text:
Aberdeen Bestiary

The Aberdeen Bestiary (Aberdeen University Library, Univ Lib. MS 24) is a 12th-century English illuminated manuscript bestiary that was first listed in 1542 in the inventory of the Old Royal Library at the Palace of Westminster. Due to similarities, it is often considered to be the "sister" manuscript of the Ashmole Bestiary. The connection between the ancient Greek didactic text Physiologus and similar bestiary manuscripts is also often noted. Information about the manuscript's origins and patrons are circumstantial, although the manuscript most likely originated from the 13th century and was owned by a wealthy ecclesiastical patron from north or south England. Currently, the Aberdeen Bestiary resides in the Aberdeen University Library in Scotland.

History
The Aberdeen Bestiary and the Ashmole Bestiary are considered by Xenia Muratova, a professor of art history, to be "the work of different artists belonging to the same artistic milieu." Due to their "striking similarities" they are often compared and described by scholars as being "sister manuscripts." The medievalist scholar M. R. James considered the Aberdeen Bestiary '' a replica of Ashmole 1511" a view echoed by many other art historians.

Provenance
The original patron of both the Aberdeen and Ashmole Bestiary was considered to be a high-ranking member of society such as a prince, king or another high ranking church official or monastery. However, since the section related to monastery life that was commonly depicted within the Aviarium manuscript was missing the original patron remains uncertain but it appears less likely to be a church member. The Aberdeen Bestiary was kept in Church and monastic settings for a majority of its history. However at some point it entered into the English royal collections library. The royal Westminster Library shelf stamp of Henry VIII of England is stamped on the side of the bestiary. How King Henry acquired the manuscript remains unknown although it was probably taken from a monastery. The manuscript appears to have been well-read by the family based on the amount of reading wear on the edges of the pages. Around the time King James of Scotland became the King of England the bestiary was passed along to the Marischal College, Aberdeen. The manuscript is in fragmented condition as many illuminations on folios were removed individually as miniatures likely not for monetary but possibly for personal reasons. The manuscript currently is in the Aberdeen Library in Scotland where it has remained since 1542.

Materials
The Aberdeen bestiary is a gilded decorated manuscript featuring large miniatures and some of the finest pigment, parchment and gold leaf from its time. Some portions of the manuscript such as folio eight recto even feature tarnished silver leaf. The original patron was wealthy enough to afford such materials so that the artists and scribes could enjoy creative freedom while creating the manuscripts. The artists were professionally trained and experimented with new techniques - such as heavy washes mixed with light washes and dark thick lines and use of contrasting color. The aqua color that is in the Aberdeen Bestiary is not present in the Ashmole Bestiary. The Aberdeen manuscript is loaded with filigree flora design and champie style gold leaf initials. Canterbury is considered to be the original location of manufacture as the location was well known for manufacturing high-end luxury books during the thirteen century. Its similarities with the Canterbury Paris Psalter tree style also further draws evidence of this relation.

Style
The craftsmanship of both Ashmole and Aberdeen bestiary suggest similar artists and scribes. Both the Ashmole and Aberdeen bestiary were probably made within 10 years of each other due to their stylistic and material similarities and the fact that both are crafted with the finest materials of their time. Stylistically both manuscripts are very similar but the Aberdeen has figures that are both more voluminous and less energetic than those of the Ashmole Bestiary. The color usage has been suggested as potentially Biblical in meaning as color usage had different interpretations in the early 13th century. The overall style of the human figures as well as color usage is very reminiscent of Roman mosaic art especially with the attention to detail in the drapery. Circles and ovals semi-realistically depict highlights throughout the manuscript. The way that animals are shaded in a Romanesque fashion with the use of bands to depict volume and form, which is similar to an earlier 12th-century Bury Bible made at Bury St.Edmunds. This Bestiary also shows stylistic similarities with the Paris Psalters of Canterbury. The Aviary section is similar to the Aviariium which is a well-known 12th century monastic text. The deviation from traditional color usage can be seen in the tiger, satyr, and unicorn folios as well as many other folios. The satyr in the Aberdeen Bestiary when compared to the satyr section of the slightly older Worksop bestiary is almost identical. There are small color notes in the Aberdeen Bestiary that are often seen in similar manuscripts dating between 1175 and 1250 which help indicate that it was made near the year 1200 or 1210. These notes are similar to many other side notes written on the sides of pages throughout the manuscript and were probably by the painter to remind himself of special circumstances, these note occur irregularly throughout the text.

Illuminations
Folio page 1 to 3 recto depicts the Genesis 1:1-25 which is represented with a large full page illumination Biblical Creation scene in the manuscript. Folio 5 recto shows Adam, a large figure surrounded by gold leaf and towering over others, with the theme of 'Adam naming the animals' - this starts the compilation of the bestiary portion within the manuscript. Folio 5 verso depicts quadrupeds, livestock, wild beasts, and the concept of the herd. Folio 7 to 18 recto depicts large cats and other beasts such as wolves, foxes and dogs. Many pages from the start of the manuscript's bestiary section such as 11 verso featuring a hyena shows small pin holes which were likely used to map out and copy artwork to a new manuscript. Folio 20 verso to 28 recto depicts livestock such as sheep, horses, and goats. Small animals like cats and mice are depicted on folio 24 to 25. Pages 25 recto to 63 recto feature depictions of birds and folio 64 recto to 80 recto depicts reptiles, worms and fish. 77 recto to 91 verso depicts trees and plants and other elements of nature such as the nature of man. The end folios of the manuscript from 93 recto to 100 recto depicts the nature of stones and rocks. Seventeen of the Aberdeen manuscript pages are pricked for transfer in a process called pouncing such as clearly seen in the hyena folio as well as folio 3 recto and 3 verso depicting Genesis 1:26-1:28, 31, 1:1-2. The pricking must have been done shortly after the creation of the Adam and Eve folio pages since there is not damage done to nearby pages. Other pages used for pouncing include folio 7 recto to 18 verso which is the beginning of the beasts portion of the manuscript and likely depicted a lions as well as other big cats such as leopards, panthers and their characteristic as well as other large wild and domesticated beasts.

Missing Folios
On folio 6 recto there was likely intended to be a depiction of a lion as in the Ashmole bestiary, but in this instance the pages were left blank although there are markings of margin lines. In comparison to the Ashmole bestiary, on 9 verso some leaves are missing which should have likely contained imagery of the antelope (Antalops), unicorn (Unicornis), lynx (Lynx), griffin (Gryps), part of elephant (Elephans). Near folio 21 verso two illuminations of the ox (Bos), camel (Camelus), dromedary (Dromedarius), ass (Asinus), onager (Onager) and part of horse (Equus) are also assumed to be missing. Also missing from folio 15 recto on are some leaves which should have contained crocodile (Crocodilus), manticore (Mantichora) and part of parandrus (Parandrus). These missing folios are assumed from comparisons between the Ashmole and other related bestiaries.

Contents

 * Folio 1 recto : Creation of heaven and earth (Genesis, 1: 1–5). (Full page)
 * Folio 1 verso: Creation of the waters and the firmament (Genesis, 1: 6–8)
 * Folio 2 recto : Creation of the birds and fishes (Genesis, 1: 20–23)
 * Folio 2 verso : Creation of the animals (Genesis, 1: 24–25)
 * Folio 3 recto : Creation of man (Genesis, 1: 26–28, 31; 2: 1–2)
 * Folio 5 recto : Adam names the animals (Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, Book XII, i, 1–2)
 * Folio 5 verso : Animal (Animal) (Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, Book XII, i, 3)
 * Folio 5 verso : Quadruped (Quadrupes) (Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, Book XII, i, 4)
 * Folio 5 verso : Livestock (Pecus) (Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, Book XII, i, 5–6)
 * Folio 5 verso : Beast of burden (Iumentum) (Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, Book XII, i, 7)
 * Folio 5 verso : Herd (Armentum) (Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, Book XII, i, 8)

Beasts (Bestiae)

 * Folio 7 recto : Lion (Leo) (Physiologus, Chapter 1; Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, Book XII, ii, 3–6)
 * Folio 8 recto : Tiger (Tigris) (Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, Book XII, ii, 7)
 * Folio 8 verso : Pard (Pard) (Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, Book XII, ii, 10–11)
 * Folio 9 recto : Panther (Panther) (Physiologus, Chapter 16; Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, Book XII, ii, 8–9)
 * Folio 10 recto : Elephant (Elephans) (Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, Book XII, ii, 14; Physiologus, Chapter 43; Ambrose, Hexaemeron, Book VI, 35; Solinus, Collectanea rerum memorabilium, xxv, 1–7)
 * Folio 11 recto : Beaver (Castor)
 * Folio 11 recto : Ibex (Ibex) (Hugh of Fouilloy, II, 15)
 * Folio 11 verso : Hyena (Yena) (Physiologus, Chapter 24; Solinus, Collectanea rerum memorabilium, xxvii, 23–24)
 * Folio 12 recto : Crocotta (Crocotta) (Solinus, Collectanea rerum memorabilium, xxvii, 26)
 * Folio 12 recto : Bonnacon (Bonnacon) (Solinus, Collectanea rerum memorabilium, xl, 10–11)
 * Folio 12 verso : Ape (Simia)
 * Folio 13 recto : Satyr (Satyrs)
 * Folio 13 recto : Deer (Cervus)
 * Folio 14 recto : Goat (Caper)
 * Folio 14 verso : Wild goat (Caprea)
 * Folio 15 recto : Monoceros (Monoceros) (Solinus, Collectanea rerum memorabilium, lii, 39–40)
 * Folio 15 recto : Bear (Ursus)
 * Folio 15 verso : Leucrota (Leucrota) (Solinus, Collectanea rerum memorabilium, lii, 34)
 * Folio 16 recto : Parandrus (Parandrus) (Solinus, Collectanea rerum memorabilium, xxx, 25)
 * Folio 16 recto : Fox (Vulpes)
 * Folio 16 verso : Yale (Eale) (Solinus, Collectanea rerum memorabilium, lii, 35)
 * Folio 16 verso : Wolf (Lupus)
 * Folio 18 recto : Dog (Canis)

Livestock (Pecora)

 * Folio 20 verso : Sheep (Ovis) (Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, Book XII, i, 9; Ambrose, Hexaemeron, Book VI, 20)
 * Folio 21 recto : Wether (Vervex) (Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, Book XII, i, 10)
 * Folio 21 recto : Ram (Aries) (Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, Book XII, i, 11)
 * Folio 21 recto : Lamb (Agnus) (Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, Book XII, i, 12; Ambrose, Hexaemeron, Book VI, 28)
 * Folio 21 recto : He-goat (Hircus) (Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, Book XII, i, 14)
 * Folio 21 verso : Kid (Hedus) (Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, Book XII, i, 13)
 * Folio 21 verso : Boar (Aper) (Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, Book XII, i, 27)
 * Folio 21 verso : Bullock (Iuvencus) (Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, Book XII, i, 28)
 * Folio 21 verso : Bull (Taurus) (Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, Book XII, i, 29)
 * Folio 22 recto : Horse (Equus) (Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, Book XII, i, 41–56; Hugh of Fouilloy, III, xxiii)
 * Folio 23 recto : Mule (Mulus) (Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, Book XII, i, 57–60)

Small animals (Minuta animala)

 * Folio 23 verso : Cat (Musio) (Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, Book XII, ii, 38)
 * Folio 23 verso : Mouse (Mus) (Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, Book XII, iii, 1)
 * Folio 23 verso : Weasel (Mustela) (Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, Book XII, iii, 2; Physiologus, Chapter 21)
 * Folio 24 recto : Mole (Talpa) (Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, Book XII, iii, 5)
 * Folio 24 recto : Hedgehog (Ericius) (Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae, Book XII, iii, 7; Ambrose, Hexaemeron, VI, 20)
 * Folio 24 verso : Ant (Formica) (Physiologus, 12; Ambrose, Hexaemeron, Book VI, 16, 20)

Birds (Aves)

 * Folio 25 recto : Bird (Avis)
 * Folio 25 verso : Dove (Columba)
 * Folio 26 recto : Dove and hawk (Columba et Accipiter)
 * Folio 26 verso : Dove (Columba)
 * Folio 29 verso : North wind and South wind (Aquilo et Auster ventus)
 * Folio 30 recto : Hawk (Accipiter)
 * Folio 31 recto : Turtle dove (Turtur)
 * Folio 32 verso : Palm tree (Palma)
 * Folio 33 verso : Cedar (Cedrus)
 * Folio 34 verso : Pelican (Pellicanus) - Orange and blue
 * Folio 35 verso : Night heron (Nicticorax)
 * Folio 36 recto : Hoopoe (Epops)
 * Folio 36 verso : Magpie (Pica)
 * Folio 37 recto : Raven (Corvus)
 * Folio 38 verso : Cock (Gallus)
 * Folio 41 recto : Ostrich (Strutio)
 * Folio 44 recto : Vulture (Vultur)
 * Folio 45 verso : Crane (Grus)
 * Folio 46 verso : Kite (Milvus)
 * Folio 46 verso : Parrot (Psitacus)
 * Folio 47 recto : Ibis (Ibis)
 * Folio 47 verso : Swallow (Yrundo)
 * Folio 48 verso : Stork (Ciconia)
 * Folio 49 verso : Blackbird (Merula)
 * Folio 50 recto : Eagle-owl (Bubo)
 * Folio 50 verso : Hoopoe (Hupupa)
 * Folio 51 recto : Little owl (Noctua)
 * Folio 51 recto : Bat (Vespertilio)
 * Folio 51 verso : Jay (Gragulus)
 * Folio 52 verso : Nightingale (Lucinia)
 * Folio 53 recto : Goose (Anser)
 * Folio 53 verso : Heron (Ardea)
 * Folio 54 recto : Partridge (Perdix)
 * Folio 54 verso : Halcyon (Alcyon)
 * Folio 55 recto : Coot (Fulica)
 * Folio 55 recto : Phoenix (Fenix)
 * Folio 56 verso : Caladrius (Caladrius)
 * Folio 57 verso : Quail (Coturnix)
 * Folio 58 recto : Crow (Cornix)
 * Folio 58 verso : Swan (Cignus)
 * Folio 59 recto : Duck (Anas)
 * Folio 59 verso : Peacock (Pavo)
 * Folio 61 recto : Eagle (Aquila)
 * Folio 63 recto : Bee (Apis)

Snakes and Reptiles (Serpentes)

 * Folio 64 verso : Peridexion tree (Perindens)
 * Folio 65 verso : Snake (Serpens)
 * Folio 65 verso : Dragon (Draco)
 * Folio 66 recto : Basilisk (Basiliscus)
 * Folio 66 verso : Regulus (Regulus)
 * Folio 66 verso : Viper (Vipera)
 * Folio 67 verso : Asp (Aspis)
 * Folio 68 verso : Scitalis (Scitalis)
 * Folio 68 verso : Amphisbaena (Anphivena)
 * Folio 68 verso : Hydrus (Ydrus)
 * Folio 69 recto : Boa (Boa)
 * Folio 69 recto : Iaculus (Iaculus)
 * Folio 69 verso : Siren (Siren)
 * Folio 69 verso : Seps (Seps)
 * Folio 69 verso : Dipsa (Dipsa)
 * Folio 69 verso : Lizard (Lacertus)
 * Folio 69 verso : Salamander (Salamandra)
 * Folio 70 recto : Saura (Saura)
 * Folio 70 verso : Newt (Stellio)
 * Folio 71 recto : Of the nature of Snakes (De natura serpentium)

Worms (Vermes)

 * Folio 72 recto : Worms (Vermis)

Fish (Pisces)

 * Folio 72 verso : Fish (Piscis)
 * Folio 73 recto : Whale (Balena)
 * Folio 73 recto : Serra (Serra)
 * Folio 73 recto : Dolphin (Delphinus)
 * Folio 73 verso : Sea-pig (Porcus marinus)
 * Folio 73 verso : Crocodile (Crocodrillus)
 * Folio 73 verso : Mullet (Mullus)
 * Folio 74 recto : Fish (Piscis)

Trees and Plants (Arbories)

 * Folio 77 verso : Tree (Arbor)
 * Folio 78 verso : Fig (Ficus)
 * Folio 79 recto : Again of trees (Item de arboribus)
 * Folio 79 recto : Mulberry
 * Folio 79 recto : Sycamore
 * Folio 79 recto : Hazel
 * Folio 79 recto : Nuts
 * Folio 79 recto : Almond
 * Folio 79 recto : Chestnut
 * Folio 79 recto : Oak
 * Folio 79 verso : Beech
 * Folio 79 verso : Carob
 * Folio 79 verso : Pistachio
 * Folio 79 verso : Pitch pine
 * Folio 79 verso : Pine
 * Folio 79 verso : Fir
 * Folio 79 verso : Cedar
 * Folio 80 recto : Cypress
 * Folio 80 recto : Juniper
 * Folio 80 recto : Plane
 * Folio 80 recto : Oak
 * Folio 80 recto : Ash
 * Folio 80 recto : Alder
 * Folio 80 verso : Elm
 * Folio 80 verso : Poplar
 * Folio 80 verso : Willow
 * Folio 80 verso : Osier
 * Folio 80 verso : Box

Nature of Man (Natura hominis)

 * Folio 80 verso : Isidorus on the nature of man (Ysidorus de natura hominis)
 * Folio 89 recto : Isidorus on the parts of man's body (Ysidorus de membris hominis)
 * Folio 91 recto : Of the age of man (De etate hominis)

Stones (Lapides)

 * Folio 93 verso : Fire-bearing stone (Lapis ignifer)
 * Folio 94 verso : Adamas stone (Lapis adamas)
 * Folio 96 recto : Myrmecoleon (Mermecoleon)
 * Folio 96 verso : Verse (Versus)
 * Folio 97 recto : Stone in the foundation of the wall (Lapis in fundamento muri)
 * Folio 97 recto : The first stone, Jasper
 * Folio 97 recto : The second stone, Sapphire
 * Folio 97 recto : The third stone, Chalcedony
 * Folio 97 verso : The fourth stone, Smaragdus
 * Folio 98 recto : The fifth stone, Sardonyx
 * Folio 98 recto : The sixth stone, Sard
 * Folio 98 verso : The seventh stone, Chrysolite
 * Folio 98 verso : The eighth stone, Beryl
 * Folio 99 recto : The ninth stone, Topaz
 * Folio 99 verso : The tenth stone, Chrysoprase
 * Folio 99 verso : The eleventh stone, Hyacinth
 * Folio 100 recto : The twelfth stone, Amethyst
 * Folio 100 recto : Of stones and what they can do (De effectu lapidum)

title: Aberdeen Bestiary


text:
Latin American Integration Association

The Latin American Integration Association / Asociación Latinoamericana de Integración / Associação Latino-Americana de Integração (LAIA / ALADI) is an international and regional scope organization. It was created on 12 August 1980 by the 1980 Montevideo Treaty, replacing the Latin American Free Trade Association (LAFTA/ALALC). Currently, it has 13 member countries, and any of the Latin American States may apply for accession.

Objectives
The development of the integration process developed within the framework of the ALADI aims at promoting the harmonious and balanced socio-economic development of the region, and its long-term objective is the gradual and progressive establishment of a Latin-American single market.

Basic functions

 * Promotion and regulation of reciprocal trade
 * Economic complementation
 * Development of economic cooperation actions contributing to the markets extension.

General principles

 * Pluralism in political and economic matters;
 * Progressive convergence of partial actions for the establishment of a Latin-American Common Market;
 * Flexibility;
 * Differential treatments based on the development level of the member countries; and
 * Multiple forms of trade agreements.

Integration mechanisms
The ALADI promotes the establishment of an area of economic preferences within the region, in order to create a Latin-American common market, through three mechanisms:
 * A Regional Tariff Preference applied to goods from the member countries compared to tariffs in-force for third countries.
 * Regional Scope Agreements, those in which all member countries participate.
 * Partial Scope Agreements, those wherein two or more countries of the area participate.

The Relatively Less Economically Developed Countries of the region (Bolivia, Ecuador and Paraguay) benefit from a preferential system, through the lists of markets opening offered by the countries in favor of the Relatively Less Economically Developed Countries; special programs of cooperation (business rounds, pre-investment, financing, technological support); and countervailing measures in favor of the land-locked countries, the full participation of such countries in the integration process is sought. The ALADI includes in its legal structure the strongest sub-regional, plurilateral and bilateral integration agreements arising in growing numbers in the continent. As a result, the ALADI – as an institutional and legal framework or “umbrella” of the regional integration- develops actions in order to support and foster these efforts for the progressive establishment of a common economic space.

Accession of other Latin American countries
The 1980 Montevideo Treaty is open to the accession of any Latin-American country. On 26 August 1999, the first accession to the 1980 Montevideo Treaty was executed, with the incorporation of the Republic of Cuba as a member country of the ALADI. On 10 May 2012, the Republic of Panama became the thirteenth member country of the ALADI. Likewise, the accession of the Republic of Nicaragua was accepted in the Sixteenth Meeting of the Council of Ministers (Resolution 75 (XVI)), held on 11 August 2011.

Currently, Nicaragua moves towards the fulfillment of conditions for becoming a member country of the ALADI.

The ALADI opens its field of actions for the rest of Latin America through multilateral links or partial agreements with other countries and integration areas of the continent (Article 25). The Latin-American Integration Association also contemplates the horizontal cooperation with other integration movements in the world and partial actions with third developing countries or their respective integration areas (Article 27).

Institutional structure

The Council of Ministers is the supreme body of the ALADI, and adopts the decisions for the superior political management of the integration process. It is constituted by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the member countries. Notwithstanding, when one of such member countries assigns the competence of the integration affairs to a different Minister or Secretary of State, the member countries may be represented, with full powers, by the respective Minister or Secretary. It is convened by the Committee of Representatives, meets and makes decisions with the presence of all the member countries.
 * Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs

It is in charge, among others, of analyzing the functioning of the integration process in all its aspects, promoting the convergence of the partial scope agreements seeking their progressive multilateralization, and promoting greater scope actions as regards economic integration. It is made up of Plenipotentiaries of the member countries.
 * Evaluation and Convergence Conference

It is the permanent political body and negotiating forum of the ALADI, where all the initiatives for the fulfillment of the objectives established by the 1980 Montevideo Treaty are analyzed and agreed on. It is composed of a Permanent Representative of each member country with right to one vote and an Alternate Representative. It meets regularly every 15 days and its Resolutions are adopted by the affirmative vote of two thirds of the member countries.
 * Committee of Representatives

It is the technical body of the ALADI, and it may propose, evaluate, study and manage for the fulfillment of the objectives of the ALADI. It is composed of technical and administrative personnel, and directed by a Secretary-General, who has the support of two Undersecretaries, elected for a three-year period, renewable for the same term.
 * General Secretariat

Secretaries general

 * 1980–1984 Julio César Schupp (Paraguay)
 * 1984–1987 Juan José Real (Uruguay)
 * 1987–1990 🇦🇷 Norberto Bertaina (Argentina)
 * 1990–1993 🇨🇴 Jorge Luis Ordóñez (Colombia)
 * 1993–1999 🇧🇷 Antônio José de Cerqueira Antunes (Brasil)
 * 2000–2005 🇻🇪 Juan Francisco Rojas Penso (Venezuela)
 * 2005–2008 Didier Opertti (Uruguay)
 * 2008–2009 Bernardino Hugo Saguier-Caballero (Paraguay)
 * 2009–2011 José Félix Fernández Estigarribia (Paraguay)
 * 2011–2017 🇦🇷 Carlos Álvarez (Argentina)
 * 2017–    🇲🇽 Alejandro de la Peña Navarrete (Mexico)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Latin American Integration Association


text:
Talk:Artificial intelligence

Cognitive systems
The term "Cognitive system" is redirected to this article on artificial intelligence, although it is not described or even mentioned here. See also Bautsch (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

 * If what you want is for "Cognitive system" to point to cognitive computing instead, I agree that it would make more sense. Alenoach (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Should we add this image?
I reverted the addition of this image. I just wanted to ask whether we should integrate it (or this more readable version) somewhere in the article. The benefit is that it can quickly clarify the hierarchy between AI, ML, neural networks and generative AI, which are commonly confused, so it has some educative value. The cons are that there is already this image in the article, that it is not as aesthetic as the rest, that the text font is relatively small, and that it doesn't seem to integrate well in the introduction with the fact that there is already the artificial intelligence template. One other issue is that while the large majority of modern generative AI models are in practice based on neural networks, it does not seem to be the case for all generative AI models, which makes the hierarchy conceptually shaky. So overall, I would tend to oppose the addition of the image. Alenoach (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

 * I think it's an over-simplification the focuses too much on the current hotness. If we need such a diagram, I'd prefer a more cluttered diagram over one that implies that there's exactly one interesting aspect of each category.
 * Maybe it would fit better in the article on generative models. ApLundell (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with the removal. The image is overly simplistic and likely misleading in this article. No image belongs at the very top of the article where this one was placed. And it looks the editor who placed it here has been indefinitely blocked for "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia." Elspea756 (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

AI on Wikipedia
Hi there AI - people,

I would like to know what the Wikipedia Rules Dictate regarding the AI on this software with a few questions:

1. What kind of general security and user security rules we have here, are extra and private AI - mechanisms allowed to operate here?

2. What kind of known AI - systems the Wikipedia software include?

3. What AI - companies or AI - corporations operate wherein the systems or Wikipedia software in general?

4. How to register a new AI- system or AI bot network to the Wikipedia, if possible and not forbidden by the laws?

5. How transparent is the supervision of AI - technology in- and outside the Wikipedia?

6. Do we have any AI Code of Conduct? Where to find it?

7. What about the other languages? Are the founded AI rules universal within the Wikipedia?

8. How to report when malpractices observed?

9. Any AI jury?

Sincerely,

-- Atlas Kartasto (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the artificial intelligence article, so you are probably unlikely to get responses to a list of nine questions that are unrelated to improving this article. That said, the short answer to probably all of your questions is that wikipedia requires edits to be verifiable by reliable published sources, and user-generated content created by an AI is not verfifiable or reliable. You can check Verifiability and Reliable sources for more information. Elspea756 (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Antitrust Inquiries
I see that this subject should be included:

https://www.newsmax.com/finance/streettalk/antitrust-monopoly-nvidia/2024/06/06/id/1167664/?ns_mail_uid=0a5a0454-2553-4390-832c-8a5202b34053&ns_mail_job=DM633876_06062024&s=acs&dkt_nbr=010502igpxb0

If you like to argue that not necessarily, will you please explain before the editing. Kartasto (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

 * WP:NOTNEWS. Also this is really not on topic for this article. It might make a good addition for the articles on the individual AI products that are effected, though. MrOllie (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU24 - Sect 200 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by Ryan1232378 (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Artificial intelligence


text:
Aircraft spotting

Aircraft spotting, or planespotting, is a hobby consisting of observing and tracking aircraft, which is usually accomplished by photography or videography. Besides monitoring aircraft, planespotting enthusiasts (who are usually called planespotters) also record information regarding airports, air traffic control communications, airline routes, and more.

History and evolution
Aviation enthusiasts have been watching airplanes and other aircraft since aviation began. However, as a hobby (distinct from active/wartime work), planespotting did not appear until the second half of the 20th century.

During World War II and the subsequent Cold War some countries encouraged their citizens to become "planespotters" in an "observation corps" or similar public body for reasons of public security. Britain had the Royal Observer Corps which operated between 1925 and 1995. A journal called The Aeroplane Spotter was published in January 1940. The publication included a glossary that was refined in 2010 and published online.

The development of technology and global resources enabled a revolution in plane-spotting. Point and shoot cameras, DSLRs & walkie talkies significantly changed the hobby. With the help of the internet, websites such as FlightAware and Flightradar24 have made it possible for spotters to track and locate specific aircraft from all across the world. Websites specifically for aircraft, such as airliners.net, and social networking services, such as Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, allow spotters to record their sightings and upload their photos or see pictures of aircraft spotted by other people worldwide.

Techniques
When spotting aircraft, observers generally notice the key attributes of an aircraft, such as a distinctive noise from its engine, the number of contrails it is producing, or its callsign. Observers can also assess the size of the aircraft and the number, type, and position of its engines. Another distinctive attribute is the position of wings relative to the fuselage and the degree to which they are swept rearwards. The wings may be above the fuselage, below it, or fixed at midpoint. The number of wings indicates whether it is a monoplane, biplane or triplane. The position of the tailplane relative to the fin(s) and the shape of the fin are other attributes. The configuration of the landing gear can be distinctive, as well as the size and shape of the cockpit and passenger windows along with the layout of emergency exits and doors.

Other features include the speed, cockpit placement, colour scheme or special equipment that changes the silhouette of the aircraft. Taken together these traits will enable the identification of an aircraft. If the observer is familiar with the airfield being used by the aircraft and its normal traffic patterns, he or she is more likely to leap quickly to a decision about the aircraft's identity – they may have seen the same type of aircraft from the same angle many times. This is particularly prevalent if the aircraft spotter is spotting commercial aircraft, operated by airlines that have a limited fleet.

Spotters use equipment such as ADS-B decoders to track the movements of aircraft. The two most famous devices used are the AirNav Systems RadarBox and Kinetic Avionics SBS series. Both of them read and process the radar data and show the movements on a computer screen. Another tool that spotters can use are apps such as FlightRadar24 or Flightaware, where they can look at arrival and departure schedules and track the location of aircraft that have their transponder on. Most of the decoders also allow the exporting of logs from a certain route or airport.

Spotting styles
Some spotters will note and compile the markings, a national insignia or airline livery or logo, a squadron badge or code letters in the case of a military aircraft. Published manuals allow more information to be deduced, such as the delivery date or the manufacturer's construction number. Camouflage markings differ, depending on the surroundings in which that aircraft is expected to operate.

In general, most spotters attempt to see as many aircraft of a given type, a particular airline, or a particular subset of aircraft such as business jets, commercial airliners, military and/or general aviation aircraft. Some spotters attempt to see every airframe and are known as "frame spotters." Others are keen to see every registration worn by each aircraft.

Ancillary activities might include listening-in to air traffic control transmissions (using radio scanners, where that is legal), liaising with other "spotters" to clear up uncertainties as to what aircraft have been seen at specific times or in particular places. Several internet mailing list groups have been formed to help communicate aircraft seen at airports, queries and anomalies. These groups can cater to certain regions, certain aircraft types, or may appeal to a wider audience. The result is that information on aircraft movements can be delivered worldwide in a real-time fashion to spotters.

The hobbyist might travel long distances to visit different airports, to see an unusual aircraft, or to view the remains of aircraft withdrawn from use. Air shows usually draw large numbers of spotters as they are opportunities to enter airfields and air bases worldwide that are usually closed to the public and to see displayed aircraft at close range. Some aircraft may be placed in the care of museums (see Aviation archaeology) – or perhaps be cannibalized in order to repair a similar aircraft already preserved.

Aircraft registrations can be found in books, with online resources, or in monthly magazines from enthusiast groups. Most spotters maintained books of different aircraft fleets and would underline or check each aircraft seen. Each year, a revised version of the books would be published and the spotter would need to re-underline every aircraft seen. With the development of commercial aircraft databases spotters were finally able to record their sightings in an electronic database and produce reports that emulated the underlined books.

Legal ramifications
The legal repercussions of the hobby were dramatically shown in November 2001 when fourteen aircraft spotters (twelve British, two Dutch) were arrested by Greek police after being observed at an open day at the Greek Air Force base at Kalamata. They were charged with espionage and faced a possible 20-year prison sentence if found guilty. After being held for six weeks, they were eventually released on $11,696 (£9,000) bail, and the charges reduced to the misdemeanor charge of illegal information collection. They returned for their trial in April, 2002 and were found guilty, with eight of the group sentenced to three years, the rest for one year. At their appeal a year later, all were acquitted.

As airport watch groups
In the wake of the targeting of airports by terrorists, enthusiasts' organisations and police in the UK have cooperated in creating a code of conduct for planespotters, in a similar vein to guidelines devised for train spotters. By asking enthusiasts to contact police if spotters believe they see or hear something suspicious, this is an attempt to allow enthusiasts to continue their hobby while increasing security around airports. Birmingham and Stansted pioneered this approach in Britain and prior to the 2012 London Olympics, RAF Northolt introduced a Flightwatch scheme based on the same cooperative principles. These changes are also being made abroad in countries such as Australia, where aviation enthusiasts are reporting suspicious or malicious actions to police.

The organisation of such groups has now been echoed in parts of North America. For example, the Bensenville, Illinois police department have sponsored an Airport Watch group at the Chicago O'Hare Airport. Members are issued identification cards and given training to accurately record and report unusual activities around the airport perimeter. (Members are not permitted airside.) Meetings are attended and supported by the FBI, Chicago Department of Aviation and the TSA who also provide regular training to group members. The Bensenville program was modeled on similar programs in Toronto, Ottawa and Minneapolis.

In 2009, a similar airport watch group was organized between airport security and local aircraft spotters at Montréal–Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport. As of 2016, the group has 46 members and a special phone number to use to contact police if suspicious activity is seen around the airport area.

Extraordinary rendition
Following the events of 9/11, information collected by planespotters helped uncover what is known as extraordinary rendition by the CIA. Information on unusual movements of rendition aircraft provided data that was mapped by critical geographers such as Trevor Paglen and the Institute for Applied Autonomy. These data and maps led first to news reports and then to a number of governmental and inter-governmental investigations.

title: Aircraft spotting


text:
Talk:Aphrodite

NSFW Content
I have detected some NSFW content. Should I delete them, or leave it?

Lomrjyo (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You are clearly new here. Per WP:UNCENSORED, the images can and should be kept. They are absolutely vital for a complete understanding of Aphrodite and to remove them would severely diminish the encyclopedic usefulness of the article. In any case, classical paintings and sculptures by renowned artists are hardly what a person would typically call pornography. In any case, the images used in this article are certainly nowhere close to being the most obscene images we have in our articles; the articles vulva and human penis both have up-close photographs of their respective genitalia used as their main images. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Discrepancies (parentage and epithets)
I found a couple of discrepancies on Aphrodite's parentage and epithets.

1. Aphrodite was the daughter of Zeus and Dione according to Pseudo-Apollodorus (Bibliotheca, 1.3.1). Homer (Iliad, book V, line 370) does not specifically mention Zeus as the father. The link should be corrected.

2. The article says that Aphrodite "was also known as Cytherea (Lady of Cythera) and Cypris (Lady of Cyprus)". I don't know where "Cypris" is coming from. I suspect it comes from Homer (Iliad, book V, line 330) which is where I see the first reference to Aphrodite with such name in the Iliad.

Hesiod (Theogony, lines 196-199) says that Gods and men call her Aphrodite (foam-arisen), Cytherea (“because she reached Cythera”) as well as Cyprogeneses (“because she was born in billowy Cyprus”). This source and the additional epithet should be added to the article.

ICE77 (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read my response to your comment above. The Iliad does identify Zeus as Aphrodite's father in Book Twenty, line 105. The passage from Pseudo-Apollodorus that you keep referring to is relying on the Iliad. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

1. In line with the comments I wrote above for the Parentage entry from MelancholyPanda, I guess we now have the missing line that state Zeus is the father of Aphrodite (not available until I pointed it out).

ICE77 (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Intro: un-cited statements contradicted by linked wikipedia entry
"She was also the patron goddess of prostitutes, an association which led early scholars to propose the concept of "sacred prostitution", an idea which is now generally seen as erroneous."

No source given, wikipedia article about "sacred prostitution" seems to indicate that scholars still agree that sacred prostitution was a real practice... does this sentence indicate that the link between the cult of Aphrodite and sacred prostitution was erroneous, or that the general historical practice of sacred prostitution did not exist? Also, citation needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.187.217 (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Per the usual interpretation of WP:CITELEAD implemented in recent Featured Articles, the lead is supposed to be an uncited summary of the rest of the article. All statements in the lead are supported by more in-depth passages in the body of the article itself, which are supported by reliable sources. The statement you are describing is, in fact, cited, but the citations are in the main paragraph about sacred prostitution, which is the last paragraph of the subsection "Classical period" under "Worship." The article about sacred prostitution is outdated and needs to be updated. A large number of popular sources still, unfortunately, lend credence to the sacred prostitution myth, but the only evidence to support it is a single, ambiguous skolion by Pindar, which most scholars now believe to have been egregiously misinterpreted. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is only one sentence at sacred prostitution that's relevant both to Aphrodite and to Greece, but there is a bit more at prostitution in ancient Greece, where Pindar is cited and Strabo is quoted at length (see also the talk page). There is other evidence about ancient sacred prostitution generally, at various places from Mesopotamia in the east to Sicily in the west. I guess a question here at Aphrodite is whether the relevance to Aphrodite of apparent sacred prostitution at Corinth, given the limited evidence, is sufficient to justify mentioning sacred prostitution in the lead. On the other hand, there's lots of evidence for the other half of the lead sentence, that Aphrodite was a patron goddess for prostitutes. Andrew Dalby 10:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a current attempt of certain Cypriot "historians" to change the status of their Goddess to one that conforms more to the current social "norms". Unfortunately for them, there are tens if not hundreds of peer-reviewed articles providing evidence for sexual prostitution as being part of Aphrodite worshiping; and there are none that provide evidence for the contrary. As a researcher on the cult of Aphrodite I could provide many citations but I see there are already many on this wikipedia page. Thus that sentence in the intro seems greatly out of place. I can't edit it out but I hope someone else does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.207.112.64 (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The additions on Aphrodite and Homosexuality
I'm concerned that some of the additions about Aphrodite and homosexuality represent original research and are improperly sourced to articles that don't support them. For instance: "According to the Symposium, Aphrodite Ourania is the inspiration of male homosexual desire, specifically the ephebic eros. Aphrodite Pandemos, by contrast, is the younger of the two goddesses: the common Aphrodite, born from the union of Zeus and Dione, and the inspiration of heterosexual desire, the 'lesser' of the two loves." This claim is sourced to Plato's Symposium itself and to Richard Hunter's book on the Symposium. When I checked Hunter, he says nothing of the sort.

Similiarly, this section, recently added:

"Aphrodite and gods in her retinue, such as the Erotes: Eros, Himeros and Pothos are sometimes considered patrons of homosexual love between males. In the poetry of Sappho, Aphrodite is identified as the patron of lesbians."

The first claim is sourced to Cassell's Encyclopedia of Queer Myth, which, again, says nothing of the sort - the same reference is then used to say that Aphrodite is the patron of Lesbians, and again, it is not in the citation given. The only properly sourced claim here seems to be about Eros, not Aphrodite.

Unless an actual reliable source can be found saying "Aphrodite is the patron of Lesbains" (which assuredly does not exist), we need to remove these additions.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

 * The latter addition was copypasted across from LGBT themes in mythology, so that page would have to be corrected as well. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Listing as a "homosexuality and bisexuality goddess"
, I don't think this category is warrented. All we have is a single reference in Plato to the idea that one of two Aphrodites is supposedly the goddess of pederasty. None of the rest of the article supports this notion, and scholars are fairly clear that this is Plato's own invention. Furthermore, the nature of the category suggests that Aphrodite is the goddess of homosexuality and bisexuality, which is quite obviously not true.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

 * If Aphrodite was not a goddess of same-gender attraction, then either
 * some other god was
 * this aspect of life was not considered to be under the jurisdiction of the gods
 * or
 * this aspect of life was not known to the Greeks
 * —none of which, I put it to you, is the case. Unless we suggest that the Erotes were the other gods under the first possibility; but they clearly answer to Aphrodite.
 * While Sappho's appeal to Aphrodite may not establish the latter as a "patron" of lesbianism, or whatever language you might use, it does clearly demonstrate that, when you felt attraction to a person of your own gender, it was Aphrodite you prayed to for help. (I don't recall whether Sappho is mentioned on the page after the most recent edits, but she should be.)
 * If that's not what's meant by "goddess of homosexuality and bisexuality" – why the emphasis on "of"? – then I confess myself ignorant as to what is meant.
 * —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You prayed to Aphrodite for help if you felt opposite-sex attraction too. She was the goddess of love, not of some particular type of love.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * your argument for inclusion, however reasonable, constitutes of course original research. Paul August ☎ 18:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with, the category is unwarrented. What we would need here are reliable secondary sources. Paul August ☎ 18:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you may be misunderstanding a few things a bit here. First of all, the relationship between a deity and their domain was not one-to-one. There were areas of human life that, at least as far as we know, had no specific deities to govern them. For instance, as far as I currently can recall, there were no Greek gods whose domain specifically included wild grasses and ferns, but grass is a pretty common element in most people's lives. Furthermore, multiple deities could be associated with the same thing. For instance, Aphrodite is associated with sexual desire, but so is Eros; their domains overlap.
 * Second of all, as I have already mentioned in this edit summary, there has been a widespread consensus among scholars for at least several decades that the ancient Greeks had no concepts of people being "heterosexual," "bisexual," or "homosexual"; they only recognized there being heterosexual and homosexual acts—not heterosexual or homosexual people. Usually when we say "homosexuality" or "bisexuality" in English, we are talking about people being one or the other of those things. Therefore, labelling any Greek deity as a "god/goddess of bisexuality/homosexuality" would be an egregious mischaracterization. I hope this explanation is helpful. —Katolophyromai (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

 * I think I understand both of these points pretty well. 's point about original research, I must admit, is well-made.
 * Starting with the second point, yes, I am well aware that the concept of sexual orientation is a modern one. However, the category in question does not refer to "homosexual and bisexual orientation", but more broadly to "homosexuality and bisexuality" – both words that can refer to acts as well as people.
 * On the first point, I'm under no illusion that Greek deities had exclusive claims over their domains, as if they were something out of a role-playing game. But we wouldn't baulk at – for instance – categorizing Zeus as a "god of thunder" merely because he was, more broadly, a "god of weather".  Sexual desire was Aphrodite's specialty; sexual desire included desire for one's own gender; ergo, Aphrodite was the god you would turn to, as Sappho instantiates, if you wanted divine help with your desire for a person of your own gender.  Maybe second after Eros for some people, but she was closely linked, mythologically, to Eros.
 * The reason I'm picking nits over this is that certain users, to judge by their contribs pages, appear to have taken it as their mission to systematically remove as many references to LGBT sexualities in historical pages as they can get away with. The relative acceptance of same-gender desire at least between men is a notable feature of ancient Greek culture, and I am concerned that it should not be under-represented, obviously while remaining within Wikipedia guidelines.
 * —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 05:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, this issue is actually very complicated and it is important to note that the "relative acceptance" you speak of was actually highly conditional. This issue of ancient Greek views on homosexuality gets really complicated and I do not want to go into a full explanation here; I am currently writing an article about ancient Greek attitudes towards homosexuality on my website in which I plan to explain this issue in great depth. I do not know when I will finish that article, though, and it may be a while. In the meantime, I highly recommend the third and most recent edition of the book Greek Homosexuality by Kenneth Dover, published by Harvard University Press, which delves into the ways in which Greek acceptance of homosexual activity was actually somewhat limited. —Katolophyromai (talk) 06:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless you can find reliable sources stating that Aphrodite is a goddess of homosexuality, the category is WP:OR and needs to be removed. As Katolophyromai explains, it is completely anachronistic to even describe homosexuality in ancient Greece. Aphrodite (and Eros, for that matter) were both simply love gods, not gods of homosexual love specifically. Sappho calls on her, but so does every other Greek poet in love. Is Cupid the god of heterosexuality because Ovid calls on him in the Amores? You're forcing a modern category on them.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

 * How do you suggest we correct the error without leaving the false impression, to readers from modern societies in which heterosexuality is the default, that Aphrodite was a goddess only of heterosexual love? —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why anyone would think that, but listing her as a goddess of homosexuality makes as little sense as listing her as a goddess of heterosexuality. Perhaps has some ideas for how to approach that particular issue, but in the meantime there is a clear consensus against including this category and I'm removing it.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

There should be a hyperlinked reference about the sanctuary that marks her birthplace
Under the "Birth" section, after this sentence:

> Aphrodite is usually said to have been born near her chief center of worship, Paphos, on the island of Cyprus, which is why she is sometimes called "Cyprian", especially in the poetic works of Sappho.

I think it would be highly relevant to say this–and the sanctuary is not mentioned anywhere else in article:

> The Sanctuary of Aphrodite Paphia, marking her birthplace, and was a place of pilgrimages in the ancient world for centuries, and the ruins thereof can still be visited to this day.

And then start the next sentence without "However" and just say:

> Other versions of her myth ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphrodite#Birth

InternetUser25 (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

 * Done, minus unencyclopaedic language about "ruins thereof" (that information is available at the wikilink).—VeryRarelyStable (talk) 02:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Identification with the planet Venus
Is this something that should be removed, or should it be expanded upon somewhere in the main body? As shown on the planet's page, the Greeks initially assumed Venus was two different stars; Phosphorus (the morning star), and Hesperus (the evening star). However, either Pythagoras or Parmenides had realized by the 500s BC that both were actually one object. I'm guessing that when the Romans colonized Greece, eventually they also must have realized that Venus was one object rather than two and gave it that name. And given the heavy syncretization between the Roman and Greek gods, the Romans must have called the planet Venus because the Greeks did too; calling it Aphrodite. Lastly, in Greek, we do refer to the planet as Aphrodite. In general, the whole things seems somehwat complicated. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Aphrodite in the Iliad
Is there more information on the portrayal of Aphrodite in the Iliad.GOC2020 (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Removed paragraph
Someone added this paragraph to the "Anger myths" section. It has some good information in it, but it is really poorly written and would take ages for me to clean up, which I don't have time for right now. It is written entirely in a sort of pseudo-archaic language and it has tons of grammar mistakes and words that are apparently missing. It is absurdly long and should really be broken in multiple paragraphs. For some reason half of it is randomly in italics. It had an "end blockquote" tag in it at one point (which I have removed here) but no "begin blockquote" tag. Part of it is apparently quoted from some source, but it is entirely unclear which source is being quoted. Here is the paragraph that I have removed:

"Aphrodite who cursed goddess Eos to be perpetually in love and have an insatiable sexual desire because once had Eos lain with Aphrodite's sweetheart Ares, the god of war. Propoetides had dared to deny Venus' [Aphrodite's] divinity. For that the goddess' rage, it's said, made them the first strumpets to prostitute their bodies' charms. As shame retreated and their cheeks grew hard, they turned with little change to stones of flint. '' Cinyras's daughters Braesia, Laogora, Orsedice by reason of the wrath of Aphrodite cohabited with foreigners, and ended their life in Egypt. Halia, a nymph who lived on an island that would later be named Rhodes after her only daughter, Rhodos (or Rhode). Halia was the daughter of Thalassa, sister of the Telchines, and mother of Rhodos and six sons by Poseidon. Shortly after Aphrodite’s birth, the goddess was traveling the oceans. When Halia’s young sons arrogantly refused to let Aphrodite land upon their shore, the goddess cursed them with insanity. In their madness, they raped Halia. As punishment, Poseidon buried them in the island’s sea-caverns. Xanthius was a descendant of Bellerophon, and father of Leucippus and an unnamed daughter. Through the wrath of Aphrodite, Leucippus fell in love with his own sister. The passion turned out too strong for him to suppress, so he addressed his mother, imploring her to help him and threatening that he would kill himself if she didn't. She united the girl to Leucippus, and they consorted for a while. But the girl was already betrothed to another man, to whom someone reported the matter. The groom went on to inform Xanthius, without telling him the name of the seducer. Xanthius went straight to his daughter's chamber, where she was together with Leucippus right at the moment. On hearing him enter, she tried to escape, but Xanthius hit her with a dagger, thinking that he was slaying the seducer, and killed her. Leucippus, failing to recognize his father at first, slew him. When the truth was revealed, he had to leave the country and took part in colonization of Crete and the lands in Asia Minor. Later, he was loved by Leucophrye. Adonis was the son of Myrrha, who was cursed by Aphrodite with insatiable lust for her own father, King Cinyras of Cyprus, after Myrrha's mother bragged that her daughter was more beautiful than the goddess. Driven out after becoming pregnant, Myrrha was changed into a myrrh tree, but still gave birth to Adonis. Clio fell in love with Pierus, son of Magnes, in consequence of the wrath of Aphrodite, whom she had twitted with her love of Adonis; and having met him she bore him a son Hyacinth. Despite Diomedes's noble treatment of her son Aeneas, Aphrodite never managed to forget about the Argive spear that had once pierced her flesh in the fields of Troy. She helped his wife Aegialia to obtain not one, but many lovers. (According to different traditions, Aegialeia was living in adultery with Hippolytus, Cometes or Cyllabarus.) Aegialia, being helped by the Argives, prevented Diomedes from entering the city. Or else, if he ever entered Argos, he had to take sanctuary at the altar of Hera, and thence flee with his companions by night. Cometes was shortly the king of Argos, in Diomedes' absence, but was quickly replaced by the rightful heir, Cyanippus, who was the son of Aegialeus."

I'm leaving this here just for future reference so it will be easy to find in case someone is willing to clean this up to make it readable and restore it to the article. —Katolophyromai (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020
change "Myrtles" to "myrtles" in the introductory paragraph (capitalization) Ayuskoto (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 * ✅ –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Afër-dita have a specific meaning in Albanian
Aphrodite translated in Albanian is Afrodite(come closer day) In the Albanian version "Afërdita" mean "near day" because Venus the star with which it was associated in ancient times, anticipated the sun and therefore the day was near. The word "aphrodisiac" comes from the root "afro" with the meaning of what brings, attracts or generates attraction. FrankoGjeli (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox image
Hello, I think this image is more suitable for the Infobox. What are your views. .💠 245CMR💠 . •👥📜 06:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Lovers and Children table
Anchises with his son Aeneas (by Aphrodite) is missing. --95.116.186.201 (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

In the Orphic tradition, Dionysus and Aphrodite are the parents of Chthonic Hermes. (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2021 (ATC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Titian - Venus with a Mirror - Google Art Project.jpg

Aphrodite Had More Consorts Than Only Hephaestus
Hera was/is known as the Goddess of Legal Marriage. Venus was/is known as the Goddess of Love/Pleasure Marriage. Hephaestus, Mars, and Mercury are all prophesied as husbands of Venus. Mars and Mercury deserve to be added to the list of Aphrodite's consorts.

 * You're mixing your Olympians with your Dii Consentes; they're equivalent but not the same, and should not be confused. I don't know what you mean when you claim that "Hephaestus, Mars, and Mercury are all prophesised as husbands of Venus" ?? If you want to add something to the article, please make sure it's well-sourced. And please don't forget to sign your posts. Haploidavey (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

"Kypris" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Kypris and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2022
I would like to add an image of the Greek Goddess Aphrodite, as she is seen in contemporary art.

Randomactofflower (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done:, welcome to Wikipedia! I'm afraid that when discussing the addition of images to an article the current practice is that consensus is required and that an edit request isn't the right venue.

 * To work on getting consensus, you would simply create a new section (the button New section next to the edit button will help you with this) on this page and explain why you believe the image should be included, and interested editors will in due time participate. If you have any questions regarding Wikipedia at all, I encourage you to head over to the Teahouse - a venue designed specifically to help new editors. You can also always come to my talk page, though I may not be as helpful as the Teahouse hosts. Happy editing! — Sirdog (talk) 09:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

quality of article
there are numerous spelling, grammatical, and typographical errors throughout. there are many unnecessary links, and many unlinked but important words and phrases. lots of the writing is convoluted and difficult to read. Henriio (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image
I beleave this image is a better image to be used as the main image at the top featured in the infobox. This image is a more popular image of Aphrodite, which has it's own Wikipedia page and is also used by Encyclopedia Britannica. For now the image will be used as a regular image in this articles page. Let me know your thoughts. RileyXeon (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Wrong Paris linked
In the "Anger myths" section, an internal link to Paris (city) should be changed to the Trojan prince, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_(mythology). Tartopohm (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for noticing the error. Dimadick (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Image/Artist discrepancy
Under the "Art" subheading, there is an incorrectly identified painting. Alexandre Cabanel's 1863 "Birth of Venus" is pictured, but it is subtitled "The Birth of Venus (c. 1485) by Sandro Botticelli". 2601:197:B7F:B7C0:1B0E:A186:FD70:A2B3 (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Illyrian etymology
There is nothing extraordinary about it, @Khirurg. It may be extraordinary to you. Unless you can prove that Illyrians and Ancient Greeks were not living literally next to each other for a very very long time and were living 20.000 miles away from each other (which you can't) this will stay. I attempted to remain as neutral as I could, using "has been proposed", "according to", "suggested by", etc. There is even no consensus on the origin of the name. I wonder why nobody else intervened me in the last 12 hours but it was you, again. Additionally, can you disprove one of several arguments that the author has explained well in his work and cited top-linguists like J. Matzinger? And about WP:CIVIL this [1 ] [2 ] [3 ] explains everything what needs to be said. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

 * The claim is indeed extraordinary. The worship of Aphrodite (and therefore her name as well), is attested as early as the 8th century BC, and probably goes back much further. The origin of the cult appears to be semitic rather than proto-Indo-Europeaan. Virtually nothing is known of Illyrian, especially by the 8th century BC, let alone Albanian, this far back in time. It's not even certain that Albanian derives from Illyrian. So to claim an Albanian etymology for a name that goes back to deep antiquity is definitely extraordinary, not to mention bordering into WP:FRINGE territory. The source itself, the author appears to be a graduate student, and the publication is some kind of conference proceedings (i.e. not a peer-reviewed journal, not even certain if it's peer-reviewed at all). Not the kind of source that's needed for a claim of this magnitude. This is a high visibility article, watched by many people. The standard for inclusion is very high. Khirurg (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

 * And that's just to address the first sentence you added. The second sentence is even worse. This is not very unlikely... That it's nor very unlikely is just your own conjecture . Athanassakis doesn't mention Aphrodite in his work. You literally just made it up that it's "not very unlikely". The third sentence is literal folk etymology that no one connects to Aphrodite. Khirurg (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Many points are very weak. Just because we do not know many things about Illyrian does not mean we can not lay foundation on etymology. The point if Albanian is even Illyrian is irrelevant to this case. Albanian is a Paleo-Balkanic language that relates to Illyrian (literally no modern scholar disagrees to that) and the author compares the reconstructed Proto-Albanian term to a possible Paleo-Balkanic term. The origin of the cult may be Semitic, Hittite or Korean, the etymology can still be Indo-European. I agree with the second part of the sentence while the third is just what the reconstuced PALB term means today. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with "A more vague theory argues of an Illyrian origin" and at the end of the sentence "This has to be seen with caution since very little is known about Illyrian"AlexBachmann (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think you appreciate just how incredibly...bold the claim is. Not only is he implying that it is a dead certainty that Albanian is the same as Illyrian, but he is claiming that the Greek name originates from the Albanian name. This despite the fact that Greek is first attested in ~1500 BC, and Albanian not for another ~3000 years later. He's not saying that the etymologies are related or somehow connected (somewhat plausible due to proximity, perhaps), but that the Greek name derives from the Albanian name. That is an incredibly strong claim. The conference proceedings was published literally yesterday, and we don't know what the response of the academic community will be. My guess is it will be strongly criticized, or even worse, totally ignored. If on the other hand the claim is accepted, we could revisit it at some point in the future. Khirurg (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You need to accept that the attestation of a language does not say anything about the age of a language. Even though because Albanian was attested in the 15th century it is still Paleo-Balkanic. Alright, let's wait for a response. AlexBachmann (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

 * There is no doubt that Aphrodite's early cult and name begun as hellenized versions of older Eastern deities, and attempts to derive them from Indo-European tradition & language have long been abandoned in modern scholarship. Its earliest attestation in Greek is from around 8th century BC. This, combined with its multiple attestations in the syllabary of Cyprus –the south-eastern most of the Bronze Age Greek world, a mixing pot of early Greek / Phoenecian (and other Eastern) cultures, and Aphrodite's origin-island in classical mythology– leaves little (if any) room for doubt.
 * Folk etymologies that seemingly make some sense have always existed. Various ancient Greek names (many of which of pre-Greek origin) have long been subjected to folk etymologies in neighbouring languages, mainly originating from laymen's circles or with little or no attention outside of their own ethnic group. @Khirurg already made points about the huge attestation gaps and the extraodinary nature of such claims. (Sagan standard) A similar issue appears to be in the Prende article with the same suggested etymology of Afrodita (which seems reated to Aphrodite and most likely a derivative).Piccco (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The name Afrodita/Afërdita is the Albanian native name for the planet Venus, and it is a compound of afro dita 'come forth the day/dawn', two native Albanian words that have been reconstructed by linguists as *apro and *dītā. The name Aprodita is attested in Messapic language, regarded today as the closest language to Albanian. So I would not consider unlikely the theory provided by Dedvukaj (2023), which is based on extensive linguistic analysis. If you want to exclude his theory from this article I would not oppose it, but you can't exclude it from articles like Prende or Messapic language, because the reconstructed forms provided by Dedvukaj actually coincide with attested forms in those languages, hence they can hardly be considered extraordinary conjectures. Linguistic scholarly analysis should be provided to label them as such, not editors' opinions. – Βατο (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Dedvukaj's theory can be added to the article, since many other theories are there. I am not against that. However, as Dedvukaj himself notes, there is a general consensus in scholarship that the name "Aphrodite" is of Semitic origin. This should be made clear in the article, especially given the fact that it seems to be backed by high-quality RS speciliazing in Greek mythology etymologies (West, Beekes). On the Messapic Aprodite and Albanian Afrodita, there is no proof that they were not borrowed from the Greek Aphrodite. There is clear evidence that old Albanian (better said, Proto-Albanian) had Prema/Prenda, but there is no evidence whatsoever that Afrodita is not a recent creation in Albanian based on the similarity of "Aphrodite" with "afër ditë". A few ancient Greek mythology figures have been reliably linked with Albanian words, especially Balios. It was a white worse, and "balë" means "white horse". That link has been made by multiple well-known academics. On the other hand, if "Apero dita"-> "Aphrodita" were a reliable derivation, it would have been supported by some well-known scholars long before Dedvukaj. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , "" how could this have happened? The Albanian name Afrodita/Afërdita is the native name for Venus, the morning and evening star, and in Albanian it is a phrase that makes complete sense. The ancient association with the planet Venus actually strengthens the semantic explanation provided by Dedvukaj (2023). As for the evidence, the name Prende is not attested in antiquity, on the other hand apro-dita, the exact Proto-Albanian form of modern Albanian afro dita, is attested in Messapic, the closest language to Albanian and either a sister or daughter language of Illyrian. – Βατο (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Prema gave the name to Friday in Albanian. Days are named after pagan gods in Albanian, in line with the Roman naming tradition. It also gave the name to "mbrëmje". The existence and etymology of Prema are supported by multiple high-quality RS like Joseph&Hyllestad, Orel and Mallory&Adams etc. On the other hand, Aprodita->Aphrodite does not even remotely have that degree of support among high-quality RS. Afërdita being a native name in Albanian does not have any kind of evidence. It has been first attested in Albanian in the 19th or 20th century, and as such could have been borrowed by Albanians very late. The similarity of Afërdita with "afër ditë" does not serve as evidence, it could be a coincidance. Messapic Aprodita too could have been borrowed from ancient Greek Aphrodite, which itself was borrowed from a Semitic culture. In any case, the important thing is that, as Dedvukaj himself notes, there is a general consensus in scholarship that Aphrodite comes from a Semitic tradition, and that Dedvukaj's claim has not been supported by any other high-quality RS. One can't treat as equals Dedvukaj's claim and a view that has widespread support. As I said, I am not against adding Dedvukaj's view, but the article should make it clear that there is a general consensus that Aphrodite comes from Semitic. Btw, Dedvukaj claims that there is "archaeological" evidence that Illyrians had important interactions with Phoenicians. Can you cite me a single archaelogical paper talking about this "archaeological" evidence? Bato, you have done a great work on ancient topics. Keep the good work up, and do not waste time with such dubious stuff. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Dedvukaj really sounded convincing at first, we can't blame anybody for using him as a source (especially not Bato). AlexBachmann (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Dedvukaj's paper is a reliable source published in a peer reviewed journal, and his extensive linguistic analysis and proposed reconstructions are based on other linguists' scholarly achievements. Nobody can blame editors for using a reliable source., Dedvukaj explicitly cites Stipčević, The Illyrians, p.41, which says: "". Have you actually read the paper? I think Dedvukaj's theory is the one that makes more sense in terms of historical linguistics and semantics. But if consensus is emerging for its exclusion from this article until more scholars discuss it, I'm ok with that. – Βατο (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Βατο, there is really no meaningful evidence of Phoenician-Illyrian contacts, at least not as much as to give credence to the idea that Illyrians got an important deity from the Phoenicians, gave her a name and then transfered that to ancient Greeks. Now, Dedvukaj thanks Brian Joseph for his help and feedback. So Dedvukaj's reconstructions of Proto-Albanian phonetic changes are OK. Time will tell if this claim made by Dedvukaj on Aphrodite's etymology will gain currency among scholars. Personally I doubt it, but I am not a linguist anyway. If Dedvukaj gets support from other scholars, then ofc it should be given much weight in the article. Until then you either might want to mention it in the article and note that there is a general consensus for a Semitic origin, or wait until some scholars discuss Dedvukaj's claim. Up to you, at least from me there is no opposition either way. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Comment: Dedvukaj's paper is WP:RS but being RS doesn't make a source by default not WP:FRINGE or worthy of inclusion (WP:UNDUE). In the example about Shkodran axes, Dedvukaj is wrong without any possibility of ever being somewhat close to a plausible theory with such a statement. Dedvukaj copied this opinion from Garašanin almost verbatim:  (cited in Hammond 1967). This opinion found no acceptance in archaeology outside Yugoslavia - just like many other theories of Garašanin, it was not supported in research by other schools of archaeology, died out and has been laid to rest for eternity by the Lazaridis-Reich (2022) study even from the perspective of genetic anthropology. Albano-Dalmatian axes derived from Cetina culture, Glasinac-Mati culture and similar Balkan Bronze Age cultures, but they have nothing to do with any population movement related to Anatolia or the Levante. From a genetic perspective, LBA Montenegro, IA Albania and specifically the Ohrid area share the same distinct Paleo-Balkan profile which doesn't have any links to Anatolia or the Levante. In general, as I read the paper I found many red flags which truly made me wonder about the peer review process in this journal. I wouldn't necessarily oppose its use to the extent that it's compared and contrasted with other sources, which in itself would probably lead to deciding to not use the source. It is interesting that Dedvukaj does acknowledge that there is a consensus  but in proposing his own thesis (which is self-contradictory, but I won't go there), he never addresses the view which the author himself recognizes as the consensus.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * He says that a Semitic etymology is consensus. He does not explicitly agree thought. AlexBachmann (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Name in Ancient Greek
I was curious about the spelling of her name in Ancient Greek. According to several search results it is Αφροδίτη, from Αφρός (foam), and really ‘Daughter of foam’, or ‘Foam-daughter’.

Should I edit the page, or are there standards someone will defend? I’d like to introduce this information like the page for Dionysius is at the moment. It would be my template.

I would be editing the first line of text and information further down. Is there a standard for one or more of these things? 8.46.93.108 (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

 * The etymology of Aphrodite's name is discussed in the first section of the body of the article (Etymology). —VeryRarelyStable 12:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Aphrodite in Pop Culture?
There’s a page for Ares In Pop Culture, yet since there isn’t one for Aphrodite, should there instead be a section on this page? 67.8.168.231 (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2024
Under the subheading "Art", in the first paragraph under the gallery, remove The Birth of Venus'' (1863) by Alexandre Cabanel 95.88.156.116 (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Why? - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 14:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Marking edit request as answered, as the request is awaiting user input. Courtesy ping to if you might have left it open for a reason. --Ferien (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I marked the request as ndfn, the template script left it open. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 16:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Aphrodite