Talk:Harpocrates

Tone
I added the tone template. Right now the mythology background reads like an essay or a term paper. It does not read encyclopedic. This is true on two levels.

First, within sentences the tone is inappropriate. The sentence structure is needlessly complex and it has a fair number of superlatives. For example, the section titled 'Harpocrates' (whether an article should have a section of the same name I won't address right now) begins "In this way Harpocrates, the child Horus, personifies the newborn sun each day...." This kind of colorful language isn't appropriate in an encyclopedia article. Other examples include the beginning of the first section: "Horus was conceived by Isis, the mother goddess, from Osiris, the original god-king of Egypt, who had been murdered by his brother Set[1], and so became the god of the underworld." Not only does it needlessly serialize these attributes, but more fundamentally, it's written as though these were facts. Unless there's a debate I'm unaware of, no one on this page is declaring that Isis ans Osiris shared a night together. Encyclopedia tone requires an explanation: "In mythology, Horus was concevied by Isis...."

Second, the organization of the article is similarly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The first section needs to be something other than another mythological character and the sections generally need to be more useful. I suggest following a pattern similar to the Zeus article: "Zeus in Mythology", "Cult of Zeus", etc.

I have implemented the lead change because it was straightforward. I haven't done these other changes because I'm new to this article and others understand the topic and background better than I do. But these issues should be addressed as soon as possible. LH (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. 7 years later!


 * It isn't necessary to point out that the Egyptian gods were myths. It isn't necessary in any article on myths. I'm sure nobody will be confused as to how the Sun rises in the morning after reading this. The line between actual facts and the beliefs of Ancient Egyptians should be pretty clear in anyone's mind, anyone born recently enough to be alive and using the Internet.


 * While the "serialising" section contains perhaps a few too many commas, there's only so many ways to make a short list of attributes. It's a bit short to use bullet points. The sentence does the job well enough.


 * I think your complaints are superficial at best, and for quite a few of them, invalid, sorry to say! The main problem, as I mentioned, is that one doesn't need to point out that myths are mythological. And indeed that's (technically) a matter of opinion anyway! Most people would already know that. For the few reanimated mummies who disagree, simply pointing it out isn't going to make a difference.
 * 188.29.165.242 (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Harpo Marx anecdote == ==

Cela a vraiment besoin d'une source. Je n'ai jamais rencontré cette revendication dans l'une des biographies des Marx Brothers que j'ai étudiés, et que la demande est douteuse sur son visage. Le nom "Harpo" arrivé à cause de ses interprétations ou exécutions musicales sur la harpe. Desertpapa ( Talk) 18:56, 12 Janvier 2009 (UTC)

Ma version diverge un peu, car les deux frères étaient francs-maçons et en fait on y retrouve pas mal de symboles, les gants blancs et le silence (celui de l'apprenti) je pense que c'est bien par rapport au silence et d'Harpocrate que le frère silencieux a choisi son surnom Harpo. ~ ~ ~ ~

A Problem with Timing
(Retraction) Nevermind, my source of information was misquoted. I should never try to make sense of ancient history past 2 AM. -Knowl -&lt;(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)