely absurd - even at only two sentences. I know Wikipedia has its issues from time to time, but spending even one sentence on the wild imaginations of Religulous and Zeitgeist is somewhat surprising. Also since Osiris was flesh when "he" impregnated Isis in one of the birth myths of Horus, of course ON ITS OWN proves that there is no context to a "virgin birth" (especially since the mythos doesn't refer to whether Isis was actually a virgin at this time) and thus the second sentence is even more confusing and essentially WP:OR and WP:SYNTH seemingly trying to support Religulous/Zeitgeist (or doing a poor job of refutting it).

If A. Parrot or someone else wants to craft a new section that discusses latter-day characterizations/influences, that's great and I think it would be appropriate, but this section should be swiftly and mercifully deleted. Ckruschke (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I've deleted it. I just wish I knew how to craft a proper section to replace it. A. Parrot (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow - that was easy! Thanks much! Ckruschke (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

"Divine intervention (the golden phallus)"

Okay, sorry to get a little squicky here. The article says "So being, the term 'virgin' is debatable in reference to Isis, but Horus' birth by divine intervention (the golden phallus) through a female who had not had intercourse with a male's organic phallus is not as debatable." Do we know if his testicles were removed also? Because if he was still producing sperm and the golden phallus had a tube through it then using it as an example of "divine intervention" is distinctly debatable. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 00:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think its debatable because that doesn't sound even remotely like accurate information. Isis was very clearly not a virgin, and while the penis was fashioned out of gold (or clay in some accounts), it did not remain one after he was reanimated. Furthermore, someone seems to be desperately stretching the meaning of divine intervention here. Sex happened. Other than being really great sex, there's nothing particularly divine about that.Farsight001 (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course, Isis did use magic (which in Egyptian terms is synonymous with divine power, at least when a god is using it) to revive Osiris in the first place. Not that I'm defending the text; I said in the section above that it smacks of synthesis, and I'm not sure where the "golden" part came from. Plutarch says Isis fashioned a replacement but doesn't say what it was made of, at least not in the narrative part of his book. I can't read the text of the Britannica entry that serves as the section's only source. A. Parrot (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

An Egregious Error in "Horus"

The section “Sky god” of page [[Horus] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus#Sky_god] contains an egregious error by saying “conquest of Upper Egypt by Lower Egypt”. The Narmer Palette [[Narmer Palette] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narmer_Palette] tells us that it was the reverse of that stated.

24.254.238.231 (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Mike Sarles

True. The article has lots of misleading stuff, but saying Lower Egypt conquered Upper is pretty bad. I removed the offending phrase. The background of the myth is a confusing subject, though; I tried to sort it out in Osiris myth#Origins. A. Parrot (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Photo of Horus in spirit...

This spirit is my guide and spirit ancestor, there are other ancient spirit here with me. I'm not a descendent physically, but spiritually. When you look at the photo notice the gravity effect on his face and the size of the nose, these are an indication that he lived for around a thousand years when he was on earth in this physical realm. I could be the incarnation of one of his sons, I have a bit of an evil streak lol. Horus & Spirit Beings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel.treymain666 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum, talk pages are for article improvement.

We are not going to incorporate those photos, as they do not represent anything but your personal beliefs, not verifiable history of beliefs about Horus, or the noteworthy documented beliefs of Horus-worshippers.

When multiple books have been written about your beliefs by people unaffiliated with them, then we might summarize the more academic works on the subject. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I generally ignore bizarre posts like this one. There isn't much point in talking about WP guidelines to these kinds of people. A. Parrot (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Which Falcon?

Horus is described throughout this article as being represented by the figure of a falcon. The modelling is often quite detailed and I wonder if any ornithologist could say what type of falcon he was? Thomas Peardew (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Opinions differ. In a book on birds in ancient Egypt (Between Heaven and Earth, 2012, edited by Rozenn Bailleul-LeSuer), Bailleul-LeSuer says "Most scholars who conducted a close and detailed examination of the various depictions of the Horus falcon have come to the conclusion that no single species was used as a model by the ancient Egyptians who designed this motif. Features from several varieties of large falcons were seemingly selected and gathered so as to form a composite design, later adopted by generations of scribes and artists." The most likely candidates are the peregrine, lanner, hobby, and Eleonora's falcons (p. 174). In another part of the book, however, Arielle P. Kozloff argues that the lanner resembles Horus most closely (pp. 59–60). A. Parrot (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2015

Add hawk/falcon, bull, Double Crown, Winged Disk, Udjat, Sphinx, weapons, iron, blacksmiths to symbols Ethan (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Conflict between Horus and Set - which is associated with Upper and which with Lower Egypt?

The section "Conflict between Horus and Set" says: "In these battles, Horus came to be associated with Lower Egypt, and became its patron", whilst later in the same section it says "Horus was seen as the God of Upper Egypt, and Set as the God of Lower Egypt."

The section would appear to be confused, or confusing. The main source for the association of Horus with Lower Egypt seems to be the Shabaka Stone. Its translation says "[Geb] made Seth the king of Upper Egypt ... And Geb made Horus King of Lower Egypt in the land of Lower Egypt". So that seems clear enough. But on the other hand, the cult centre of Horus was at Nekhen in Upper Egypt and Upper Egypt conquered Lower Egypt, so Seth not Horus should have been the victor if as is usual, the tale is taken as a parable of the war between Upper and Lower Egypt. Aarghdvaark (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Simply put, it varies. I addressed this question in Osiris myth#Resolution and the section below it, but I hadn't made any effort to address it in this article. For the moment, I pasted in and tweaked some of the relevant text from the Osiris myth article. A. Parrot (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2015

by part of Khonsu, the moon god, and was replaced.

Horus represented the eclipsing binary Algol in the Calendar of Lucky and Unlucky Days of papyrus Cairo 86637.

Horus was occasionally shown in art as a naked boy with a finger RickLive (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Majora (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2017

"rest of the" is quite an inappropriate replacement phrase for "other" 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 04:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 05:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

How much more clearer can it be made except by me doing the change myself? Could you explain your difficulty or inability in a clearer manner?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 05:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

You need to specify what section of the article you are tlaking about because the article is way too long. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 05:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Ditto from other protected article.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Please do not imply what you want done, please state in an explicit, "change X to Y" format what you want done. A mere comment about the situation of an error is not helpful.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

"rest of the" to "other"2605:E000:9161:A500:C5B3:12E7:7862:8F3A (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Done on the grounds that this is mainly a syntax/grammar change, not really controversial. I have no prejudice against the edit being reverted with good cause. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Consider it my little contribution toward making our activities obsolete and some day this a * article.2605:E000:9161:A500:C5B3:12E7:7862:8F3A (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2018

Under Mythological Roles - Sky God there it says that Hrous being referenced to havine one eye as the moon and another the sun. I dont know how to source documents. I just have links to original texts stating the same. One is an old Hieroglyphic dictionary, the second is a scholarly essay with an already cited reference to the same

https://archive.org/stream/hieroglyphicvoca00budg#page/274/mode/2up

http://www.academia.edu/1584979/Beware_the_Red_Eyed_Horus_The_Significance_of_Carnelian_in_Egyptian_Royal_Jewelry 2601:8C:8300:94:39E6:FEB8:5905:100B (talk) 04:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. OhKayeSierra (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Golden Horus Osiris

Horus eventually came to be identified as both Horus AND Osiris. He was referred to as Golden Horus Osiris. However, since a fringe based movie presented unsourced information about the Horus and Christ connection, I feel it is necessary to make it known that this is not proven scholarship so that that nonsense doesn't creep back into Wikipedia again. It appeared in 2005 and was successfully removed.

If someone does find it necessary to add that unprovable information, we can just eliminate the reference to the Horus/Christ connection altogether. But I think it appropriate to state it is not proven scholarship.

CWatchman (talk)

It should be scoured from the article and the earth in it salted with an apocalypse of pretzels whenever the Zeitgeist schmucks try to reinsert it.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)