Talk:Cronus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Meaning of Cronus

I read that Cronus means Raven. Granted, the source is not reliable, but does anyone have some information?

• Cronus for Dungeons and Dragons

Reply to David Latapie 12:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• The Latin word for Raven is Corvus User:Marten15

Did Kronos overthrow Oceanus? Or Uranus? I thought it was Uranus.

The picture is entirely inappropriate. I've never heard of Cronus being depicted in this manner, and googling reveals a plethora of images which look very unlike it. Do you have a source for him being a malevolent, hooded, lithe, beardless man of indeterminate age with a fiery scythe? Placing this image here makes it appear as though that was how he was depicted in ancient Greece and is misleading, even if there are a few exceptions, because that was not how he was depicted. Tuf-Kat 04:24, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

I think that cronus was just defening his throne and is thought of as a carnavour though he swallowed them whole and when they were thrown up they were still alive the pics i have seen googling are misleading. 1/25/06 This sketch looks really silly. And besides, it's overlaying the text. RickK 04:27, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It was not overlaying text. Someone messed with the image and caused that problem.

It is not inappropriate. It is not vulgar, sexually demonstrative, and depicts no graphic representation of violence. Other users have voiced clear support of it. The fact thay you have never heard of Cronus being depicted in a certain way is not my problem nor the problem of any Wikipedia users. Most sites only post images of Monkey that fit with other greek reliefs, in which he is a bearded man with a cloak and either a sickle or similar implement. Yet I have often seen pictures of Cronus in which he looks very much as depicted in the illustration I provided. The fact that another user immediately corrected you the last time you suggested that should have been enough. The character was not depicted as molevolent and actually even in the more common depictions of Cronus he had both a sickle or scythe and was hooded.

And contrary to what the original author is suggesting Cronus (Saturn) was associated with time by many Greek authors who used the character. Some Greek authors chose to differentiate Cronus into two distinct identities, but most did not.

Gee. I see a lot of unattributed talk here. Good thing I ignore unattributed text... - UtherSRG 19:46, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Why? It's not hard to figure out who wrote it... even if you are being sarcastic. ehh I dunno. Evil saltine 19:48, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it was sarcasm. I read it all and decided to ignore it anyway. I didn't see anything worth commenting on. The image is incorrect for use (as are the other two images the 'unknown' author is trying to add to African Grey Parrot and Bigfoot. They are all obviously original creations. The one on this article is the worst of the lot based upon the dialogue. There are plenty of other Bigfoot images that are in the public domain that could be used on that article, and there is already a photo on the parrot article. - UtherSRG 19:55, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Lizard King, this is an encyclopedia. As such, we must present information on Cronus in a complete fashion. I am not an expert on Greek mythology, but my understanding has always been that Cronus and Chronos are two different concepts that have been conflated in relatively recent times due to the linguistic similarities. If you do not believe this is true, please cite some scholarly source so that the information can be presented in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policies.

In addition, all that I have ever read about Cronus claimed he was an old, rather thickly built, clearly human male with a flowing beard, regal demeanor and a cloak and scythe. I have occasionally seen him hooded, though his face is always clearly visible and, as a matter, of fact, I believe his cloak does not cover his expansive barrel-chest. Can you cite a scholarly source that describes him as any of the following:

• Demonic or malevolent in appearance, and seemingly non-human
• Thin to the point of appearing almost skeletal
• Hooded so that the face is obscured
• Without a long, flowing beard
• Carrying a fiery scythe

It is not inappropriate. It is not vulgar, sexually demonstrative, and depicts no graphic representation of violence. There are plenty of images that would be inappropriate for this article that are not vulgar, sexual or violent. Images of John Lennon playing the piano, for example, or of the Pyramids at Giza, or of Santa Claus. Tuf-Kat 20:35, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

Other users have voiced clear support of it. PMC said he liked the sketch -- as do I. It's quite a nice drawing, but that does not make it an informative likeness of Cronus. PMC's support does not make it a non-issue. Tuf-Kat

The fact thay you have never heard of Cronus being depicted in a certain way is not my problem nor the problem of any Wikipedia users. Yes it is. We work on consensus at Wikipedia. As a result, you must be willing to justify your edits or have them removed. It is a problem for other users as well because they will assume that a picture of Cronus in an article on Cronus depicts Cronus as he was normally depicted. Tuf-Kat

Most sites only post images of Cronus that fit with other greek reliefs, in which he is a bearded man with a cloak and either a sickle or similar implement. Yet I have often seen pictures of Cronus in which he looks very much as depicted in the illustration I provided. To be frank, I do not believe you have ever seen Cronus depicted as you drew him. Feel free to prove me wrong. Tuf-Kat

The fact that another user immediately corrected you the last time you suggested that should have been enough. I think you misread PMC's comment. Even if he was extremely vocal in his support for the drawing, sources need to be cited as I have done with the google link above. Tuf-Kat

The character was not depicted as molevolent and actually even in the more common depictions of Cronus he had both a sickle or scythe and was hooded I agree wholeheartedly that he was not depicted as malevolent in ancient Greece. I also agree that he usually carried a sickle or a scythe and that he was sometimes hooded. Tuf-Kat

P.S. Please sign your posts using three tildes (~~~) or four to place the date and time after your name, as in Tuf-Kat 20:35, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC).

1) The african grey parrot was added because the picture already there did not depict a clear profile of the bird.

This is the talk page for Cronus. Take it to Talk:African Grey Parrot. Tuf-Kat

2) The image of cronus was removed and replaced with an actual greek relief of cronus and you again removed it saying that it was a homemade sketch.

I certainly didn't, and don't know if someone else did. My concern is now the image's copyright status. The issue of sketches, drawings or photographs of public domain resources has always confused me, but I believe copyright still applies. Tuf-Kat

3) The image of bigfoot was absolutely appropriate and it obvious that you are going out of your way to deface anything I touch on here merely as a personal attack. I contacted other wikipedia users about the sasquatch image and a few changed it back for me only to have you remove it again.

I assume you are talking to Uther here. In any case, please take it to Talk:Bigfoot. Tuf-Kat

So, I will compromise thus, I will leave the image of cronus and the parrot out, as there are arguably reasons to leave them out. However, the bigfoot image is hurting no one and is appreciated by many Wikipedia users who will only be robbed of a pleasurable experience by your removing it.

Thank you.

The three images are unrelated. Please discuss the remaining issue at Talk:Bigfoot. Tuf-Kat 21:19, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

Please learn to sign your posts as instructed by TUF-KAT above. To continue to make posts unattributed indicates you do not wish to be a conscientuous member of Wikipedia.

To address your points:

1. A better fix would be to find a clear image of an African Grey Parrot and replace the one that exists. An unclear image and a sketch are inferior to one clear image. Further discussion of this should be taken to talk:African_Grey_Parrot

2. I apologize for removing the Greek image from Cronus. At that point I was simply working at keeping your very poor representation of Cronus off of the article. As you can see, I've moved the image to the top and given it a label.

3. The image of bigfoot *is* unacceptable. I've replaced it with an image from the Patterson-Gimlin film. Further discussion of this should be taken to talk:bigfoot

You seem to not understand the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not to provide users with a pleasurable experience. It is an online encyclopedia an is meant to be informative, not entertaining. - UtherSRG 21:22, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We've had problems with 65.35.69.180 (to whom UtherSRG is responding) before. See User talk:Michael Rawdon for some previous observations (on 13 December 2003 he added a huge amount of text to Santa Claus simply as a joke). He never signs his posts, either, and is rather hostile in his modification comments (when he bothers to use any). -mhr 22:31, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The "homemade scketch" appears to be an accurate archeological drawing of an actual relief carving which illustrates a Greek story about Rhea handing the stone as a child substitute to Cronus, as described in the article. See [1] and our article text. Jamesday 10:57, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If you mean the picture in the article currently, it's not what is being discussed above. (UtherSRG accidentally referred to it as such in the page history during a revert, but he knows it isn't) The original image is at Image:Cronoz2c.jpg. Tuf-Kat 15:38, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks - I was referring to the wrong (current) image, Cronuspc.jpg. Cronoz2c.jpg is interesting. We may need such images drawn by Wikipedia contributors in some cases but for historic articles where we can use images of the period, it's probably better to use them instead of new creative works to illustrate things. I wonder if User:Lizard king would be interested in fulfilling requests for drawn illustrations for articles which need them? Jamesday 03:36, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to add the famous painting by Goya of Saturn/Cronus devouring a son? I admit that it involves some violent imagery. (See fr:Cronos and it:Crono.) -- Emsworth 21:25, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's a good image but I don't think the URL is needed in the text, especially since it seems to give an incorect title to the painting. Economy1 10:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

So can we get at least some picture of Cronus? It would be nice as it looks a bit incomplete right now. --Kookoo275 03:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A new disambig page

Hi, I have created a new disambig page Cronos (disambiguation), obviously for all the meanings using that particular spelling. So now we have Cronos (disambiguation), Chronos (disambiguation), Kronos, Khronos, Cronus (disambiguation) and Cronos, which redirects here. --Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення) 11:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

An earlier version of Cronos, that before worship of Zeus became popular, is considered to be connected to the Semitic deity Ba`al Hammon.

What is this suppose to mean?--Broken 12:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it should probably be removed. People can argue about it all they want, but in the end it shouldn't be there without a credible reference to back it up. You could remove it if you want Broken, otherwise I probably will later when I'm satisfied people have had enough warning (and when/if I can be bothered to go back here). Smoore 500 13:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

See also

How come is the man lion of hindu myth related to this corvine deity of grecolatin myth?

Agreed. I think this link should be removed as it is at best irrelevant and at worse confusing. I myself followed it to get more insight on Cronos, and instead have landed on a page for a completely different mythology, with no reason for there to be any link between them. I am going to delete it in an indeterminant amount of time unless a reason for it isn't produced. --Smoore 500 13:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

All I can think of is that maybe someone thought the illustration looked vaguely like a lion. I see no justification for the link either. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

An earlier version of Cronus ?

The article states:

An earlier version of Cronus, from before worship of Zeus became popular, is considered to be connected to the Semitic deity Ba`al Hammon. The baby-eating myth of Cronos is considered to derive from such early religions, as Ba`al Hammon was sometimes worshiped as Moloch, whose cult involved child sacrifice by burning within a statue of Ba`al Hammon.

The earliest know reference to Cronus is Hesiod. There was very little evidence of this deities' worship in classical times and absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there was an earlier Cronus, from "before worship of Zeus became popular". It is extremely unlikely that Cronus was worshipped or even existed in a time before the cult of Zeus had become established. Just because Cronus is Zeus' father in myth does not mean that Cronus is older that Zeus in fact or cult or worship. Unless there is evidence provided for this pre-Zeus Cronus the above statement should be removed.

It is true that some Greeks identified Cronus with the Phoenician and Carthaginian god Ba'al, but beyond this there is no evidence at all that the two gods were in any way connected.

The Prime Source 20:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Dale

The statement in question has been tagged for citation for a long long time, and in the absence of any forthcoming, I would say it is somebody's Original Research and would agree with removing it.

Note however, that there is possibly a slight "hint" of some kind of Canaanite connection later on, one that is indeed cited to a primary source, ie., Sanchunathio, although we have him only second-hand, is reputed to have been an ancient Phoenician historian, who specifically connected Cronos and Athena with the founder of Byblos in Phoenicia. Even so, this account does not correlate him with Baal, but rather with "Ilus". Til Eulenspiegel 21:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture

I removed the "Cronos in popular culture" section, as it contained only a single instance, and that being a video game. I'd probably have let it be out of laziness, but it was also full of blatant typos. :) --Starwed 10:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The Phoenician Cronos

User:Til Eulenspiegel - Can you please cite a source for this paragraph as this original source cannot be WP:V. Unless you translated the Praeparatio Evangelica yourself - which would be original research.

The reference I have (Extracts from Eusebius of Caesarea: Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel). Tr. E. H. Gifford (1903)) carried the following translations from ch10 :-

CHAPTER X Theology of the Phoenicians

'And from them is born Epigeius or Autochthon, whom they afterwards called Uranus; so that from him they named the element above us Uranus because of the excellence of its beauty. And he has a sister born of the aforesaid parents, who was called Ge (earth), and from her, he says, because of her beauty, they called the earth by the same name. And their father, the Most High, died in an encounter with wild beasts, and was deified, and his children offered to him libations and sacrifices

'And in the thirty-second year of his power and kingdom Elus, that is Kronos, having waylaid his father Uranus in an inland spot, and got him into his hands, emasculates him near some fountains and rivers. There Uranus was deified: and as he breathed his last, the blood from his wounds dropped into the fountains and into the waters of the rivers, and the spot is pointed out to this day.' 'Kronos also, in going round the world, gives the kingdom of Attica to his own daughter Athena. But on the occurrence of a pestilence and mortality Kronos offers his only begotten son as a whole burnt-offering to his father Uranus, and circumcises himself, compelling his allies also to do the same. And not long after another of his sons by Rhea, named Muth, having died, he deifies him, and the Phoenicians call him Thanatos and Pluto. And after this Kronos gives the city Byblos to the goddess Baaltis, who is also called Dione, and Berytus to Poseidon and to the Cabeiri and Agrotae and Halieis, who also consecrated the remains of Pontus at Berytus.

Dlm4473 (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't get what the problem is.... What Original research? Everything in the article section is already mentioned in the text, and I am using the same translation you have above. Note the part that says "And their father, the Most High, died in an encounter with wild beasts, and was deified, and his children offered to him libations and sacrifices" and then a second time "There Uranus was deified", it also states several times that these were of the race of men, and several times that they were deified and came to be regarded as gods. You may have an abridged version, but the one at http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_01_book1.htm hjas the complete one. It clearly describes in the preceding section how ships had been invented by Ousous. There are also additional lines below what you quoted:

• "'And when Kronos came into the South country he gave all Egypt to the god Tauthus, that it might be his royal dwelling-place. And these things, he says, were recorded first by Suduc's seven sons the Cabeiri, and their eighth brother Asclepius, as the god Tauthus commanded them."

And this sentence, just above what you quoted:

• "From Misor was born Taautus, who invented the first written alphabet; the Egyptians called him Thoyth, the Alexandrians Thoth, and the Greeks Hermes."

I don't know of any better way to summarize these things than they are now, but calling it Original research or uncited doesn't seem to fit, and at any rate you seem not to know how to properly use templates on an article. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

“I don't get what the problem is....” ? ? ? – no you obviously dont !!

1. Your citation is still incorrect ( Gifford 1903 perhaps ?)

2. “I am using the same translation you have” – i’m glad we agree on something !– as far as i know there is no abridges version.

3. "And their father, the Most High” – please read more carefully and ref – “In their time is born a certain Elioun called "the Most High,"” – He was the father of Epigeius (Uranus) and Ge.

4. “and states ......., he castrated, slew and deified his father Epigeius or Autochthon "whom they afterwards called Uranus"” – WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT ? – I believe it says “Elus, that is Kronos, having waylaid his father Uranus in an inland spot, and got him into his hands, emasculates him near some fountains and rivers.” There is no mention of castration anywhere !

5. "There Uranus was deified" – Correct !! – but it was not an act by Uranus was it ? he was deified the Phoenician people.

6. “It clearly describes in the preceding section . . “ yes it does – in the PRECEDING sections ! - it does not “ further state that after ships were invented, Cronos, visiting the 'inhabitable world'” which implies the invention was during his lifetime, but it was many generations before. This statement either needs to be expanded (accurately) or deleted as irrelevant.

7. “and Egypt to Thoth” again where in the text does it say that? -what it says is “'And when Kronos came into the South country he gave all Egypt to the god Tauthus” - Upon the birth of Tauthus it states “'From Misor was born Taautus, who invented the first written alphabet; the Egyptians called him Thoyth, the Alexandrians Thoth, and the Greeks Hermes.” Please explain to me why you feel the need to refer to him with his Egyptian name – in a section about the Phoenicians ?

8. “and Egypt to Thoth” – Considering Tautus travelled with Cronos – he did not give him Egypt until their return - not at the same time he bequeathed Attica to Athena.

9. Your reference to Misor is confusing and irrelevant !

10. Tauthus is credited with inventing “the first written alphabet”

11. “I don't know of any better way to summarize these things than they are now” - if this is the case why then did you delete the accuratly written section composed by me ?

If you still “don’t get what the problem is” perhaps it is because have taken a piece of text 3740 words long (1195 relating directly to Cronos) and bastardised it into 95 words of nonsensical drivel.

“and at any rate you seem not to know how to properly use templates on an article.” – to this i do apologise, i am new to WP and have a lot to learn, i accept this. – I do however find such a remark just a bit pathetic and childish – Has anyone ever told you to GROW UP ! but . . . as you started it . . . Yeah but at least I can read ! nah nah !

Dlm4473 (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Re your last point - I do apologize, and will definitely have to study the exemplary standard of maturity you have just set.

Turning to one of your other "points" now, #4: "And from them is born Epigeius or Autochthon, whom they afterwards called Uranus". That's a direct quote from the source text. It seems you are splitting some hairs, eg. the difference between "castration" and "emasculated" that seem to be going over my head. Perhaps you are aware of a significant difference between saying "castrated" and "emasculated" and would object to one word being used to paraphrase the other. If this is the case, I do not see any problem with amending the article to read "emasculated" as in the original, instead of "castrated".

1. 7: Similarly, you seem to object to using the name "Thoth" in the article, even though this even appears in our text as one of the alternative spellings, on grounds that "Taautus" is more representative of the Phoenician form. Again, you have a point, although standard practice on Wikipedia is to go with the actual article name to avoid "redirects", there is luckily a convenient workaround for this called "piping", where we simply add the code [[Thoth|Taautus]], it will still link directly to the desired article, and sometimes we do this to satisfy sticklers for accuracy.
2. 9: I disagree that the reference to Misor is confusing or irrelevant; it could be significant and interesting for those studying parallels with other names for Egypt. As long as we simply cite what the source says - ie, that Taautus AKA Thoth was the son of Misor - there is no rule that says we have to suppress this significant information because you find it irrelevant.

As we have seen, Eusebius text is quite clear that these were men, nad that they were deified right after their death -- or in the case of Rhea's youngest son, deified (it says) at his birth. You also may have missed this sentence, where he says it yet a third time: Kronos then, whom the Phoenicians call Elus, who was king of the country and subsequently, after his decease, was deified as the star Saturn.

"knowing that of all men under the sun Taautus was the first who thought of the invention of letters, and began the writing of records" similar words are found throughout the document several times; again, saying "he invented writing" is an incorrect paraphrase based on some fine line drawn between "letters" and "writing" seems like a huge nitpick, but if it is a big difference to you, I can see altering "writing" to read "letters" or "written alphabet". However, the extent of the deletions you made I cannot give consensus to, since the word "deified" appears in the original text at least five or six times, and its obvious intended meaning has never been disputed by any source I know of. Since you seem like a mature, reasonable sort of person in your reply, perhaps we could work out a precise wording that would be agreeable to the both of us, eh? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, I also don't see anywhere that it says he gave Egypt to Thoth after their return to Byblos, as you claim. On the contrary, it says "And when Kronos came into the South country he gave all Egypt to the god Tauthus, that it might be his royal dwelling-place." It also doesn't specifically say that Thoth accompanied Kronos on his tour "round the world", although I agree this much can be probably be inferred, if he gave it to him as a "dwelling place" and he remained behind to dwell there. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Til - firstly . . . in a calmer tone . . I would welcome the oportunity to work between each other on this - and come to an agreement.

I would however atempt to, provide you with a hopefully more 'reasoned' view of my issues with this paragraph. (as i understand it)

1. Glifford (1903)directly translates Eusebius(260-340 AD), who references the translations of Philo of Byblius (64 - 141 AD) made from the "Phoenition Histroy" written by Sanchuniaton (BETWEEN 2000 + 1339 BC ?) Can we really afford to dilute this text any more with 'harmless' paraphase ? e.g. emasculate = to castrate, yes! but an alternative definition is "To deprive of strength or vigor, weaken" similarly " symbols on Gerzean pottery from circa 4000 BC resemble hieroglyphic writing.Egyptian hieroglyphs - these 'writings' were 2000 years before Tauthus's Alaphabet ! ?

2. Sanchuniathons' Phoenician History is the oldest known non-coded archive of the Western World, not to mention a Theological text of a civilisation - Nobody would dare to paraphase the Bible on WP so why should it be allowed here ?

3. The text 'appears' (to me) to show at least a foundation of both Egyption and Greek ... 'mythology' (dont want to debate semantics) yet it is not recgnised as such

4. Your point on Cronos/Taautus is valid - i apologise - I am but an amature historian, and welcome being pointed (gently) in the right dirrection. My mistake here (I believe) - It is from Egtption myth that Thoth tours the world with Orisis.

5. As far as names go It was my 'impression' that "whom they afterwards called ..." refered to 'they' as the Greeks [an edit by Eusebius or Philo ?]. If this is correct then it would be my belief the use of there correct Phoenician names would be more appropriate - with reference made to the alternatives obviously.

Dlm4473 (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Changing 'castrate' to 'emasculate' is no problem, if it means that much to you. As for 'invented writing' vs. 'written alphabet' - The Egyptian mythology holds that it was Thoth who invented hieroglyphs. Probably a variant of Sanchuniathon's story, but we don't give either one historical credence, nor do we try to alter what was written to fit historically known facts. Sanch. seems to be recording the opinion that Tauthus / Thoth was the first to "begin the writing of records", we are only faithfully representing what this indicates the belief was at one time. Mind you, we don't even know for sure if Sanchuniathon was real, let alone how long ago he lived, to be able to estimate anything like a precise date, but since he does mention Hesiod, that would seem to put him more recently than 700 BC.

2. I agree that we should try to be as precise and accurate as possible but short of reproducing the entire passage in extenso the only other option we have is a succinct and accurate summary of the main interesting points involving Cronos.

3. In order to quote any kind of point like this, we would need to attribute it to a published source, since it sounds like an opinion

4. No problem

5. Again if we have no indications or sources to tell us who "they" is, then assuming it is an interpolation referring to Greeks is assuming just a bit too much. But if you look again at all the repeated uses of the word "deified" on that entire page, along with all the other related discussion attributed to Sanch. there, it is rather clearly stated that the society to which the document refers (ie. the early Phoenicians) are depicted as making their own notable inventors into deities (that is declaring them to be objects of worship), usually soon after their deaths. Regards, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry was trying to sneek this in on the end of last but as I pressed save, your text came up. anyway this is from chapter 9 "'But with a view to clearness hereafter, and the determination of particulars, it is necessary to state distinctly beforehand that the most ancient of the barbarians, and especially the Phoenicians and Egyptians, from whom the rest of mankind received their traditions, regarded as the greatest gods those who had discovered the necessaries of life, or in some way done good to the nations. Esteeming these as benefactors and authors of many blessings, they worshipped them also as gods after their death This is a direct quote from Philo.

As per your ref to Hesoid - you do realise that it is Philo who is refering to him not San. "Philo having explained these points in his preface, next begins his interpretation of Sanchuniathon by setting forth the theology of the Phoenicians"" Dlm4473 (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's just it - the text is not clear what parts were added by Philo, and we just can'tr say for sure, although I believe there has been some conjecture on that question, see the Sanchunaiathon article... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Typo near the top of the page

"As a result of his association and virtuous Golden Age, Cronus was..." Should read "As a result of his association with the virtuous Golden age..." --Can't fix it because its protected because people probably put things like "He eats his babies lol." *checks revision history* Jacobe11 (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Disinfobox: "Titan of Farming" [sic]

What does this mean? What source is being drawn on for this identification?--Wetman (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

More vandalism?

I'm not all up on wiki things, so pardon my crappy doings and such, but I think this might also constitute vandalism:

       *Rhea secretly gave birth to Zeus in Crete, and handed Cronus a stone wrapped in swaddling clothes, also known as the Omphalos Stone, which he promptly devoured, thinking that it was his dick.

I don't see how he thought it was... anyone's dick. I lol'd a little, but uh. I don't think that's legitimate at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.207.229 (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The goat disgorged by Cronus

The article states that Cronus disgorged a goat after the stone that substituted for Zeus. What goat is this? Is it a reference to the alternative story that Rhea tricked Cronus into eating an animal instead of Poseidon?Skaysee (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The Etymological description in Plato's Cratylus

In Plato's Cratylus it was given the etymology from χρόνος (Chronos - meaning time) which, together with Rhea (ρείν, "flow") mean a "current" that moves and does not remain still (see Plato, Cratylus 402b). For Plato in Cratylus, 402b wrote:

Well, don't you think he who gave to the ancestors of the other gods the names “Rhea” and “Cronus” had the same thought as Heracleitus? Do you think he gave both of them the names of streams merely by chance?

There is a brief description in the article of Rhea. Yet, User:Til Eulenspiegel keeps on removing Plato's Cratylus reference from this article. Does anyone else feel that Plato's account should be ignored? --Odysses (₪) 23:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You would have to be projecting your own interpretation onto the primary source, to be able to read it and then say it derives Cronos from Chronos. The name "Chronos" simply isn't there anywhere whatsoever. We aren't allowed to put our own novel interpretations on primary sources from "reading between the lines", it's a form of WP:OR. If you really have any secondary source that interprets it the way you do, it would be required to attribute this interpretation, but we have yet to see it. The most we could say about Cronos from this quote, without adding in our own interpretation, is that Plato implies it to be from the name of a stream. He simply does not mention "Chronos", so we cannot falsely claim he does. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I see a reference to Cronus (Κρόνος), but along with Eulenspiegel, I see no reference to Chronos (Χρόνος), anywhere in Cratylus. Plato does seem to think that the meaning of the name "Cronus" (Κρόνος) has something to do with "stream", but I don't see what that necessarily has to do with the word "χρόνος" ("time"). Paul August ☎ 20:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Plato does not write the word Chronos (Χρόνος), in Cratylus. He says that “Rhea” and “Cronus” were given names of streams. By the term "streams" he implies two physical quantities that change constantly. One is flow (Ρέα which etymologically is derived from the Greek word ροή). The second one, Cronus (Κρόνος) should be another quantity that change constantly, from which "Κρόνος" was derived etymologically. I cannot think of any word other than "Χρόνος". --Odysses (₪) 17:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Your interpretation of what Plato is saying may have merit, but such an interpretation amounts to speculation and in any case would be original research (see WP:OR). For this interpretation to be included in the article we would need a reliable scholarly source which interprets Plato this way. Paul August ☎ 19:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Christian Science

There is too much emphasis in this article which is trying to equate this greek myth with a, supposedly, older hebrew myth. I removed the 'Name' section because it adds little to this and is basically restated later anyway. Why is the article talking about El at all? What about the Egyptian equivalents? The Persian?... I'm getting fed up of this. 86.135.244.44 (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Your comments / accusations would seem to be utterly unfounded, as there is no mention in the article of any Hebrews or Christian Science whatsoever. Please do not delete referenced material on a pretext so flimsy that only you can see it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

When you remove something you should at least Copy/Paste what you remove here, the information that was in the name section was very important to certain things I'm trying to study and now I have no place to find that information. The etymology of a deity's name is very important, and now Kronos is the one without one.

Comments and questions

1. The section named "Name and comparative mythology" is very hard and unpleasant to read. It's way too technical. I believe it should be modified.

2. The sentence "Cronus, joined by the Titans, makes war against and eventually defeats his brother Jupiter" is weird. Cronus is the father of Jupiter/Zeus. Something is wrong with the sentence.

3. "Cronus is again mentioned in the Sibylline Oracles, particularly book three, which makes Cronus, 'Titan' and Iapetus, the three sons of Uranus and Gaia, each to receive a third division of the Earth, and Cronus is made king over all." 'Titan' was not a son of Uranus. There is no such god. Something must be wrong with the sentence. The god is probably a Titan.

ICE77 (talk) 08:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You may be right about your first example, but the second is specific to the source given, Sibylline Oracles, where 'Titan' is indeed said to be one of the three sons of Uranus who divide the earth. Nothing wrong with that sentence. Of course, 'Titan' is not considered an individual name in other sources, but rather the name of a class or race of beings. Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The article on Helios says that Helios was often called Titan by Homer. I don't know if there is any connection to this and the Sibylline oracles. Would you happen to know who 'Titan' was?

ICE77 (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

A. "In an alternate version of this myth, a more benevolent Cronus overthrew the wicked serpentine Titan Ophion. In doing so, he released the world from bondage and for a time ruled it justly."

A source is needed. Who said this?

B. "Rhea kept Zeus hidden in a cave on Mount Ida, Crete. According to some versions of the story, he was then raised by a goat named Amalthea, while a company of Kouretes, armored male dancers, shouted and clapped their hands to make enough noise to mask the baby's cries from Cronus. Other versions of the myth have Zeus raised by the nymph Adamanthea, who hid Zeus by dangling him by a rope from a tree so that he was suspended between the earth, the sea, and the sky, all of which were ruled by his father, Cronus. Still other versions of the tale say that Zeus was raised by his grandmother, Gaia."

Would it be possible to point out the 3 sources for the 3 versions above?

C. "Once he had grown up, Zeus used an emetic given to him by Gaia to force Cronus to disgorge the contents of his stomach in reverse order: first the stone, which was set down at Pytho under the glens of Mount Parnassus to be a sign to mortal men, then the goat, and then his two brothers and three sisters. In other versions of the tale, Metis gave Cronus an emetic to force him to disgorge the children, or Zeus cut Cronus' stomach open."

Who wrote which version?

D. "In another version, the Titans released the Cyclopes from Tartarus, and Cronus was awarded the kingship among them, beginning a Golden Age."

Who wrote this?

E. "Libyan account related by Diodorus Siculus"

Is Titea meant to be Gaia? Is Jupiter brother of Saturn as Zeus brother of Cronus?

ICE77 (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism and eating children

I have removed "I was here! " added by 24.106.176.94 in neo-paganism.

He also added "Cronus ate his children so they wouldn't overthrow him." in In popular culture - I don't know if that is correct.

-- Beardo 04:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's correct, even if doesn't sound correct, whatever is in the myth shoud go onto the article! androo123 17:06, 12 September 2007, (EDT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Androo123 (talk • contribs)

I concur - the bit about Cronus eating his own children is correct. If I remember correctly, Zeus (who was hidden by his mom) cut him up and freed his brothers, and sisters afterwards. -166.250.2.35 (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence

"In the Song of Ullikummi, Teshub uses the "sickle with which heaven and earth had once been separated" to defeat the monster Ullikummi,[7] establishing that the "castration" of the heavens by means of a sickle as part of a creation myth, in origin a cut creating an opening or gap between heaven (imagined as a dome of stone) and earth enabling the beginning of time (Chronos) and human history.[8]"

This sentence, surprisingly, is incomplete!

"... establishing that the "castration" of the heavens by means of a sickle as part of a creation myth..." ... is what? or does what?

This sentence has become a little scrambled, through repeated edits, no doubt. Does anyone know its original intent? Heavenlyblue (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, the subject and predicate of the main clause is "Teshub uses", the rest is supposed to be a participial subordinate clause but it is an awful run-on. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

But the question remains: "... establishing that the "castration" of the heavens by means of a sickle as part of a creation myth..." ... is what? or does what? A verb and object of some kind are missing. Let me try to show it more precisely: "... the "castration" of the heavens by means of a sickle ..." ... is what? or does what? Rather than "... and human history.", the sentence should end "... and human history, is X [or: does X].", referring to the subject "castration".

Or, to put it another way: "... Teshub uses the sickle ... to defeat the monster ..., establishing that the castration..." does or is what? Heavenlyblue (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Note I have changed the word "as" to "was" as was probably intended, but it could still use a rewrite for style... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

I wonder why a Semitic origin has been invoked for the meaning of horn. According to my dicitionary it is related to krainoo I am lord and kreioon sovereign. Krainoo is in turn related to a theme krn from which kranos helm and Latin cornu horn. From IE root kr.Aldrasto11 (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Uranus!? Not Ouranos?

Thought Uranus was the Roman name for Ouranos, and since we art talking about Greek Gods - shouldn't it be Ouranos?

166.250.2.35 (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If the article were about Zeus, whom the Romans called Jupiter, I'd agree with you. But Uranus is not a Latin word; it's just the Latin form of (quoting Uranus (mythology))

Ancient Greek Οὐρανός, Ouranos meaning "sky" or "heaven"[,] the primal Greek god personifying the sky. His equivalent in Roman mythology was Caelus.

The identity or non-identity of Uranus and Caelus is not certain (see Caelus). But since this page uses the Roman form of the Greek name, it's appropriate to use it in the Roman spelling, which we use in English: cf. the planet Uranus, and uranium.

Thnidu (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Cronus isn't Chronus?

Where's the evidence that this is the case? These links suggest they are the same, or at least that one was clearly derived from the the other: [2], [3].

"Khronos was essentially a cosmological version of Kronos who appears in the Orphic cosmogonies. The Orphics later integrated him with Phanes." Nathan J. Yoder 01:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree Chronos (Kronos) and Chronus must be the same. The story of Chronus is an allegory for the affect of time on humanity itself. Chronus consumes all of his children, the same way father time eventually consumes all men. This is the origin of the ancient riddle "Who is the father who eats all of his children?" Answer: "Father time", or as the Ancient Greeks would have answered Chronus certainly meaning Zeus' father and referencing the Hellenistic creation myth. I think a problem for many modern scholars is the lack of continuity between the description of the early Chronus or Chronos that is seen as vulgar, dim witted and mean, were as later Chronos comes to be a more wise and fatherly figure. Much like the lack of continuity in the Hebrew God of the Old testament and the New testament this was not much of an issue for ancient writers. Simply read the Iliad and you will understand what I mean even more clearly as warriors who had died many pages previous appear again in battle, and other characters act entirely uncharacteristic of previous characterizations. This did not bother Homer or his listeners. Another explanation could be that just like fathers of men Father Time starts out as a rash and unwise father, but as time goes on he becomes more and more wise. Anyone who was born to a young man can relate to this. More proof of Chronos and Chronus being the same person is the Latin God Saturn who was identified both as Jupiter's father and Father time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.96.164 (talk) 08:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"Kronos" Κρόνος (Latin "Cronos" or "Cronus") ≠ "Khronos" χρόνος (would be written "chronos" in Latin). The words are as different as English "Pat" and "fat". Greek kappa Κκ and chi Χχ are different letters representing different sounds. Nathan J. Yoder's Encyclopædia Britannica link (it requires a registration), the article on Cronus (Greek god), is quite short (253 words) and says nothing about χρόνος, which means "time". His other citation ascribes the identification of Kronos with personified Time to the Orphics, but the identity is debated in modern analysis. --Thnidu (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Succession boxes

I don't see why they seemed "silly" here as in the Greek religion Kronos (Cronus) was actually succeeded by Zeus as "King of the Gods" and by Atlas as "Leader of the Titans" though for most people I'd say that finding this information in the body of the text would make these boxes redundant we must adhere WP:READER and I'd argue that these boxes would simplify the line of succession for "lazy readers" and "novice readers on the subject". Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cronus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150823032802/http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0130%3Acard%3D1 to http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0130%3Acard%3D1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments

1. Cronus was forced into Tartarus and the majority of Titans show their abode as Tartarus in the box on the top right of the page. Cronus should have "Tartarus (Homer) or Cave of Nyx (Orphic poems)".

2. "(Cronus also fathered Chiron, by Philyra)."

This information is not really relevant to the story before it. I think it should not be there. I removed it.

3. The mythology section calls for "versions" 6 times and for "texts" 1 time. The article should explicitly refer to some sources.

4. Kumarbi is mentioned at the end of the antiquity section. If I understand correctly, it is a Mesopotamian god (something to add to the text).

ICE77 (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Need sources or elaboration for the "Kronus ≠ Chronos" argument

This article starts with "Not to be confused with Chronos, the personification of time" and mentions that "During antiquity, Cronus was occasionally interpreted as Chronos, the personification of time."

However, in the "Name and comparative mythology > Antiquity" section, there are only examples of people (Plutarch, Cicero, Proclus, etc) who DO combine Kronus/Chronos. There's no indication of why people would consider them separate, or any mention of ancient sources that indicated they were distinct deities. This gives the impression of an ancient consensus that Kronus and Chronos were the same, since there seems to be no reason to believe otherwise.

I've heard tons of people insist that Kronus and Chronos are different, but I don't know what sources they get that from. Someone more familiar with those sources should add some to this section, as a counter-point to the Plutarch/Cicero/Proclus argument combining them. 75.84.244.34 (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

"I've heard tons of people insist that Kronus and Chronos are different, but I don't know what sources they get that from."

It is the existence that needs to be proved, not the non-existence. People insist that Chronus and Cronus are different because so many ancient sources do not treat them as the same. Some do, and those some are listed. Deiadameian (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 30 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. Treetoes023 (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

---

• Cronus → Kronos
• Kronos → Kronos (disambiguation)

– The proper transliteration of Κρόνος is Kronos, not Cronus; per WP:NCGREEK. This article is the primary topic for Kronos so the move shouldn't be a problem. Treetoes023 (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The most common English form is the Latinization "Cronus". See for example this Google Books search: ~422,000 results, versus this one: ~180,000 results. This is consistent with the way of spelling most Greek names in English, (e.g. Achilles not Achilleus, and Plato not Platon). Paul August ☎ 21:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Paul August: When searching on Google Books you are supposed to add this code in the search: -inauthor:"Books, LLC" because you are supposed to exclude works from Books, LLC when searching Google Books. If you do then Kronos will have ~185,000 results and Cronus will have ~88,600 results. This would make Kronos the common name; per WP:COMMONNAME. – Treetoes023 (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Huh, interesting. I was unaware of "Books, LLC", thanks for pointing that out. "Cronus" is certainly the more traditional spelling. While there has been a trend to use more direct transliterations of the Greek, I'd still be somewhat surprised if "Kronos" has in fact become the more common spelling. We should look at other measures of this. Paul August ☎ 13:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Paul August: Indeed, do you have any suggestions for the other measures we should look at? – Treetoes023 (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. The common and traditional spelling in English is Cronus. Results for "Kronos" in various searches will be skewed by other topics, including two separate journals, a string quartet, a death metal band, and various uses in fiction or pop culture, which are difficult to filter out (and there are several other uses). The guidance in the titling policy doesn't say to use "Books, LLC" as a search filter; it says to exclude sources published by them, as it's a publication-on-demand company. But that imprint could not account for even a small fraction of overall results, much less 56% of them. I suspect using "Books, LLC" as a filter instead filtered out all results identified as occurring in books, while a high percentage of results for "Kronos" is probably derived from other uses. P Aculeius (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  @P Aculeius: I don't think the search was skewed by other topics because I made the search only include results that also had the term "Zeus" in it. This would make the results filtered down to almost exclusively Greek mythology related topics. – Treetoes023 (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  True, but not all of these books are written in English. I had a look at the search results for Kronos in the list above, and some of these are German-language books. Among the earliest results in the list is "Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu Sophokles. Kritisches Verzeichniss sämmtlicher Stellen der Tragödien und Fragmente nebst Erklärung der schwierigern Stellen"(1869) by Heinrich Ebeling. Another result in the list is "Sphairopoiia; untersuchungen zur kosmologie des Krates von Pergamon" (1936) by Hans Joachim Mette. Dimadick (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Dimadick: Is there a way to only have English results? – Treetoes023 (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Try this Google ngram. I added "Kronos Quartet" to the terms so we could see if that made a great contribution, then clicked on the "2010-2019" button for Kronos (below the chart) and saw a lot of results for "Captain Kronos", so I added that. It turns out neither now make a great contribution but my first impression is that "Kronos" is popular among science-fiction/fantasy writers - more stylish, I guess. You might like to experiment with the different corpuses: e.g. Kronos Quartet made a bigger contribution to British than American English corpuses but has faded, Cronus is almost unknown in German, etc. See also Google Ngram Viewer for cautions, though it was largely written before the 2019 corpuses were released. NebY (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  @NebY: This is my first time using the Google Ngram Viewer so I don't know if I'm using it correctly, but so far all I have seen are graphs that support that Kronos is used more often than Cronus. – Treetoes023 (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Dimadick: I found a way to include only English results when using Google Books. The results still favor Kronos over Cronus.

  • Kronos: ~109,000 results
  • Cronus: ~77,700 results

  – Treetoes023 (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Following NebY's ngram, I clicked on "Kronos" for 1989–1999, to see what came up. On the first three pages (thirty hits) of results:

  • 10 were English-language publications mentioning the god in Ancient Greek context
  • 7 were for the Kronos Quartet
  • 4 were for the South African history journal Kronos
  • 4 were about software, paint, or technical uses unrelated to mythology
  • 2 were contemporary novels using "Kronos" in the title
  • 1 was for a journal about horror films
  • 1 was a German treatise about the god
  • 1 was a translation of modern German songs into English

  So I tried 2000–2009 to see whether things changed. This is what I found among the first thirty hits:

  • 8 contemporary adult novels or short story anthologies
  • 7 references to companies or software
  • 4 hits for an Italian art journal called Kronos
  • 3 for the South African journal Kronos
  • 3 Kronos Chronicles/Percy Jackson (young adult books)
  • 2 works discussing the god
  • 2 Articles about the Kronos Quartet
  • 1 I wasn't able to figure out, but I think it might be a novel.

  When I looked at hits from 2010 to 2019, the first three pages consisted mostly of recent science fiction, one mention of the Kronos Quartet, one book about a museum in Italy, a couple of books in Spanish (I think "Kronos" might be the name of an educational series), and some kind of political screed about the Federal Reserve.

  Now, if I had kept going beyond the first thirty hits in each of these periods I might have found more scholarly articles, but I think that what this shows is that the majority of uses in Engish-language publications over the last thirty years have little to do with the god, except in a fantasy or science-fiction context. Even thirty years ago, references to the god made up only about 1/3 of the results. Older publications than this probably refer primarily to the god, but if what we're concerned about is whether there is a demonstrated trend away from "Cronus" and toward "Kronos", I do not think that such a conclusion is supported by Google Books results/ngrams. P Aculeius (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  @P Aculeius: Ignoring the ngram for a moment, if you use these two searches on Google Books:

  • -inauthor:"Books, LLC" Kronos Zeus (English results only)
  • -inauthor:"Books, LLC" Cronus Zeus (English results only)

  We can see that Kronos not only has more results, but it also has more of its top results being scholarly articles than the top results for Cronus. Even if there is not a trend away from "Cronus" and towards "Kronos", Kronos has more scholarly articles than Cronus (at my first glance). – Treetoes023 (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  As I said before, "Books, LLC" is a red herring—works from this imprint cannot possibly account for the difference in the number of hits you have cited, so there is something else going on when you attempt to filter the search this way, such as removing a large proportion of all "books", or all publishers that are limited liability companies, irrespective of whether they have anything to do with unreliable or self-published works. For that matter, it is unlikely that this publishing company accounts for a significant number of occurrences at all—meaning that the unfiltered search is a better reflection of the numbers than the filtered one. P Aculeius (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  @P Aculeius: Since Google Books is having problems with the search filter, I propose the use of Google Scholar instead. I went ahead and searched the terms:

  • Kronos Zeus (English results only) – ~10,500 results
  • Cronus Zeus (English results only) – ~6,140 results

  There are positives and negatives with using Google Scholar:

  Positives:

  • Google Scholar only provides scholarly literature which is the main thing we are looking for.
  • Results can be filtered to just English text (just like Google Books).
  • -inauthor:"Books, LLC" does not need to be added.

  Negatives:

  • Google Scholar isn't mentioned in WP:COMMONNAME.

  Should we use Google Scholar's results? – Treetoes023 (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Restricting the Scholar searches to since 2019 gives 1,290 hits for Kronos and 1,060 for Cronus, not a decisive difference for our purposes. Instead, WP:CRITERIA lists five goals: recognizability, naturalness, precision, concision, and consistency within Wikipedia. At first glance, I'd suggest

  1. Cronus is recognisable to anyone who recognises Kronos; the reverse may not be true.
  2. Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Interesting question - what are most readers most likely to search for or editors to link to?
  3. Is there any difference in precision?
  4. Concision - no difference
  5. Consistency - possibly the deciding criterion. What's our common practice for ancient Greek religion and mythology?

  NebY (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  I just spent over an hour reviewing the first fifty hits for each of the two searches linked above on Google Scholar. I note that the sidebar specifies that it is searching articles, although a handful of books also occurred in each search. In both cases there were some articles about computer software, and references to the god in works primarily concerned with psychology or other modern subjects. Sorted by decade, beginning with the 1950's (earlier sources occurred, but only in very small numbers), and omitting the computer software titles:

  • 1950–1959: Kronos 2, Cronus 3
  • 1960–1960: Kronos 3, Cronus 1
  • 1970–1979: Kronos 4, Cronus 1
  • 1980–1989: Kronos 9, Cronus 2
  • 1990–1999: Kronos 3, Cronus 6
  • 2000–2009: Kronos 8, Cronus 4
  • 2010–2019: Kronos 15, Cronus 15
  • 2020–2023: Kronos 0, Cronus 4

  Note that because the sample size was approximately the same, this does not tell us which form occurs in the greatest number of sources; it does show that there is no long-term trend from one form to the other, and that "Cronus" continues to be current in academia—note that out of the 100 instances I reviewed, the four newest all used "Cronus". As another editor noted, "Cronus" is probably more recognizable to the non-specialist reader. But the main point is that there is no apparent trend in academia, and that would have been the best argument for moving the article. P Aculeius (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  @P Aculeius: Okay, I'll withdraw the move request. – Treetoes023 (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  As simpler inverse searches inauthor:"Books, LLC" Cronus or inauthor:"Books, LLC" Kronos don't return any results, it seems pointless and potentially misleading to work at excluding Books LLC. NebY (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Hmm, despite the proposed primary topic being on top of the list, https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Kronos still shows that of the incoming 2.4k views, only 1.04k click through there (~43%). I have to say that I find the formatting a bit odd, because the link to Cronos sits directly atop a much larger heading of Arts and entertainment so I wouldn't actually be surprised that there's a non-trivial amount of readers who skip over the smaller item and keep scrolling. --Joy (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Notes

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.