Talk:Heliopolitan Triad

Triad?
According to Fergus Millar, there's no evidence for a Heliopolitan Triad; likewise Kropp; and a syncretised "Heliopolitan Venus" is not secure. Article seems a likely delete. Haploidavey (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article should probably just be deleted entirely. It only has one citation, which seems to be to some tourism website, which is probably not a reliable source. I have never heard of any "Heliopolitan triad" and since you have three sources that directly state there is no evidence to support them, I see no point in keeping this article around. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it has enough academic sources mentioning it to keep it as people might search for it, but it needs rewriting. Unless there's another article we can add it to and then turn this into a redirect. Doug Weller  talk 10:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if we source the article and amend its content accordingly (scare quotes ahoy) I don't think we'd have much more than a very minor storm in an academic teacup. I prefer redirection; several articles are relevant targets. The most relevant would probably be Triadic deities -- except that it currently redirects to Triple deity; a misdirection imo, as they are not at all the same thing. "Triad" and "Triple" are different scholarly constructs. Just as an example; we have a Capitoline Triad of Jupiter, Juno and Minerva and an Aventine Triad of Liber, Ceres and Proserpina. In each case, they're different deities, not aspects of the same "triple" deity. Haploidavey (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The inappropriate redirect seems relevant to this old ANI discussion. Haploidavey (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirecting
I'd still prefer a redirect, but will atempt a rewrite first, using the sources given above. If this "Triad" is merely a scholarly artefact (per the same sources) all articles linked to it (and those of thhe several deities invoked) will require attention and new sources. The sole source used for the article in its current form will not do at all. Haploidavey (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Rewriting
Using 3 highly reputable modern sources, by 2 authors. It's a tedious effort, trying to dismantle material that was meant to make sense of things. And did, until it was shown to be quite wrong. Some of the articles that link here perpetuate some of these errors - the worst offenders are Baalbek and Heliopolis - well at least that's just a redirect. I haven't even looked at pre-Roman Canaanite religion. Fixing them is not something I'm keen to take on. Haploidavey (talk) 06:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)