Talk:Set (deity)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Where in Herodotus can I find that Seth was a Berber god??? The text is available on the web but I cant find anything under Set Seth or Typhon. Jcwf

It was writen by me Yuba, sorry for the misunderstand.

seth or set? - Omegatron 16:59, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Seth is Set (and Sutekh) - transcription of hieroglyphs into english isnt terribly standard, and the language varied a bit over 3000 years.

Set is unlikely to have been named Set in the Berber mythology, as it is a demotic word.

Gay

I can see you reasoning in wanting to revert "consort" to "boyfriend" (I know I can't think of a better term), but "homosexual" to "gay"? "Homosexual" is a much more specific and encyclopedic term than "gay" Also, the homosexual article is better to link to than gay, as the latter deals primarily with semantics. --Tydaj 04:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Gay is a very clear term. Homosexual is a clinical term, often used by people who object to using a word which has more positive connotations. Ideally I would like to put "he was a screaming queen", but that isn't very encyclopoedic. ~~~~ 09:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

"Gay" has just as much, if not more, negative connotations as positive. "Homosexual" is much more neutral. --Tydaj 14:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever met anyone gay, nor heard of anyone gay whatsoever, who has considered "gay" to be more offensive than "homosexual". ~~~~ 14:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

A word can have negative connotations without being offensive. --Tydaj 15:02, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that homosexual is the proper usage here: it's the conventional form in works of reference, and it's completely unambiguous. Neither term is offensive, but 'gay' just isn't the right word in an encyclopedia. ~ Veledan | Talk | c. 17:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Why? Its the "why" thats the important thing. ~~~~ 18:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

1. It's the conventional term. I have 30-odd history books and a shelf of other up-to-date works of reference in the case to my left, and I'll give you 10:1 that they all use the term homosexual rather than gay. Wikipedia isn't a place to start or promote new usages.

• The conventional term is "gay". Almost everyone I have ever met discusses "is X gay", "X is gay", "that is quite gay", "gay culture", "gay bar", "gay club", "gay porn", "gay pride", "gay money", "gay celebrity", "gay group", etc. How many people really say "Graham Norton is a homosexual celebrity" rather than "a gay celebrity". Who on earth goes to a "homosexual bar"? Wikipedia operates on common usage. Being clinical is a way to be subtly derogatory.

1. It's unambiguous and uncontroversial (usually!). Homosexual has one, neutral meaning. Gay has its 'happy' meaning as well as its 'homosexual' sense, and it has unfortunately gained a new, nastier meaning as the primary insult heard on today's schoolyard. However, this isn't really the main point. Reason #1 is.

~ Veledan | Talk | c. 20:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Gay is almost universally understood to mean queer, poof, screaming queen, a male who fancies men etc. I don't think even 1% of the population of the english speaking world (i.e. en.wikipedia's readership) would think "Kevin Drinkel in shock gay porn admission" would think it referred to someone doing heterosexual porn that was light-hearted. ~~~~ 20:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

(B.t.w. Kevin Drinkel is a 59 year old actor in Coronation Street, and that was a front page headline in one of today's Uk national newspapers). ~~~~ 20:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

All of those, including "gay", are just colloquialisms for "homosexual". --Tydaj 21:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

My five-piastres worth? "Gay" sounds too modern. Not a bad thing in itself, but in carries a massive amount of cultural baggage that implies a modern attitude, a 1990s/2000s approach to homosexuality -- the one Ril speaks of, of gay bars, gay Graham Norton, gay pride and the gay community. Using "gay" in connection with Set would be to impose that reading of homosexuality onto the situation that prevailed 4000 yrs ago in ancient Egypt. We'd be re-painting the Ancient Egyptians in modern colours, our colours. "Gay" still sounds like it's taking a stand, making a statement. Maybe the language is evolving to a point where "gay" will be the neutral term for "homosexual" but, as I currently read the words -- in the context of Ancient Egyptian mythology -- we're not there yet. –Hajor 01:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I think Gay is better, I can just imagine Set as a bitchy queen like Graham Norton. horseboy 10:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Which ever word (and homosexual is indeed more accurate), can anyone give any reference for this supposed homosexual orientation? Str1977 23:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to see a source for this; In my own (admittedly cursory) research, I have found no evidence for such a relationship/orientation anywhere but in this article and the corresponding article Ash (god). Also, this was originally brought to my attention by a Kemetic friend, who was very surprised by this "fact". Before we spend any more time on the gay-vs-homosexual, consort-vs-boyfriend discussion, we should establish through reference to reliable sources that Set and Ash actually had a relationship. Otherwise, it's a moot point. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 14:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

For example, the inscriptions of Peribsen. For a modern reference, you could check out some of the writing of Professor James Dunn.

I have no idea why you think the opinion of the Kemetic orthodox is relevant. Kemetic orthodoxy is a modern religious movement, not academically qualified egyptologists. --Victim of signature fascism 18:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Because he has reason to know more about Egyptology than I do. A person who worships Set will generally know more about Set than the average person. I'm not citing him as a source, and I find the implication that reconstructionists are uninformed about their own religious and mythological traditions very offensive. If there's a source, just cite the source - there's no need to be rude. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 02:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Kemetic Orthodoxy is a belief system. It is not an academic discipline. Please learn to distinguish the two. --Victim of signature fascism 16:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I do. I was not citing him as an expert source, merely as an explanation for why I, who am not terribly interested in ancient Egyptian mythology, was motivated to comment on the topic. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear from my original comment.

So by James Dunn above, I'm assuming you don't mean James Dunn the Canadian financier or James Dunn the New Testament scholar; I could not find any relevant books by James Dunn on Amazon, on Half.com, or in my university's catalog. Unfortunately, the journal search function is down, so I couldn't check to see what journal articles there were. Google search for "James Dunn" AND egyptologist turned up no Egyptologist by that name, just lots of mirrors of an article about the historical Jesus that mentions Gerald Massey and lists of movies. In the list of people named James Dunn here, the James Dunns affiliated with colleges/universities are an artist, a dentist, a political scientist specializing in transportation policy, a director of admissions, a health researcher, a Baptist minister, and James D.G. Dunn the New Testament scholar again. What I have found on Peribsen is the report that his inscriptions give the Set animal the label "Ash" ([1]); how this relates the the claim that Ash and Set were lovers, I do not know. Please explain. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 18:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimmy Dunn the professor and head of the theology department at Durham. He happens to not only be an expert on New Testament but also one in the field of death (as viewed by religions and mythologies) and death rituals, whence the acknowledged expertise in aspects of Egyptological mythos. --Victim of signature fascism 19:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you know off the top of your head what book/article of his mentions this? Since the journal search at my university library's website still not working for me, I went through all the results for "James DG Dunn" at Google Scholar, but I couldn't find anything on death. I can stop by the library in person after it reopens in a couple of days and try to source this statement, but I need to have something to go on. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 20:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

What's Google Scholar? --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 17:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

List_of_Google_services_and_tools#Scholar - Google's page on this tool. Now could you please answer my question? - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 18:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have been trying to find a source for this for a over a month now and have failed to find anything even remotely applicable, so I am removing this statement from the article. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 08:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have not edited before so forgive me if I'm correct, but I'm a bit irritated that Seth's little known relation with Horus was actually taken out.... so, while I dont know the most classic sources, I DO have, for example, a HUGE book on ancient egypt sitting on my lap (Aptly titled "Ancient Egypt" and written by Lorna Oakes and Lucia Gahlin) so you can at the least, reffer to this. This is by no means the only or best place to find refference to it, but its what I have right now. If that's not good enough, I'll have to find something else, but as it is.... The book however goes very in depth as far as the contendings go.... anyway, the pages that cover the assault are the bottum of page 315 continuing to 316. "A banquet was thrown during which Seth sexually assaulted Horus in order to humiliate him publicly, and to display his own strength and superiority. The incident did not go as Seth had planned, however, because Horus managed to catch Seth's semen in his carefully positioned hands before it could enter him. He went running to his mother (whose head had been magically restored) with the rogue ejaculate. Shocked, she cut off her son's hand, disposing of it (and thus the semen) in the marshes. She realized that to foil Seth's plan completely he must now be tricked into ingesting Horus's semen, so Horus obliged (having his hands magically replaced by Isis) and she spread some on Seth's favourite food, lettuce. Seth duly tucked into his doctored snack. Back in the courtroom, the semen of the two gods was asked to speak out in order to ascertain its whereabouts and prove Seth's story about the assault. But instead of speaking from inside Horus, Seth's semen spoke out from the marshes, while Horus's identified itself inside Seth and emerged as a gold sun disc (indicating its divine origins) from the top of his head."

So, there we go. Now that I think about it, a published book probably isn't "official enough" but after typing all that out, I'm posting anyway. If its not, well, that's why I'm only editing the discussion page. I'll let the people who know what they're doing do the rest if its possible. :P

Tad Williams

It's not an alien intelligence, but rather a human baby as I understood it

If this is on-topic, please explain how? --Victim of signature fascism 23:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it my imagination, or is an article on Egyptology becoming a debate on political correctness?

Also 'gay' has other meanings (i.e. happy) where homosexual has a more set definition

what is the deal people?

  I wonder why the only archived section of the set discusion are the "gay" disscusion 

articles. I have seen so many more discusion articles on this page that for some reason are ommited from the archives. I didn't know wikipedia was set up for propoganda purposes.

What is a reconciled combatant?

The page says "Set had a vital role as a reconciled combatant" with no explanation. It sounds like "reconciled combatant" is a mythic archetype. Is it a Jungian archetype? The reference associated with the sentence references a book, but no other wikipedia article. If "reconciled combatant" is not notable enough to be explained in a wikipedia entry, it's not notable enough to be used as unexplained jargon here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.239.118.250 (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

HelloNj

Hji 94.203.9.213 (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)